(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting")
Arising from the May meeting, the Working Group agreed to put forward to the Technical Committee and the Commission the question of endorsement of papers.
The comprehensive agenda of the Lofoten meeting covered all issues identified as relevant either by some delegations or by all. Relevant international and national observer systems were reviewed, and the useful input from IATTC was particularly recognised. The potential usefulness of elements of those systems to the inspection and observation programme was discussed, but there were very many areas of disagreement. With respect to the focus of the work, the terms of reference mentioned the possibility of establishing different rules for different forms of whaling. However, the Working Group did not succeed in establishing such a differentiation.
Other disagreements concerned the roles of national inspectors and international observers; what priority should be given to each where space constraints on vessels prevented both; the need for real-time reporting; the enforcement powers of inspectors and observers: whether these powers would be different within and outside the EEZs; and the need to monitor on vessels where flensing took place and the landing stations.
There was no agreement on the data to be collected under the RMS, e.g. humane killing data. It was suggested to refer this to the Scientific Committee.
Cost recovery produced further disagreement - costs to be borne by the whaling nations, other Contracting Governments, or a shared approach. There was disagreement on the reporting systems needed, depending on the type of operations; and the frequency of reports relevant to whether more than one stock and one or more IWC member and non-member countries were involved. Enforcement, penalties and transparency produced other disagreements on whether there should be a uniform system of penalties; as Schedule provisions or guidelines only; and if reports should be considered by a new body or the Infractions Sub-committee.
New technologies provided further disagreement on mandatory use of transponders; vessel location and other data that might be reported: and the need for an IWC control centre. DNA testing of whale species, individuals and products was discussed, but the objectives and the need for Scientific Committee advice were disputed.
There was general agreement that there was no necessity to maintain a Register of Whaling Vessels for inspection and control, although it might be useful in other areas, such as whaling by non-IWC member states.
Discussion of trade produced disagreement over tracing through the market chain; IWC and CITES compatibility and the competence of the IWC.
Finally, since the Working Group had not reached any conclusions on many of the matters discussed and very little common ground seemed to exist, it was not in a position to propose amendments to the Schedule.
In the Technical Committee appreciation was expressed for the hard work carried out, as well as the need to find a way forward. Although there was so little agreement, the Chairman proposed that consultations should take place between delegations before the item was discussed in Plenary.
12.2 Norwegian proposals for Schedule amendments
and
12.3 Other matters
The Chairman of the Commission had suggested that these items should be
discussed together by the Technical Committee.
Netherlands pointed to the additional steps required to complete the RMS listed in IWC Resolution 1994-5:
Item (i) had been discussed by the Working Group and the Netherlands drew attention to the need to organise the remaining work.
Norway suggested that the minor details of the guidelines could be dealt with by the Scientific Committee next year, and called for the RMP to be written into the Schedule.
The USA, supported by many delegations, was not prepared to adopt the RMP into the Schedule until all elements of the RMS were identified and completed.
Norway and Japan believed that the question of total catches over time was already addressed by the feedback mechanism of the RMP.
12.4 Action arising
Discussion in the Technical Committee of the various possibilities identified
three options:
The need for new terms of reference to make a Working Group comprehensive enough, the costs and difficulties for small delegations and the need to interact with the Scientific Committee were all raised.
The Technical Committee agreed that these possibilities and concerns should be forwarded to the Plenary.
In the Commission, Norway referred to the Schedule amendments it submitted to the meeting last year, but withdrew the inspection part now because there was no agreement in the Working Group on this issue. It noted that the Scientific Committee is still working on the survey guidelines and so saw the logic in waiting to insert them into the Schedule. It realised that the RMP cannot be implemented even if it is written into the Schedule but, in spite of the Resolution adopted in Mexico last year, thought that these amendments should be adopted to demonstrate a willingness to move forward. Japan supported this view.
The Netherlands referred to its suggestion for a Working Group to consider the questions identified in last year's Resolution on the RMS. The possibility had been raised of merging this with the Working Group on Supervision and Control, and while it did not object to this, it would prefer two separate groups. The USA took the same position, pointed out the difficulties found in estimating North Atlantic minke abundance from surveys and reiterated its view that it was not prepared to adopt the RMS into the Schedule until all elements are working adequately. Brazil agreed with the USA and emphasised the fact that a certain kind of whaling is outside the rules of the IWC.
After consultation, the Netherlands indicated that there was broad agreement for two Working Groups - one to consider inspection and control, and the other to take up the issues identified in sub-paragraphs (ii) (international collaboration in survey design, conduct and analysis) and (iii) (catches over time within the limits set under the RMS) of last year's Resolution 1994-5. Each Working Group should convene for an intensive day's discussion immediately before the next Annual Meeting. The future of the second Working Group would be decided next year after it had reported. Norway and Japan accepted these arrangements which were then approved by the Commission.
Surveys
The USA introduced a Resolution, co-sponsored by Australia, Germany,
Netherlands, Spain and the UK, on surveys intended to provide abundance
estimates for the implementation of the RMS.
The need for IWC oversight of surveys and data analysis had been demonstrated
by the difficulties the Scientific Committee has had in determining the
abundance of North Atlantic minke whales.
The procedure proposed would give the data and analyses used in implementing
the RMP international credence and acceptance.
Denmark sought clarification on whether this Resolution would commit the Commission to amend the Schedule in the future, and so could not be voted on under Rule of Procedure E.3(b). The Russian Federation and Japan also had similar procedural and legal concerns, and the former asked about any financial implications. The USA responded that the Resolution requests further work on survey guidelines and sets out principles of oversight by the Scientific Committee, and their endorsement of abundance estimates before they are used in the RMP. The UK concurred, pointing out the importance of establishing the principles involved before the RMS is finally agreed and adopted into the Schedule.
Denmark remarked that it seemed premature to adopt the Resolution when a Working Group had just been established to discuss these issues. Because of the concerns raised, further discussion was deferred. On returning to the matter, the USA introduced some new wording into the first operative paragraph to meet these concerns, so that the Working Group to meet next year would consider the survey questions. Denmark proposed adding the same language to the final operative paragraph dealing with the scientists participating in the surveys. This was seconded by Switzerland but defeated on a show of hands.
Norway received confirmation from the Chairman of the Scientific Committee that the activities requested are the normal procedure of that Committee, although it was unclear what was meant by 'oversight'. Further discussion between Norway and the USA led to editorial changes to the text to clarify that the Working Group would discuss the issue and its implications.
Japan could not accept and was ashamed by the concept that the credibility of scientists and their research was being questioned, which does not occur in any other international fora.
Noting these comments from Japan, and the fact that Denmark was not convinced that this Resolution is within the terms of reference and also had some difficulties with parts of the contents, the Resolution shown in Appendix 8 was adopted.
Trade
The USA introduced a Resolution on improving mechanisms to prevent illegal
trade in whale meat, co-sponsored by Brazil and Oman.
This requests countries to adopt measures that will enable them to prevent
whale meat being taken in contravention of the ICRW and CITES by disposing of
stockpiles, market testing and identifying meat by DNA or isozyme analysis,
and prohibiting the sale of meat not taken in accordance with ICRW and CITES
provisions.
Although Switzerland was not opposed to the Resolution, it believed it went far beyond the scope of the Whaling Convention, while CITES has the competence in international trade. It would have to abstain if there was a vote. Japan had similar concerns and was opposed to the Resolution. It pointed out that there had been no discussion this year of monitoring domestic markets. Norway, St Vincent and the Grenadines and the Russian Federation had similar difficulties to Switzerland.
Denmark suggested a minor change of wording which made the text more acceptable to it, which was agreed by the USA. The Netherlands, Chile and Antigua and Barbuda all supported the Resolution.
The USA explained in response to St Lucia's concern for starving people that disposal domestically of stockpiles could be carried out by any means.
On being put to the vote, the Resolution shown in Appendix 7 was adopted by 21 votes in favour, with 3 against and 6 abstentions.
Mexico explained its abstention because of the issue of coordination between international organisations on trade and saw this as another reason for updating the 1946 Convention. Japan stated it will continue its efforts to prevent smuggling of whale products, but was opposed because of the legal issue and potential conflicts within the Commission.
_