10. MECHANISM TO ADDRESS SMALL CETACEANS IN THE COMMISSION

11. COMMISSION'S COMPETENCE TO SET CATCH LIMITS FOR BAIRD'S BEAKED WHALE IN THE NORTH PACIFIC

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



The Commission had agreed to deal with these two items together when it adopted the agenda for the meeting.


10.1 Report of Working Group
The Working Group established to consider a mechanism to address small cetaceans in the Commission was chaired by Mr R. Conde de Saro (Spain). Discussion took place without prejudice to the different positions held by member states which were well-known and documented.

Brazil presented a document that could be seen as containing elements for a framework acceptable to all IWC members for future work on small cetaceans and for an interim arrangement under which the trust needed to implement the framework could be built up. The four elements in the proposal included a need for a comprehensive and more cooperative approach; joint IWC and coastal state efforts to collect and assess data; the direct participation of coastal states; and when necessary, financial assistance. It was suggested that a means of avoiding problems of competence would be for action on small cetaceans not to exceed the level of the Technical Committee.

Discussion in the Working Group showed some support for all these points, and included references to the discussions in the UNCED (United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development) in Rio de Janeiro which recognised the work of the IWC Scientific Committee in relation to small cetaceans and the competence of regional organisations with regard to the conservation and management of cetaceans, including small cetaceans.

The Brazilian proposal had raised interest, but there was a need for further reflection and discussion on the issues raised and the component elements of the proposal itself.

In this context, and keeping in mind that future work should help to ensure confidence building, the Chairman of the Working Group suggested that discussion could centre on:

(a)
examination of the way in which the Small Cetaceans sub-committee of the Scientific Committee identifies stocks for review;
(b)
mechanisms for encouraging and ensuring coastal state participation in small cetacean research and review, including from non-member countries;
(c)
mechanisms for improving availability and reliability of data;
(d)
options for developing voluntary funding mechanisms to facilitate participation of coastal states;
(e)
examination of the roles of the IWC and regional organisations who, in the opinion of many delegations, had a crucial role to play with respect to small cetaceans.

The Chairman noted that further discussion should take place in the plenary, since it did not seem possible, at that point, to advance further.


10.2 Action arising
In the Commission, Brazil put forward a Resolution co-sponsored by Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, UK and USA. This embodied the conclusions derived from the Working Group in an attempt to identify a framework under which small cetacean issues can be addressed cooperatively in the IWC without prejudice to the views of member states on the regulatory competence of the IWC in this regard.

In supporting this Resolution, New Zealand suggested adding a preambular paragraph which had been accepted in the last two years, concerning coastal states' sovereign rights and recalling the decisions at the UNCED. This would reassure otherwise supportive states with strong views on the legal aspects. This insertion was widely accepted by the co-sponsors.

Oman suggested adding a preambular paragraph 'Being aware of the needs of the coastal states to develop their fisheries', which was accepted by Brazil if it would help reach a consensus, and supported by Mexico and St Lucia. However, New Zealand, Netherlands, UK, Spain and France all thought it inappropriate in this Resolution on small cetaceans.

St Lucia raised questions on the need for international cooperation, the objective of building confidence and why it is necessary to examine the way the Small Cetaceans Sub-committee of the Scientific Committee identifies stocks for review. Spain, as Chairman of the Working Group, explained the discussions which had led to these elements being included in the process of trying to get a working mechanism that will avoid the confrontations of the past and produce joint effort for the future. St Lucia then understood that there is no international cooperation in a meaningful way and the IWC is attempting to play this leadership role.

Brazil then suggested, and Oman agreed, that the latter's addition should be clarified to read 'Aware of the need of coastal states to develop their fisheries without causing harm to small cetaceans'. This was acceptable to New Zealand, UK and the Netherlands.

Japan reaffirmed its view that the IWC has no competence over the management of small cetaceans, but it has supplied all possible information to the Scientific Committee. There are at least 66 species in 200 stocks around the world, with 140 coastal states but only 40 IWC members. There is little incentive for non-member states which are involved in small cetacean fisheries to cooperate with the IWC because of its protectionist stance, while regional organisations such as NAMMCO, the Bonn Convention and IATTC are seriously considering small cetacean management.

St Vincent and The Grenadines, Chile, St Lucia and Dominica all expressed their various reservations to the Resolution as amended. Denmark was willing to join a consensus if such existed, noting its own attitude towards the management of small cetaceans. Oman offered to withdraw its amendment since it brought so much confusion, and Australia supported the Chairman's view that it would be wise to take a little more time to reflect on the matter.

Before the discussion was adjourned, the People's Republic of China spoke in favour of scientific studies and advice from the IWC Scientific Committee, but management by national governments or regional fishery organisations.

On returning to this issue with the amended text including the New Zealand addition, Australia welcomed what it believed to be a major step forward, particularly identifying examination of the role of the IWC and international and regional organisations. The UK expressed its support and also attached particular importance to the CMS in Bonn.

Discussion on whether there was general agreement with some reservations led to a vote, when the Resolution (Appendix 4) was adopted with 23 votes in favour, 3 against and 6 abstentions.

Mexico explained its vote in favour to participate constructively in the discussion, and went on to describe its activities in relation to the tuna fishery reduction of incidental dolphin mortality, and the situation concerning studies on the totoaba fishery and vaquita in the upper Gulf of California. These comments were welcomed by the USA.

The Russian Federation expressed its support for the idea that the IWC should be entrusted with the competence to conserve, manage and study small cetaceans, paying particular attention to Article 65 of the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), and noted that amendment of the Convention is needed to proceed, taking account of modern international law and the recognised specific rights of coastal states.

_