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

The Working Group discussed ways of better ensuring that all coastal states, in particular developing countries, were involved in the selection of stocks for further review. The Chairman suggested that a way forward might be for the Commission to accept the advice of the Scientific Committee on the topics for review in 1996, but only agree to the recommendation for topics for review in 1997 and 1998 on a provisional basis. The Secretariat could then be asked to consult all relevant coastal states and report back next year to the Commission, which would then take a definitive decision taking into account the views of the coastal states consulted. The Chairman undertook to propose a solution along these lines to the Commission. The Secretariat also agreed to inform the Commission which coastal states are contacted.

In the Commission Brazil explained its understanding of the Resolution adopted last year with the objectives of finding a procedure under which work can go forward on a consensual basis, taking account of the different views of the members on the question of the Commission's competence to deal with small cetaceans. It believed that this mechanism had now been achieved and that work can proceed in an effective way, taking cognizance of all the discussions in the Working Group.

Switzerland found it unclear how the issue was to be addressed. India and Japan noted the importance of involving non-member coastal states, and Argentina stressed the rights and interests of the coastal states and the development of a consensual approach.

The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reminded the Commission that it had made a thorough listing last year of the methods and guidelines it uses to select future small cetacean topics, but had received no feedback. The USA expressed its appreciation of the work of the Scientific Committee and supported its priorities.

The UK repeated the conclusion that coastal states should be consulted and involved in both choosing and reviewing the stocks considered, a position supported by Norway despite its view that the IWC does not have competence to deal with small cetaceans, with which Denmark expressed its sympathy. Spain also spoke in favour of avoiding the problem of competence and trying instead to act by consensus. The Netherlands and Sweden associated themselves with the views of the USA and the UK.

Australia proposed that the consultation process between Governments on priority topics should be carried out through the Secretariat and the comments relayed to the Chairman of the Scientific Committee before the next meeting.

Mexico noted the coming into force of the Law of the Sea Convention and the need to update the Whaling Convention. The Russian Federation saw Article 65 of UNCLOS as a justification for its view that the IWC does have competence for all cetaceans, so long as it did not place any additional administrative or financial burden on the Commission.

IWC Voluntary Fund
In discussing the IWC Voluntary Fund for small cetacean research the Working Group agreed that the main point at issue - guidance on how money from the fund should be disbursed - was more properly a matter for the Finance and Administration Committee, and the Secretariat was asked to draft a set of guidelines for utilisation of the Small Cetacean Voluntary Fund to serve as a basis for discussion in that Committee.

Future of the Working Group
It was noted that the proper title of the group is 'Working Group to Consider a Mechanism to Address Small Cetaceans in the Commission' and some delegations suggested that the Working Group had gone as far as it could in addressing this issue and should be wound up. Others suggested that the group might continue, but with different terms of reference. The Working Group was not able to reach any agreement on this point, but there was a general feeling that it was important that small cetacean issues should, bearing in mind the differing views on competence, continue to have a firm place on the agenda of the Commission. It was agreed to leave it to the Commission to take a decision on the future of the Group.

9.2 Action arising
Discussion of the practicalities of the consultation process to determine the subjects to be reviewed by the Scientific Committee between the UK, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Australia, the USA and the Chairman of the Commission led to agreement on the following process.

When the Commission receives the Scientific Committee's advice on topics for review by the Sub-committee on Small Cetaceans in 1996, 1997 and 1998, it should accept the topics for 1996, since the Sub-committee needs at least a year to get the work organised. But agreement on the topics for 1997 and 1998 is on a provisional basis and the Secretary is asked to consult and seek the views of the member and non-member coastal and range states, and to clarify whether or not they wish to be involved. The Secretary will then pass on this information to the member governments and seek their views, which will be passed on to the Scientific Committee to take into account when making recommendations to next year's meeting. The Commission could then confirm the topics for review for 1997 and 1998, and would also receive recommendations on provisional topics for review in 1999 to start the three year cycle again.

Further exchanges between the USA, Brazil, the Russian Federation and Japan on the future of the Working Group concluded in the agreement that this item should remain on the agenda as the focus for discussion in the Commission on these matters in the future.

St Vincent and the Grenadines introduced a Resolution on behalf of St Lucia, Dominica and Grenada, members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), which has responsibility for the management of all fisheries in the area. Since the Commission has no clear position on its own competence for small cetaceans, the Resolution calls on the Commission to recognise the sovereign rights of the states for management, and to exclude outside jurisdiction, including any resolutions which may come forward.

Japan supported this proposal, and Norway thought it in order for these countries to express their point of view even though it did not oppose the Scientific Committee involving itself in work in this field. However, Switzerland, the Netherlands, UK, Brazil, USA, Mexico, Spain, Finland, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Oman, France and the Russian Federation all had some misgivings, including the need for such a Resolution and the precise language used concerning accepting sovereign rights.

Antigua and Barbuda emphasised that the proposal was a direct result of the failure of the IWC to make a decision on the question of small cetaceans, but conceded that the point might be better accepted as a statement. The Republic of Korea spoke in favour of management by regional bodies. Grenada noted the use of small cetaceans as part of the food supply, the increasing world food requirements, and the need for regional management to avoid the irrational policies of animal rights extremists leading to trade boycotts which have infiltrated the IWC. St Lucia confirmed that the OECS does have the competence and ability in this matter, and Dominica emphasised its rights to control what takes place within its EEZ.

Monaco mentioned the particular problems of the Mediterranean Sea, which does not have 200 mile zones, and called on the IWC as the competent international body to consider these issues.

In response to these comments, St Vincent and the Grenadines stressed that its motivation was precisely because the Commission continued to act even in the absence of agreement on the competence issue. It offered an amendment to the Resolution in an attempt to meet the concerns expressed, and the item was adjourned for discussion outside the meeting.

On returning to the issue, the USA called for a vote on the Resolution because of its continuing discomfort, which was a view shared by India. France pointed out a minor amendment to the text, and the Russian Federation suggested changing all the references to 'waters' to 'territorial seas and Exclusive Economic Zones'. This was accepted by St Lucia on behalf of the co-sponsors. The Resolution, shown in Appendix 5 as amended, was then put to the vote and adopted, with 16 in favour, 3 against and 14 abstentions.

Explanations of their no votes were given by Australia, Mexico and USA on the grounds that they did not think it appropriate to deal with the issue by resolution. Spain, Sweden and South Africa abstained on the same grounds. Japan stated its yes vote should not be interpreted to affect its position with regard to IWC competence on small cetaceans.

_