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

The Seychelles introduced its proposal in the Technical Committee to amend Schedule paragraph 7 so that the Indian Ocean Sanctuary provision would apply until the Commission may decide otherwise. It was not proposing any change to the boundaries and noted that the current area would become continuous with the Antarctic sanctuary proposed by France. The Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Cooperation, mainly made up of non-IWC states, had prepared a Resolution for the declaration of the Indian Ocean as a sanctuary for whales for all time. Japan raised the question of the validity of the Seychelles proposal because it was not presented 60 days before the meeting as required by Rule of Procedure J.

The Scientific Committee had discussed the issue of whale sanctuaries in general and its Report contained the views of a number of individuals or groups of members.

In the Technical Committee there was a balance of views. Some delegations were in favour of the Seychelles proposal, recognising the research potential and ecosystem elements. Other delegations expressed opposite opinions, considering that little research had resulted and there was little rational motivation or scientific basis for the sanctuary. The Technical Committee agreed to transmit these divergent positions to the plenary.

The USA, noting the concerns over the indefinite extension proposed, suggested that the Indian Ocean sanctuary might be reviewed in ten years' time.

In the plenary, Japan again questioned if 60 days' notice of the proposal had been given. The Chairman repeated his ruling given when the Agenda was adopted, and Japan agreed to cooperate.

Seychelles spoke of the low level of research in the Sanctuary because of the generally limited level of resources of the perimeter and island states. It believes it is the collective responsibility of all members to ensure adequate research and monitoring. The Sanctuary was established in 1979 not primarily for research but as a regulatory measure. Seychelles took the view that some areas, especially breeding areas, should not be subject to the vagaries of annual and temporary catch quotas, but should offer protection even if commercial hunting is resumed. When the Sanctuary was first proposed, the intention was that it should extend to the southern feeding grounds to protect the minke whales over their entire range. This was not adopted, but it believes that their breeding grounds must be protected for many years to come, and perhaps even for all time.

Australia, as an Indian Ocean state, spoke of the value of sanctuaries in providing a range of additional management strategies for conservation of cetacean stocks. It identified a number of its research programmes in the area, including aerial surveys, incidental catches, strandings, sightings and behaviour studies, and wished to continue its research activity in cooperation with other coastal states. Australia's view is that the Indian Ocean Sanctuary should be continued, preferably for all time but for not less than ten years, and that it would be valuable to extend southwards into Antarctic waters.

The USA thought it better to discuss the southern bounds when the Antarctic sanctuary had been considered. It believed the Indian Ocean Sanctuary will continue indefinitely but, given the limited number of Indian Ocean state members of the IWC and the rapidly changing world, thought there was merit in at least reviewing the status of the Sanctuary every ten years.

Switzerland, France, Germany, Brazil, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, New Zealand, Ireland, Finland, Oman, People's Republic of China, UK and Netherlands all supported the proposal for continuation for a further ten years.

Japan spoke of the rational utilisation of marine species and the effect on other fisheries of protecting whales alone. It could agree to the Sanctuary for another ten years but not to an extension to the south. It would like to see all the coastal states doing extensive research, on an ecosystem basis. Norway could see no research advantages in prolonging this Sanctuary, but went along with the view expressed by Japan. St Lucia gave support but subject to consultation with the many countries that are not members of the IWC, and Mexico expressed a similar view on the need to consult the coastal countries concerned. St Vincent and The Grenadines and Monaco gave similar support.

In response to a question from St Lucia on whether in the past ten years of the Sanctuary there had been an attempt to have dialogue with other countries and organisations controlling fisheries in the area, Australia stated that, as New Zealand had earlier pointed out, this is an issue within IWC competence. Nonetheless IOMAC, which covers all Indian Ocean coastal states, was supportive of extending the Sanctuary on an indefinite basis.

12.2 Proposal by the Government of France for a sanctuary in the Southern Hemisphere

France introduced its proposal to designate all the waters of the Southern Hemisphere south of 40°S latitude as a sanctuary. It indicated that it had received wide support in principle for this proposal, but a number of delegations had expressed the view that there was a need for more time for consultation to take place both within their governments and with other appropriate treaty organisations. France was disappointed that the Scientific Committee had too little time to consider the matter and hoped that there would be more time available after completion of the RMP. It therefore suggested that there should be a full debate of the proposal at the next Annual Meeting.

Many delegations spoke in support of the proposal, recognising the need for rehabilitation of the Antarctic whale species, its complementary nature as a management tool to the RMP, the role of sanctuaries in wildlife management and marine conservation, particularly because of possible environmental degradation. There was wide recognition that there needed to be full discussion within the Scientific Committee. Some delegations considered that a specific programme of research should be laid out by the proponents as well as the economic commitment of the co-sponsors to support these actions. It was also important that the Antarctic Treaty organisations including CCAMLR and ICSU/SCAR should be involved in the development of the proposal.

Other delegations, whilst praising the decision to defer full discussion, pointed to the major research carried out in the Antarctic under the IDCR programme and the specific contribution by Japan. They thought that the proposal might cause a substantial reduction of research effort in addition to unnecessarily protecting a major source of food for the world, which they considered to be in conflict with the UNCED concept of sustainable development of resources.

There was some discussion of whether an intersessional working group might need to be established or if the Scientific Committee and the Commission could handle the issues by meetings held immediately prior to the next meeting. In summary, the Technical Committee believed that it would be valuable to consider the proposal again next year because there was still some apprehension as to its full implications. There is a need to contact other agencies involved, to consider the establishment of a standing agenda item for the Scientific Committee to consider environmental issues and to provide sufficient time and a framework for discussion both within the Scientific Committee and in advance of the next Annual Meeting.

In the plenary, Japan expressed the view that the French proposal does not conform to the spirit and objectives of the Convention, and runs counter to the purpose of completion of the RMP and the UNCED principle of sustainable utilisation of living resources. It spoke of the ecosystem aspects for other species and the need for research.

France emphasised its strong will to complete the scientific consideration and to reach a decision at the next Annual Meeting. It looked for participation and support from as many countries as possible. New Zealand, Spain, Australia, Netherlands, Seychelles, Brazil, Chile, Ireland, Germany, UK, USA, St Lucia and Sweden all expressed such support.

Mexico spoke of the ambitious scope of the French proposal, and thought there should be an agreed research programme added, as well as the approval of the coastal communities concerned. It raised the question of the financing of research and any intersessional activity of the Commission. St Vincent and The Grenadines supported these comments with respect to the financial aspect.

Norway stated its basic position as against the proposal because it would undermine the RMP.

Argentina was sympathetic to the idea of a sanctuary in the Antarctic, but had some specific reservations and pointed out that this case cannot be used in other fora as a derogation of coastal states' rights as they are embodied in the Law of the Sea Convention.

The People's Republic of China thought the French proposal needs further deliberation and supported its discussion at the Scientific Committee next year.

12.3 Action arising

Indian Ocean Sanctuary
At the end of the discussion on the Indian Ocean Sanctuary proposal, Australia suggested a form of words to amend the original proposal put forward by Seychelles, so that in addition to amending the penultimate sentence to read 'This prohibition applies irrespective of such catch limits for baleen or toothed whales as may from time to time be determined by the Commission', the last sentence would read 'This prohibition shall be reviewed by the Commission at its Annual Meeting in 2002.'

The USA supported this wording, and the Commission adopted the changes as amendments to Schedule paragraph 7.

Sanctuary in the Southern Hemisphere
France introduced a Resolution co-sponsored by Australia, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA with the intent that its proposal for a sanctuary in the Southern Ocean will be fully considered and completed at the 45th Annual Meeting.

At the request of St Vincent and The Grenadines for comments on the 'Requests' paragraphs, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee noted that liaison with other international organisations tends to take a considerable time and that the Committee needs very clear guidance from the Commission on the priority of this item compared with its other work. Some members of the Scientific Committee had thought the proposal provided insufficient information for a review, and France had indicated that if there were more important scientific questions these could be formulated and considered.

Australia, in co-sponsoring the Resolution, drew particular attention to the instruction to the Secretariat to arrange an intersessional study group to provide guidance to the Scientific and Technical Committees on this issue. The scientific, administrative and legal matters need to have a complete framework for discussion, and be discussed with organisations such as CCAMLR and SCAR. It offered to host such a meeting. Argentina supported the importance of an intersessional study group, and sought clarification on what other relevant organisations might be involved. The USA suggested the intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO as one. The Secretary outlined the financial implications of the proposed activities.

St Lucia suggested amended wording so that comprehensive answers to the questions raised by the proposal could be requested. This was seconded by Japan and Switzerland. In further discussion, Australia identified the need for a more specific focus, and the Chairman of the Scientific Committee suggested that the intersessional group could formulate a set of questions it wishes the Scientific Committee to address.

Seychelles suggested annexing the text of the French proposal to the Resolution. This was seconded by Monaco and agreed.

Japan indicated that it had several changes and insertions to suggest if it was to join in a consensus on the Resolution as amended by St Lucia and Seychelles. The first concerning the addition of language from the preamble to the Convention was thought by Australia, Netherlands and New Zealand to widen the scope to too great an extent, and they preferred to limit the subject to the topic of sanctuaries. Following further exchanges on the best way to proceed, the discussion was adjourned in order to allow delegations to try and agree on a text, and to consider the financial implications.

On returning to this item, Australia presented the Resolution revised in a variety of relatively small ways, and without the reference to an intersessional study group. It offered to provide someone to help the Secretariat compile the questions and comments invited from member governments for consideration by the Scientific Committee.

Japan still had some concerns, particularly that full consideration could be given at the 45th Annual Meeting. It appreciated a number of the changes made, but thought that future discussions should be limited to purely scientific matters. Other aspects, such as legal, could be considered later and it therefore saw no reason for a Working Group to meet prior to the next Annual Meeting. The Commission noted these comments.

St Vincent and The Grenadines noted that a timeframe remained in this Resolution but not the one on the Revised Management Procedure, suggesting that this has a higher priority. It therefore reserved its position. St Lucia had a similar reservation and Japan associated itself with this position.

Australia understood that these matters would be accorded equal priority, and hoped that the considerations next year might lead to full resolution. The USA associated itself with these views and certainly did not give less priority to the efforts with respect to the RMP.

The Russian Federation suggested an amendment to say that the Contracting Governments did not have sufficient time to give full consideration to all aspects of the French proposal. This was seconded by Japan. The amended Resolution (shown in Appendix 4), with the Russian Federation as co-sponsor, was then adopted by the Commission.

Research on the environment and whale stocks in the Antarctic
The UK introduced a Resolution on the need for research on the environment and whale stocks in the Antarctic region, co-sponsored by Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Monaco, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland. This called for the Scientific Committee to establish a permanent agenda item to address the impact of environmental changes on whale stocks. Australia supported some minor changes of wording suggested by the UK and added itself as a co-sponsor. Argentina also wished to be a co-sponsor although it had some concerns over the precise wording of global environmental change.

Norway noted the Scientific Committee's request that Commissioners exercise restraint when placing additional items on the Committee's agenda, and pointed to the addition of a permanent item on the impact of environmental changes on whale stocks, and the question of establishing whale sanctuaries in the light of this work. Japan also questioned if all these matters were within the terms of reference of the IWC, and it did not understand the concentration on these problems just in the Antarctic.

The UK clarified that since changes in the global environment are slow, this item would allow discussion when there are significant changes to be looked at. Further exchanges led to a decision to finalise the draft text on the basis of the view put forward by Australia that this is a means of keeping abreast of developments in this area as they arise. Sweden suggested that a 'regular' agenda item would meet this objective, and Norway gave its support on this understanding.

Germany suggested deletion of the last two operative paragraphs. The USA associated itself with these deletions. Japan also supported this suggestion, voicing again its concern over the specificity of the area and species identified. It thought the debate was jeopardising the credibility of the scientific competence of the IWC and wondered if all these problems would be better dealt with by CCAMLR. Australia pointed out that the ozone depletion problems were originally identified in the Southern Hemisphere, there are more data there and the ocean area is well defined. Eventually it was agreed, on the proposal of the UK supported by New Zealand, to retain the third paragraph but to delete the fourth.

The Resolution as amended was then adopted by consensus, taking note of the comments expressed by the Japanese delegation. The final text appears as Appendix 2.

_