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

Resolutions on small cetaceans
New Zealand introduced a Resolution co-sponsored by Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland on small cetaceans. This was a successor to the Resolutions in the two previous years which attempted to take the path now suggested by Brazil - that is, non-controversial Resolutions addressing the problem of small cetaceans under serious threat, and setting aside without precedent the different legal views over competence and sovereign rights. The Resolution invited governments to seek advice from the IWC, and also sought cooperation between the IWC and other intergovernmental organisations such as CMS.

Australia supported the identification of CMS, and proposed two amendments to the text to recognise the Agreements negotiated under this organisation specifically, and also ICES and other relevant organisations. Sweden and Germany seconded these amendments, which were also supported by New Zealand and Switzerland.

Spain gave its support both to the Brazilian approach to these problems and the specific Resolutions being considered, because they do not prejudice positions on competence. It thought it important that work on small cetaceans is done in consonance with the priorities and budget of the IWC, and the workload of the Scientific Committee.

Mexico presented a paper giving examples of its policies for marine species including small cetaceans, which it thought should be dealt with on a national or regional basis. In order to save the time of the meeting, the Chairman proposed that, rather than being read out, the text should be included in the report of the meeting. Australia supported this and the meeting agreed to annex the document (Appendix 8).

Brazil referred to the exercise it had proposed and could accept the Resolution despite hesitation over some of the implications, but reserved its position on following those, not because of their content but as a question of procedure.

Japan opposed the Resolution as outside the competence of the IWC, while Chile expressed strong reservations on the wording which may have implications about competence of coastal states.

Norway pointed out that it was procedurally incorrect to adopt Resolutions by consensus with several delegations expressing strong reservations. The USA suspected that the problem with all three Resolutions concerning small cetaceans - the New Zealand one and those still to be presented on striped dolphins and narwhals - was not with the information but the legal or competence issue. It proposed simply voting on all three, to which Norway agreed.

Australia introduced a Resolution on the directed take of striped dolphins in the Japanese drive fishery, co-sponsored by Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and UK. There is concern over continuing decline of this dolphin in a mixed species fishery, and recognition of the great deal of information provided by the Japanese Government. The intent is to invite that Government to undertake a number of actions, while recognising the different views on the issue of IWC competence for small cetaceans.

The Netherlands, on behalf of the co-sponsors Australia, Finland, France, New Zealand and UK, introduced a Resolution on the directed takes of white whales and narwhals. These species have been hunted for hundreds of years but catch and population data are hard to obtain in the remote areas where they are found. The relevant states are invited to work individually or jointly on research, and submit the results to the IWC Scientific Committee; to document mortality resulting from human activities and other data needed for proper management; and the USA is invited to submit results of a planned survey to the Scientific Committee when they become available. The Secretary is also requested to transmit this Resolution to the Government of Canada, requesting its cooperation with the IWC on conservation and research on these species. The different points of view on competence are noted in the preambular section. Sweden also wished to sponsor this Resolution.

Japan repeated its view that the IWC has no competence over small cetaceans, and understood that a number of the co-sponsors had not submitted catch reports or information on small cetaceans this year. It opposed such Resolutions as unfair to those nations which do submit data and make serious efforts. It was investigating the striped dolphin situation, where there are population estimates of 47,000 animals inshore and 650,000 offshore with variable mixing. Archive records of a massive stranding in the 14th century near Edo (Tokyo) may prove helpful.

The Netherlands and UK responded to these comments by indicating their zero directed and very small incidental takes respectively, which will be reported. Japan noted that incidental takes must have happened in the past, and also requested the results of pollution studies on small cetaceans.

Denmark reaffirmed its policy of working with the Scientific Committee in the matter of small cetaceans, but it cannot accept management advice. It pointed out that Greenland is amongst the few countries that have done work on the problems of white whales and narwhals, which can therefore be documented. It could support the Resolution on these species and the first general Resolution in terms of scientific collaboration, but could not support the Resolution on striped dolphins which was clearly management advice.

The USA spoke in support of all three Resolutions, noting the preambular paragraph putting aside the different political views of governments. It had a certain amount of sympathy with Japan which has been very diligent in providing information over the years, and called on all other member nations to present information to the Scientific Committee.

Mexico stated that it will systematically oppose any Resolution which not only exceeds the IWC mandate but especially pretends to dictate behaviour to sovereign governments on these matters. It reserved its position in all instructions to governments on this matter.

On being put to the vote, the general Resolution on small cetaceans (Appendix 9) was adopted with 15 votes in favour, 6 against and 6 abstentions, the Resolution on the directed take of striped dolphins in drive fisheries (Appendix 10) was adopted by 14 votes in favour to 5 against, with 8 abstentions and the Resolution on the directed takes of white whales and narwhals (Appendix 11) was adopted with 15 votes in favour, 5 against and 7 abstentions.

Resolution on killing pilot whales
The UK introduced a Resolution on the killing of pilot whales, co-sponsored by France, Germany, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland. The Resolution arose out of a long history of concern in the Commission about the drive fishery, and the humane killing studies at this and earlier meetings. The Commission had urged a number of actions by a Resolution adopted at the 38th Meeting, and had requested reports of progress. The present Resolution invited the Danish Government to inform the Commission of the measures currently used for killing pilot whales and asked them to contribute to the action programme agreed in the Resolution already adopted on humane killing. The UK recognised the sensitivities about the competence issue in relation to small cetaceans and the internal legal relationship between the Government of Denmark and the Faroese authorities, but it was concerned about the methods used in the fishery.

Denmark responded that the issue was fully addressed in 1988, after which the point was taken off the agenda. Despite its view that the Commission should not be dealing with the topics of humane killing and small cetaceans, it had, as an exception to its policy and as a matter of courtesy, answered the questions in 1987 and 1988. The information is freely available on a bilateral basis to any nation. It pointed out that the Faroese Whaling Committee, referred to in the second paragraph of the Resolution, existed for only three months in 1986. It agreed that the killing methods in the drive hunt had warranted discussion at the 1992 Workshop, and pointed out the conclusion that the existing Faroese practice was the most humane possible under the circumstances. The Danish Government had provided all the information to the Workshop and Working Group, and so questioned what more was being asked. It pointed out its constitutional impediment in this matter, so that it cannot command the Faroes to forward the information, but it is ready to supply the information to any interested government bilaterally. It objected strongly to being singled out to confirm that it will contribute to the action programme to which it has already subscribed. The Resolution was completely unacceptable to Denmark, and it wanted it rejected by vote.

Norway understood the Danish principle on small cetaceans. It thought that asking it to confirm what the Commissioner had already told the Commission earlier was very close to a direct insult to the Danish Government's credibility, and would vote against.

New Zealand spoke of its experience in shooting stranded pilot whales with a single bullet. It wondered if the Faroese authorities could improve their methods, which may represent the continuation of a long tradition, but were in its view unnecessarily cruel.

Japan restated its view that whether killing is humane is not to be judged by this Commission. The Faroese Government had responded to the questions posed by the UK and the Commission, and it thought the matter should be left, as fox-hunting in the UK, to individual taste.

The Netherlands strongly supported the Resolution, understanding the intention to be a friendly invitation to be kept informed of any relevant developments.

Mexico would not participate in condemning any country on matters outside the legal frame of this Commission.

The Resolution shown in Appendix 12 was then adopted by 11 votes in favour, with 8 against and 8 abstentions.

Australia explained its vote in favour because of the humane killing aspects, and understood clearly the Danish undertaking in respect of Item 2. The USA associated itself with these comments. Sweden also shared this view in voting yes, stressing the invitation to consider improving the killing methods as much as possible and to keep the Commission informed. It noted the conclusion of the Workshop that this is at present the best killing method available and did not want to create any constitutional problems. It asked Denmark to convey this message to the Faroese authorities. Finland and Germany associated themselves with this statement.

Ireland, while in sympathy with the spirit of the Resolution, withheld its support because of the comments of Denmark. Brazil, Spain and Argentina associated themselves with these comments.

Japanese interim relief allocation
Japan pointed out that its small-type coastal whaling has been found to contain aspects of a non-commercial kind similar to aboriginal subsistence whaling as well as commercial elements. Thus it should not be treated within the framework of commercial whaling. It requested an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales to help alleviate the socio-cultural distress caused to the four communities involved. This would not harm the whale population estimated to be 25,000 in the 1990 Comprehensive Assessment.

The USA reiterated that it cannot accede to a request of this nature until the RMS is in place.

St Vincent and The Grenadines thought that to say there were aspects of commercial whaling in this case was not sufficient. The human factors should be taken into consideration to make an exception, and it supported the proposal. Norway associated itself with this point of view.

The Russian Federation stated that it saw this not as a matter concerning the introduction of the concept of small-type whaling into the Convention, but as a humanitarian emergency relief matter.

The People's Republic of China stated its understanding of the difficulties of the Japanese coastal whalers since the moratorium. It reaffirmed its policy of protection and sustainable utilisation of natural resources. Because of the stock size, it was in favour of granting some relief quota under the guideline of the RMS when that is implemented, and with strict international supervision.

The Netherlands too had an appreciation of the problems that have arisen in the Japanese communities, but in its opinion they can only be resolved in the framework of the RMS and not at this time. It was therefore unable to support the Japanese proposal. Switzerland and Germany shared this view.

The Secretary introduced the vote on the proposal as an amendment to the Schedule requiring a three-quarters majority. Australia suggested this was an interim relief allocation not bearing on the Schedule, and the Chairman ruled that it was a vote on an ad hoc solution not amending the Schedule. The proposal was then defeated with 7 votes in favour, 15 against and 5 abstentions.

Denmark regretted that it was not possible to agree on a solution to the problem facing Japan.

Closing statements
Norway spoke of Iceland's withdrawal from the IWC on the opening day. On the closing day, it was the assessment of Norway that the IWC is now further away from implementation of the RMP than last year. It had expected adoption and implementation of the RMP for North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke whale stocks this year. Instead the RMP concept has been expanded to an RMS, encompassing inter alia the killing methods for whales. Norway believed the methods used for whales compare favourably with the hunting of large terrestrial animals. It maintained that all marine living resources must be managed on a sound scientific and sustainable basis, a principle endorsed by the Rio Declaration. It had waited patiently for the advice of the Scientific Committee, but the anti-whaling nations in the IWC had changed the rules halfway through the game, and Norway must consider carefully if it will continue as a Contracting Government to the Convention.

Japan also reminded the meeting of the objectives of the Commission as the conservation and rational utilisation of whale resources. Although the Scientific Committee had recommended adoption of the RMP, the Commission has delayed this by demanding new data requirements, an observer scheme and so forth, to prevent setting a catch quota. The population estimate of 760,000 Southern Hemisphere minke whales justifies the lifting of the moratorium, while its request for a relief quota of 50 whales for its small-type coastal whaling had been refused for political and emotional reasons. The IWC was now trying to ban the catch of small cetaceans outside its competence and without adequate scientific evidence. Japan therefore concluded that the IWC's primary objective was being neglected. It sympathised with Iceland withdrawing and Norway resuming commercial whaling, and the anger of its own fishermen may cause Japan to reconsider its partnership with IWC member countries. It is difficult to expect financial and personnel resources to continue to be allocated unless the primary objectives of the IWC are respected. Nevertheless, it wished to continue to contribute to sound management by the IWC, as evidenced by its invitation to host the 45th Annual Meeting.

The USA remarked that the so-called additions to the RMS are not new requirements. Australia concurred, and pointed out that it used the term and detailed the items in 1990.

_