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

26.1 Non-Governmental Organisation Observers
The Secretariat explained that with over 130 NGOs accredited to the organisation, some administrative difficulties were being experienced. Pressure was particularly intense immediately before the Annual Meeting. In order to be able to deal with the necessary administration in an orderly and timely fashion the Secretariat had prepared some suggested guidelines for consideration by the Commission this year. It recognised that these were too late to be formally adopted, However, it hoped that, if appropriate, they could be endorsed for adoption in 1995 and that the Commission could direct the Secretariat to apply them in the preparations for the 1995 meeting.

26.1.1 Applications for Accreditation of new NGOs
The Secretariat suggested that Rule of Procedure C.1.b be amended so that a new NGO seeking accreditation to the IWC should submit its application 60 days prior to the start of the meeting (instead of 30 as at present). After clarification that the change was intended to apply only to new applications, the Committee recommended this amendment for formal adoption next year. It also agreed to recommend that the Commission should direct the Secretary to apply this procedure for the 1995 meeting.

26.1.2 Payment of NGO Fees
The Secretariat expressed concern about the failure of some NGO organisations to comply with its existing guidelines for payment of fees and suggested the setting of a condition that fees shall be payable no later than 30 days before the start of an Annual Meeting. The USA questioned whether the Secretariat did in fact experience sufficient inconvenience to warrant this change and requested that its reservation be noted. Brazil suggested that the Chairman of the Commission request greater cooperation in this regard from NGOs at the Commission meeting. If they did not improve their performance, further consideration should be given to the application of a surcharge on observers who failed to pay their registration fees on time. This was agreed.

Australia asked whether there was a due date for observer fees. The Secretariat said there was not. The Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to review the situation in the light of the response by NGOs to the request for cooperation and if the Secretariat continued to experience difficulties to consider the matter again next year.

26.1.3 NGO Interpreters
On the question of interpreters for NGOs, the Secretariat referred to potential problems as a result of limited space and continued growth in interest about IWC meetings. The Secretariat clarified that it was seeking guidance on how to address requests, rather than presenting a suggestion for adoption. Japan expressed concern with any suggestion for the imposition of limits on the entry of interpreters. The USA and Brazil agreed. The Finance and Administration Committee recommended that observers be allowed to have an interpreter accompany them, if necessary, but that if the potential difficulties were realised the matter should be raised again at that time.

26.2 Procedure for Calculating Financial Contributions - Allocation of Shares for whale-watching
Norway introduced its views, noting that this was a follow-up to its contribution to the whalewatching debate. Norway was aware that five countries paid fees based on their whaling activities, but that according to the 1993 IWC resolution on whale-watching over US $300 million was earned through whalewatching ventures. Norway considered this to be important as this level of income was of a magnitude greater than that from whaling itself. One positive element was the strong commercial aspect. Norway believed the Commission should consider whether it was appropriate for those with whalewatching activities to make an additional contribution to the Commission budget. It asked that this concern be noted in the report to the Commission so it might be given full consideration at a later stage.

The USA commented that this idea was intriguing only in that it provided evidence of Norway's view that whalewatching was an activity within the competence of the IWC, a view it fully shared. However, the current financial arrangements were carefully negotiated. If other factors were to be taken into account, these might include objections to the Schedule, small cetaceans catch, the take of whales for research purposes, etc. These were all very controversial. Accordingly the USA preferred the current arrangement and saw no reason to address this suggestion.

Australia agreed in principle with the USA, but disagreed about the reasons. Mexico, New Zealand and the UK also endorsed the USA's view. The UK added that it was premature to address this issue now as the IWC's role in respect of whalewatching was still developing and had yet to be agreed.

Japan said it would study Norway's proposal with interest and in the Plenary added that since whalewatching is clearly a commercial activity it should contribute fees to the Commission.

Norway emphasised that it wished only to raise rather than resolve the matter this year, and comments by Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina and Spain respectively on competence, fees and the need for further discussion were noted by the Commission.

26.3 Commission Resolutions
Australia asked whether it might be possible in future to number resolutions adopted by the Commission for ease of reference. The Chairman directed the Secretariat to consider the request, and the Secretary subsequently proposed that this could be readily achieved by using a reference of the form 'IWC Resolution 1994-1'.

_