(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-First Annual Meeting")

The Chairman initiated discussions by noting that there were two issues that the Working Group might wish to consider. First, whether there was a consensus regarding the necessity of revising the Convention; and second, if so, what means were available to accomplish such revisions.

All delegations agreed that the issues are extremely important and of great concern, and that the Commission has a continuing duty to review the operation of the Convention. There was, however, a diversity of views expressed regarding the current need for revision of the Convention.

Reiterating their views from last year's meeting, several delegations stated that, due to changed circumstances, the Convention needed to be revised. Other delegations again expressed general satisfaction with the current Convention, and questioned the need to revise the Convention at the present time. It was also noted that, in light of the current lack of consensus among the Commission's members, there was a risk that opening the Convention to revision could lead to even less satisfactory results. Another delegation noted, however, that revision of the Convention could improve operation of the Convention.

A number of delegations expressed the view that the Commission's work regarding the Comprehensive Assessment must receive the highest priority, and that this work will necessarily form a critical role in shaping the context of any future discussions of the Working Group regarding the operation of the Convention and whether revisions of the Convention are necessary.

Since there was no consensus regarding the need for revision, there was a limited discussion of the possible means for any such revision. Views were expressed that any revision must be addressed by the IWC itself rather than this Working Group, and others stated that any possible revisions would best be considered in the present or future context of an international organization, e.g. UNEP.

Written responses to the questions devised by the Working Group last year were submitted by Mexico and the USSR and were distributed to the Working Group. There was a consensus that the invitation to Contracting Governments to comment in writing on these questions should be extended for another year. It was also suggested that in addition to commenting upon the specific questions, Contracting Governments should be encouraged to provide comments regarding broader issues pertaining to the overall operation of the Convention.

There was general agreement that the issues before the Working Group were of continuing importance, and the Working Group should remain in existence and be reconvened at some future time to further consider these issues. In light of this agreement, there was a consensus that at its 42nd Annual Meeting the Commission determine the date, duration and venue of the next meeting of the Working Group.

There was also a consensus that this subject, as previously formulated, should be included on the Agenda of the Commission's 42nd Annual Meeting.

In the Commission, the USSR spoke of its view of the evident need to update the 1946 text. The purpose of the Convention is to establish a system of international regulation for the whale fisheries. The prevailing world view is now focussed on conservation, and together with the study of whales, these should be the main purposes of a revised Convention. The present Convention has a limited scope of application, and becomes inapplicable in the absence of whaling activities. Terms need to be clearly defined, together with binding procedures for settling disputes concerning interpretation and application. The flexible and adaptable nature of the present Convention cannot be extended beyond the original intentions of the treaty, and must be seen now in the context of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It presented a draft Resolution, held over from last year, as a means to reflect these important issues.

Mexico associated itself with most of these views, particularly in relation to UNCLOS, and Seychelles noted that several aspects of the Soviet draft Resolution deserve closer examination by the Commission.

Japan identified the three objectives of the Convention as the conservation of whale stocks, their rational utilisation, and the orderly development of the whaling industry. Scientific research is necessary to achieve these goals, but the nations carrying out such research are condemned within the Commission. Time could be usefully spent discussing the fundamental aspects of the Convention.

Norway spoke of the need to review the relevance of the work of the Commission and how well it functions. It regards the Convention as a flexible instrument able to adapt to changing circumstances, and sees the Comprehensive Assessment as a major constitutional development. It thought the Working Group should continue, as did Iceland and Switzerland.

6.2 Action arising
Following these contributions, the Commission adopted the following three recommendations from the Working Group:

(1)

that the invitation to Contracting Governments to comment on the questions developed by the Working Group last year be extended, and that any such written comments be submitted before the next Annual Meeting;

(2)

that the issue of the Operation of the Convention, the subject of this Working Group as previously formulated, be included as an item on the agenda of the Commission's 42nd Annual Meeting;

(3)

that at its 42nd Annual Meeting, the Commission determine the date, duration, and venue of a meeting of this Working Group.

_