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

9.1.1 Examination of the way in which the Scientific Committee's sub-committee on small cetaceans identifies stocks for review
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee explained that the sub-committee had in the past given priority to stocks or species subject to direct harvest or incidental mortality from fishery operations. The 1990 and 1991 IWC Resolutions on small cetaceans confirmed that this conformed with the priorities of the Commission and provided further guidelines. Examples of three types of priority topics proposed after 1990 were: a species or stock(s) that was or might be influenced by exploitation; a geographical area where there were indications or evidence of incidental or directed exploitation on populations of small cetaceans but where information on takes or impact on specific stocks is limited; a global review of a species or taxonomic group.

Each year, recommendations by the sub-committee were put forward to the full Scientific Committee and, after approval, forwarded to the Commission. The Scientific Committee already selected topics for research for a number of years ahead.

Summing up discussion on this Item, the Chairman concluded that the Working Group was generally content with the sub-committee's current criteria for the selection of topics for review. There seemed to be general agreement that priority should be given to:

(i)

endangered species;

(ii)

species or stocks under specific threat from direct or indirect take or from such effects as pollution or habitat degradation;

(iii)

global and regional reviews, bearing in mind the need to give due attention to regions in which little research had yet been done, or little information is available.

There was also general agreement that coastal states should be closely involved in the selection process.

9.1.2 Mechanisms for encouraging and ensuring coastal state participation in small cetaceans research and review, including from non-member countries
The Working Group agreed on the importance of involving coastal states as fully and effectively as possible in research and cooperation. The Secretariat should be asked to explore ways of achieving this.

9.1.3 Mechanism for improving availability and reliability of data and information for the sub-committee on small cetaceans
The Working Group noted that different regions, countries and local communities had different characteristics. In some countries a voluntary reporting scheme by fishermen was desirable. In countries which had advanced scientific research capability and were able to obtain the cooperation of their fishermen, observer schemes and monitoring programmes for collecting reliable data and information should be implemented and managed by relevant national or regional organisations. Such data could be made available to the IWC on a voluntary and cooperative basis.

Any review of the status of small cetaceans must be based on sound first hand data credible to both the organisation and the coastal state. In the absence of such data, assessments should not proceed.

A cooperative dialogue with relevant states should be promoted. Range states might be requested to provide information on direct takes; incidental takes; threats from degradation of the marine environment (e.g. die-offs, organochloride levels); etc. Statistically reliable observer schemes were the only reliable way of providing accurate data on bycatch.

The Scientific Committee already obtained Progress Reports from member states; some are extremely complete and well documented and have been particularly useful. The repeated request by the Scientific Committee to all Contracting Governments to use this information mechanism to the fullest extent was recalled.

It was agreed that the points made in this discussion should be brought to the attention of the sub-committee on small cetaceans through the Scientific Committee Chairman.

9.1.4 Options for developing voluntary funding mechanisms to facilitate participation of coastal states on relevant small cetaceans matters
The Working Group recommended that the Commission set up a voluntary fund, to enable scientists in coastal states who would otherwise be unable to participate in the work of the Scientific Committee to do so. This voluntary mechanism should take account of the provision of assistance in kind, as well as financial contributions.

The Commission should also explore ways of providing practical and technical forms of assistance, in order to facilitate the participation of coastal states in the work of the sub-committee on small cetaceans and the Scientific Committee.

9.1.5 Examination of the roles of the IWC and international and regional organisations which, in the opinion of many states, have a crucial role to play with respect to small cetaceans
In discussion of this item it was pointed out that the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) covered small cetaceans. The IWC and CMS had a complex relationship and it was suggested that the Secretariat should be encouraged to work closely with the Secretariat of CMS and related regional organisations, such as ASCOBANS.

Views were expressed that the IWC did valuable work that could not be left solely to regional states and that the IWC should concentrate on areas which were not covered by an appropriate regional organisation, on the model of the FAO. It was also noted that UNEP's Global Action Plan provided a helpful reference point for coastal state participation in the IWC sub-committee on small cetaceans and vice versa.

Actions arising from regional organisations had been demonstrated to be effective specifically concerning management issues, as illustrated in the case of Mexico/ IATTC/USA on the reduction of dolphin bycatch and vaquita. It was also stated that the IWC should only give scientific advice and that the management of small cetaceans should be under the purview of the regional organisations or coastal states as stipulated in UNCED Agenda 21 (paragraph 17.61 in Chapter 19).

In conclusion there seemed to be general agreement on the need to ensure close cooperation between the IWC and appropriate regional organisations.

9.1.6 Interim arrangements
The Working Group on small cetaceans had an important confidence-building role. It was important that the sub-committee on small cetaceans worked closely with the Working Group and it might be possible to arrange for the sub-committee convenor to attend.

There was general agreement that the Working Group should meet again next year and that close liaison with the sub-committee on small cetaceans was desirable.

9.2 Action arising
A Resolution based on the discussions in the Working Group and reinforcing the conclusions was co-sponsored by 14 delegations - Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. This was adopted by the Commission and is shown in Appendix 2.

A voluntary contribution of $5,000 to the voluntary fund established under the Resolution was intimated by the Environmental Investigation Agency.

A further Resolution on the biosphere reserve of the Upper Gulf of California and the Colorado River delta was introduced by Australia and co-sponsored by Argentina, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. This congratulated Mexico on its conservation efforts concerning the vaquita, and invited expeditious development of a management plan and offers of assistance for its implementation. This Resolution was adopted, as shown in Appendix 3.

_