(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting")
The Working Group proposed that the Commission should take note of its Report and further endorse the 15 recommendations, which was agreed by the Technical Committee and accepted by the Commission.
Japan asked the Chairman of the Scientific Committee if the Committee studied the specific questions raised at the Working Group. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee responded that there was no substantial discussion on the matter but there was little to gain in the context of the conservation performance of the RMP by modifying the procedure to take further account of environmental change. Also, the Scientific Committee believes that the RMP adequately considers the question of under-reporting of catches.
12.2 Proposal by France, Australia, Brazil, Ireland, Monaco, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Spain, UK and USA
The Chairman of the Technical Committee identified three choices arising out
of Recommendation 9 for the geographical boundaries of a sanctuary in the
Southern Ocean contained in documents submitted by France and nine
co-sponsors, Japan and five co-sponsors, and Chile and three co-sponsors, and
he invited comments from members on these proposals.
Following this exchange of views from all the members present, the Chairman concluded that this had been a valuable exercise which emphasised the range of opinions for the northern boundary set at 40°S through a series of other options. It was clear that there was room for further discussions which might lead to a compromise which could achieve a consensus in the Plenary. Some delegations believed that no decision should be taken until the Scientific Committee had been asked to examine and report back on the scientific aspects of and give management advice on a Southern Ocean sanctuary, while others believed that there was no need to delay taking a decision since the time has now come for such action.
Japan, after hearing the Chairman's summary, called for a vote on the following proposal:
'That the Technical Committee recommends the Commission to instruct the Scientific Committee to give management advice on the specific questions in the Norfolk Island Working Group report prior to taking any full and final decisions in a Southern Ocean sanctuary.'
This was seconded by Norway although secondment was not required in the Technical Committee.
Prior to voting, Australia, seconded by France, proposed an amendment to replace the word 'management' by 'scientific' and to delete all the text from 'prior to...'.
This amendment was adopted with 22 votes in favour, 6 against and with 4 abstentions.
Japan's original proposal was thus not put to the vote.
Following an adjournment, the amended substantive motion was put to the vote and adopted with 22 votes in favour, 1 against and 9 abstentions.
Thus, the Technical Committee recommended the Commission to instruct the Scientific Committee to give scientific advice on the specific questions in the Norfolk Island Working Group report, which the Chairman of the Technical Committee interpreted to be Recommendation 7(a)-(e).
The Technical Committee therefore forwarded these conclusions together with the one proposal and two proposed amendments in the documents submitted by France, Japan, Chile and their co-sponsors.
In the Plenary, Japan spoke of the need for such proposals to be based on scientific advice and its concern over the amount of fish consumed by whales that could provide human nourishment. Japanese research had contributed much to our knowledge and it took pride in the development of the RMP. It saw no reason to hurry to adopt such a proposal as no commercial whaling can ever be conducted in the area until completion of the RMS.
Spain believed that the severe depletion of whale stocks in the past has made it imperative to consciously protect them now. This is a minimum precautionary approach. Responsible resource management through the RMP and RMS should not be rushed, and adoption of a Southern Ocean sanctuary is a clear example of responsibility.
St Vincent and The Grenadines emphasised the need for scientific advice to be presented before establishing a sanctuary, not to justify it afterwards. It believed the proposal would contravene Article V, and noted that the Chairman of the European Parliament's Intergroup on Conservation and Development wrote that the IWC should base all management decisions on advice from its Scientific Committee and its basic task is to regulate whaling. It contrasted the need to justify aboriginal quotas yet the sanctuary is not put to any such test and the haste over the sanctuary while the RMS needs so much more work. The majority countries should not impose their attitude to whales on people from other cultures.
Venezuela, although unable to exercise its voting rights, spoke of its belief in the self-determination of nations. Cetaceans in its territorial waters are protected under national legislation, but it respected other countries with whaling as a cultural tradition. Most countries would consider a global whale sanctuary so long as those few remaining nations engaged in domestic whaling can secure a regulated catch and the question was can we share the planet's natural sustainable resources in peace and goodwill?
Argentina recalled that it has supported the sanctuary initiative from the beginning. It favoured a compromise on the northern boundary to enlarge the basis of support, which has a sound scientific basis and is in line with the precautionary principle.
Australia commented that it has also supported the concept of a sanctuary since it first came before the Commission in 1992. There has been consideration and discussion, and there has been advice from the Scientific Committee and other bodies. It was pleased to see emerging a proposal which seems to have secured a wide measure of agreement.
12.3 Action arising
Mexico introduced a compromise proposal on behalf of itself, France and
Chile, supported by Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Brazil, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, UK and USA.
This was based on political will and scientific foundations for the
protection of the whales.
France, in seconding this proposal, withdrew its own original proposal.
It thanked Chile for its helpful amendment in earlier discussions and
emphasised the strong scientific base of the latest formulation.
Dominica considered that the proposal was bypassing science and recalled the reasons for the resignation of the former Chairman of the Scientific Committee. It was not satisfied that there were enough data to justify the northern boundary and questioned the need of the Scientific Committee. It characterised the proposal as a triumph of chicanery over science and Dominica's principles would not be compromised.
Japan stressed its strong commitment to the work on the RMP/RMS and introduced an amendment, seconded by Norway, which would have the effect of setting the northern boundary along the Antarctic Convergence except in the Indian Ocean where it would join that sanctuary at 55°S and exempt minke whales from the prohibition on commercial whaling when the RMS is adopted for that species.
Grenada stated its position as one in which principles and science take precedence over political expediency. It believed culling could occur in a sanctuary and noted the views of Margaret Thatcher, President Clinton and Vice President Gore that science must be the basis and guiding principle at all times. Elephants in Zimbabwe and crocodiles in Zambia are too numerous because CITES regulations have stopped them being taken. Similar things are happening with seals and we may finish up with a sea of whales and no fish, with a consequential impact not on the developed, industrialised world but on developing countries. It supported the Japanese amendment but, if that failed, would abstain on the main proposal.
Japan questioned if the Commission could make a decision on the sanctuary proposal or amendment when the Scientific Committee had not seen either, but the Chairman stated that the Commission has the power to make decisions on management or conservation.
France identified that the Japanese amendment meant that whales not presently hunted will not be hunted in the future and the whales now hunted will be hunted in the future. All the positions are well known and it was time to take decisions.
The People's Republic of China spoke of its principles towards wildlife resources - protection, propagation and utilisation, and reserved its position on establishing the sanctuary until the Japanese amendment had been examined by the Scientific Committee.
Ireland pointed out that the original French proposal was considered by the Scientific Committee, a Working Group had discussed it and the present proposal is a subset of that.
The Japanese amendment was then put to the vote and defeated with 6 in favour, 23 against and 2 abstentions.
Before the vote on the substantive Mexico, France and Chile proposal, with support from 17 other governments, Norway stated that it would not take part. This proposal was to amend the Schedule by designating existing paragraph 7 as sub-paragraph 7(a), and adding the following sub-paragraph:
(b) In accordance with Article V(1)(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 Sanctuary Comprises the waters of the Southern Hemisphere southwards of the following line: starting from 40 degrees S, 50 degrees W; thence due east to 20 degrees E; thence due south to 55 degrees S; thence due east to 130 degrees E; thence due north to 40 degrees S; thence due east to 130 degrees W; thence due south to 60 degrees S; thence due east to 50 degrees W; thence due north to the point of beginning. This prohibition applies irrespective of the conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary, as may from time to time be determined by the Commission. However, this prohibition shall be reviewed ten years after its initial adoption and at succeeding ten year intervals, and could be revised at such times by the Commission. Nothing in this sub-paragraph is intended to prejudice the special legal and political status of Antarctica.
There were 23 votes in favour, 1 against and 6 abstentions, and so the amendment to the Schedule was approved by the necessary three-quarters majority.
Following the vote, Norway explained that it believed the action was not in accordance with the Convention, since there had been no scientific consultation. Japan repeated its view that these resources should not be denied for future human generations. Denmark saw no break in this action with its view of sustainable utilisation, while Chile expressed its satisfaction even though it would have preferred the CCAMLR northern boundary. Mexico emphasised the large responsibility now taken on by the Commission.
_