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

There were two main views in the Committee. One was that the proposal had no scientific elements to justify the sanctuary proposal and that the RMP could provide adequate conservation and management of baleen whales on their feeding grounds. The RMP accommodated all likely, and some unlikely eventualities. The sanctuary was therefore not necessary.

Another view was that, while the sanctuary would replace the RMP in that area, it needed to be considered in the context of a broader scheme of management of whaling and the conservation of whales both in the Southern Hemisphere and globally. In the global context, such a sanctuary would limit the impacts of unforeseen problems to other regions where the RMP was applied. Certain aspects could be evaluated by computer simulation trials, although limits existed to the applicability of such simulation exercises.

16.2 Report of the Working Group
The Working Group received the report of the Scientific Committee. It noted that there had been a number of differing views and interpretations of the comments received from intergovernmental organisations. Some supported the proposal as formulated. Others indicated that there was no, or insufficient, scientific basis on which to proceed, while others commented supportively but indicated that further work was required, particularly on the issue of boundary locations. The Working Group's own discussions were structured to address the legal, political, scientific, financial and management issues.

The Working Group did not consider that it could recommend specific action on the proposal to establish a sanctuary in the Southern Hemisphere. It noted that it had agreed for several topics that further discussion would be required in the Technical Committee and the Commission. It decided to draw the attention of the Technical Committee to those items in which further work or discussion by the Scientific Committee was recommended. In particular, the Scientific Committee could be invited to examine further what research would be required on whales and their ecology, should a sanctuary be established, with those and wider studies to be carried out in coordination with other bodies with interests in the region.

16.3 Action arising
In the Technical Committee, France eloquently represented the proposal it put forward last year for designating the waters of the Southern Hemisphere south of 40°S as a sanctuary. This was co-sponsored by Australia, Ireland, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand and the USA.

Statements by many delegations demonstrated much support for the proposal as a precautionary measure and safety net for the RMP. However, some delegations, while supporting it in principle, identified legal, scientific and financial questions needing clarification. They thought that more consultation was needed, and that such a far-reaching proposal should be adopted by consensus. Australia offered to host an intersessional meeting to try and carry the discussions forward. Japan stated that it believed that as this was a political proposal, without an adequate scientific background, adoption might prompt its government to withdraw from the Convention.

The Chairman of the Technical Committee concluded that no consensus existed at present and called for a vote on the proposal. Chile suggested a procedural vote to establish a Working Group to study the proposal further. After some discussion of this suggestion, and an adjournment for a meeting of Commissioners, the French proposal was voted on to recommend an amendment to the Schedule by adding after paragraph 7 the following paragraph:

'In accordance with Article V(I)(c) of the Convention, commercial whaling, whether by pelagic operations or from land stations, is prohibited in a region designated as the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. This comprises the waters of the Southern Hemisphere southward of 40°S latitude. This prohibition applies irrespective of the conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in the Sanctuary as may from time to time be determined by the Commission. This prohibition will be established for a duration of 50 years but shall be reviewed in the year 2003.'

The proposal was adopted by 13 votes in favour. with 8 against and 10 abstentions. Explanations of vote were given by a number of delegates. Denmark welcomed further consideration of the matter, based on science. Chile, Switzerland, Oman, Sweden, the Russian Federation, Brazil, India, St Lucia, the People's Republic of China and St Vincent and The Grenadines all expressed regret that they had been forced to vote on a proposal which they considered to be not sufficiently mature, when they sought consensus on such a matter.

In the plenary, Australia proposed, seconded by Spain, that a Resolution on the sanctuary proposal be addressed before the proposed Schedule amendment from the Technical Committee. This was agreed, and Switzerland introduced the Resolution on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Finland and Sweden. Although an overwhelming majority of members appeared to support the concept of establishing a sanctuary in the Southern Ocean, the vote in Technical Committee was less than the three-quarters majority needed to amend the Schedule. This resulted from the outstanding issues which remain unresolved, particularly concerning geographical coverage. The Resolution was intended to allow the Commission to move forward to enable it to take a full decision at the next meeting. Brazil spoke in support.

France proposed amending the first operative paragraph from 'Endorses the concept of establishing' a sanctuary in the Southern Ocean to 'Decides the establishment'. It believed the long-term rehabilitation of the whales of the Southern Hemisphere remains one of the greatest challenges faced by the IWC, to be answered without delay. Monaco seconded in order to allow discussion.

The Netherlands pointed out that this proposal would amount to turning the Resolution into a Schedule amendment, a view shared by the USA. St Lucia did not like either phrase and proposed that the Commission should 'Take note of' the concept, seconded by Dominica and Japan. Japan also proposed a major addition to convene a Working Group before the next Annual Meeting to define trials to be carried out by the Scientific Committee.

The Russian Federation drew attention to Article V.1 of the Convention which identifies the Schedule as the means for designation of sanctuary areas, and not by Resolution. New Zealand believed that the original Resolution reflected the views of a large number of delegations, and it would vote against all amendments. Chile, Sweden, India, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland and Switzerland shared this position.

A number of Commissioners offered their interpretation of the legal point made by the Russian Federation, most believing that a simple majority could adopt the French amendment, but that a three-quarters majority and Schedule text was needed if it became the substantive Resolution. On being put to the vote, the French amendment received 1 vote in favour, 26 against with 4 abstentions and so was defeated.

In the vote on the St Lucia amendment, there were 8 votes for, 20 against and 3 abstentions, so it too was lost.

The Japanese amendment, seconded by Dominica, Norway and St Lucia, to replace the last operative paragraph by 'Invites the proponents of the sanctuary to refine their proposal with particular reference to scientific objectives relating to the management of whale stocks that are defined in a way amenable to evaluation by the Scientific Committee'; and 'Proposes to convene a Working Group immediately prior to IWC46 to review the above and to develop a protocol for trials to be addressed by the Scientific Committee', was also defeated, with 9 votes in favour, 19 against and 3 abstentions.

Australia voted against because it felt some of the language was a little harsh, but it would explore with other delegations how best to assist the proposed intersessional meeting or other means to give full rigorous consideration to the sanctuary proposal.

St Lucia, seconded by St Vincent and The Grenadines, called for a vote on the original Resolution (shown in Appendix 6), which was adopted with 19 votes in favour, 8 against and 4 abstentions.

Switzerland noted with appreciation that France had voted for this Resolution.

St Vincent and The Grenadines explained its opposition to endorsing the concept until the need for a sanctuary had been established, since it was not a scientific proposal but political, with no basis, and a management tool but with no scientific backing. St Lucia shared these views, but looked forward to assistance to take part in a meeting in Australia. Japan associated itself with both previous speakers. Dominica associated itself with the comments of St Vincent and The Grenadines and, recognising the contribution of the Commissioner from the Russian Federation, recommended that the Commission obtained the services of a legal adviser. Grenada shared all these sentiments.

Denmark explained its yes vote in order to keep the item on the agenda without prejudging its position when a decision on the sanctuary is made.

A procedural discussion followed, New Zealand calling for closure of the debate, supported by Netherlands, while Japan thought the Technical Committee proposal should be put to the vote. Chile regarded the Resolution as an alternative to that, which was accepted by the Chair.

Australia indicated that any Secretariat expenses for the intersessional meeting would be covered by its Government.

Finally, Chile, supported by Argentina, thought it would be useful to have the Chairman of the Scientific Committee in the Working Group, and to ask CCAMLR if it has any additional comments on the sanctuary.

_