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

The USA reminded Commissioners that the IWC requested legal advice from Contracting Governments at the 31st (1979) Annual Meeting on whether the taking of small cetaceans could be regulated under the IWC. This arose from the recommendation from the Scientific Committee that white whales and narwhals be listed in the Schedule. In its view nothing in the Convention explicitly limits the Convention's jurisdiction to large cetaceans, and the Commission's practice in recent years supports this conclusion. It thought that the Commission should continue to review the work of the Scientific Committee as it looks at small cetaceans one by one.

New Zealand stated that the Nomenclature has no legal or other basis to restrict the competence of this Commission.

Brazil does not believe that the Commission is at present competent to tackle the issue of small cetaceans. It recognised that the Scientific Committee deals with these species under the terms of a Resolution drawn up in 1980. It thought that although the 1946 Table of Nomenclature is not an official document it reflects the intentions of the drafters of the Convention. Despite its legal difficulties, it is committed to overcome the differences on this subject because it believes small cetaceans need protection and action.

Denmark associated itself with the statement made by Brazil.

Mexico was clear that the Commission was created to prevent the extinction of specific kinds of whales and its legal opinion remained the same, i.e. that small cetaceans are not included in the work of the Commission. It was committed to protecting marine and other species, but would use the IWC to refer to those animals clearly covered and other fora, especially regional or national, for other types of marine mammals. It appealed for wider representation in the Commission and more scientific and technical cooperation.

Chile expressed concern that the same well known opinions over competence were being repeated, and it looked for a pragmatic approach.

The UK shared the views expressed by the USA and New Zealand. It saw no problems over the question of legal competence. The Commission has taken action on other small cetaceans and urged progress on the management of Baird's beaked whale where the present catch levels are a worryingly high percentage of the estimated population. Regional organisations have a role to play but it wanted the IWC to maintain its umbrella role in that process.

Australia, Switzerland, Germany and Oman associated themselves with the views expressed by the UK. Ireland also associated itself with the view that the IWC has competence for all cetaceans.

St Vincent and The Grenadines repeated its position that the Commission does not have competence for small cetaceans, and expressed concern over the increasing time and resources they occupied. It was dismayed that the Scientific Committee did not complete its work on the RMP but did finish its work on small cetaceans.

The Netherlands did not want to repeat the reasons for believing that in principle the Commission has competence with regard to all cetaceans. It supported the continuation of the Scientific Committee's work on small cetaceans and welcomed the initiative from Brazil to promote effective measures for the conservation of small cetaceans.

Sweden shared this position.

Norway associated itself with the views of Japan, being guided by the principles of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 65 refers to cooperation through the appropriate international organisations, in the plural, principles confirmed in other contexts including the UNCED meeting in Rio. NAMMCO is an appropriate organisation for cooperation on an international regional level for the management of marine mammals in the North Atlantic.

The People's Republic of China was concerned about the decline of small cetaceans and wanted to strengthen their management through national governments, following IWC guidelines.

St Lucia pointed out the amount of work needed to get deeply involved in small cetaceans, and noted that some members do not submit progress reports to the Scientific Committee, or give information on takes of small cetaceans. It thought priority should be directed to the fundamental areas of whales and whaling, but it will give support to any organisation requiring information on its cetacean catch.

17.2 Action arising
Brazil put forward a proposal for the establishment of a Working Group to be convened prior to the 45th Annual Meeting to consider a mechanism to address small cetaceans in the IWC. This was to promote progress on the ideas it had presented informally last year that somehow the Commission should organise itself in a way to allow all delegations to participate in the effort to protect small cetaceans without creating problems for their national positions. The terms of reference were very broad, to initiate discussions aiming at a framework to address the issue in the IWC, and to set up an interim arrangement. It felt that often confrontation takes place instead of cooperation, to the detriment of the animals. Many coastal states are ready for, indeed are in need of, the expertise the Commission could offer, but the language of the texts produced infringe on their national interests. This would not be a debate on legal positions, but identification of areas where negotiation can proceed.

Australia, Argentina and Spain seconded the proposal.

Mexico spoke in appreciation of the positive proposition by Brazil, but thought this was not a matter to be dealt with in this Commission, and was also concerned about setting up another Working Group in the next session.

Spain supported the proposal as addressing an important issue in a practical manner, and suggested as a way of avoiding an overload of work next year that comments could be made during the year and distributed through the Secretariat.

The Netherlands also felt that the Brazilian proposal will advance the practical steps that the Commission may take.

Japan had no doubt the proposal was based on goodwill and good intentions, but recalled the many species and stocks involved, the small number of coastal states in the IWC, and their limited scientific and data input. It would join in a forum of all the coastal states, but emphasised the value of regional organisations. Norway associated itself with these general views.

Brazil responded that a much larger group would be ideal, but its proposal had to do with the confrontation that takes place in the IWC every year.

Chile expressed interest in the proposal and saw many questions which would have to be taken into account. It requested a basic working document where all the facts and relevant precedents in the IWC are gathered together, along with information on the proceedings under regional organisations.

The USA, Ireland, Argentina, New Zealand, Sweden and the UK all expressed their support for this pragmatic approach to a serious problem, which sets aside the concerns about the competence issue to start some practical work. St Vincent and The Grenadines understood that there were no additional costs involved.

The Republic of Korea informed the Commission that it is collecting information on the incidental take and sightings of small cetaceans. Because of the complicated problems inherent in the conservation of small cetaceans, it believed the competence to manage them should be given to regional bodies in which the coastal nations can cooperate.

The Commission then adopted by consensus the proposal shown in Appendix 7, noting the comments and reservations expressed.

_