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

In 1994, the Commission requested the Scientific Committee to: identify and assess the potential impacts of whalewatching on cetaceans; examine the current status of methods of assessment of impacts; and provide advice on future whalewatching based on an assessment of impacts. Last year the Commission had reviewed the preliminary report submitted by the Scientific Committee.

This year a Working Group undertook three main tasks:

(1)

to review the set of generalised 'rules of encounter' circulated for comment last year;

(2)

to review other available reports and information related to whalewatching;

(3)

to assess possible future work by the Scientific Committee.

The Scientific Committee noted that there is at present no direct statement from the Commission as to what its objectives may be in developing guidelines for the management of whalewatching. For the purposes of discussion it has been assumed that the primary objective is to ensure that development of whalewatching is ecologically sustainable and meets, to the extent possible, the requirements of the industry and expectations of the wider community.

The Scientific Committee recommended that the Commission consider the following proposed objectives as the basis for further consideration of issues relating to the management of whalewatching:

(1)

ensuring that whalewatching does not significantly increase the risk to the survival or ecological functioning of local populations or species or their environment; and therefore, in the short-term, that whalewatching does not result in significant adverse change in population dynamics such as birth or mortality rates, or impede normal patterns of habitat use or activity, including feeding, resting and reproduction;

(2)

the development and maintenance of viable and responsible whalewatching activities.

Last year, the Scientific Committee had considered proposed general rules of encounter and this year it reviewed these and agreed that detailed rules should be developed on a case by case basis. From a scientific perspective, prerequisites for the development of a management framework able to provide for sustainable whalewatching include: an understanding of the biology of the species concerned; an understanding of the characteristics of operations and craft; and some means of providing even a very preliminary assessment of the 'carrying capacity' for whalewatching in an area, preferably in the context of broader regional planning for a range of other marine activities.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the following three general principles should be taken into account as more detailed case-specific rules are developed:

(1)

manage the development of whalewatching to minimise the risk of adverse impacts;

(2)

design, maintain and operate platforms to minimise the risk of adverse effects on cetaceans, including disturbance from noise;

(3)

allow cetaceans to control the nature and duration of interactions.

The Scientific Committee noted that more research is required to determine appropriate minimum distances for different species. It agreed that the optimal approach in developing regulatory frameworks would be in the broader context of coastal zone or regional management, in which whalewatching was considered with other uses of the sea.

The Scientific Committee recommended these general principles to the Commission as the basis for initial general advice for the Commission to provide to coastal states in order to assist them to develop a management framework for whalewatching.

The Scientific Committee had no new information with which it could assess the implications of short-term behavioural reactions or their linkage with longer-term reactions. Nor had it any new information on which it could base more specific advice to the Commission on either assessments of the range of approach distances, or numbers or types of activity that might be appropriate in a range of areas, including feeding grounds, migratory pathways and breeding and calving areas. It identified the following priority areas for further work and for consideration at the 1997 and subsequent meetings:

(a)

a more detailed review of the approach distances, effort and activity limitations in place in existing operations for a range of species, and information on the basis for such controls;

(b)

an assessment of current studies of the effects of different approach distances and platforms;

(c)

a review of the quantitative methods used to assess the short-term reactions of cetaceans and the basis for judgements of adverse effects;

(d)

comparative studies on different approaches/distances and other controls which may be required on areas important for feeding, resting and reproduction.

The Scientific Committee drew attention to its plans for future work and requested that the Commission indicates whether it considers that any other subjects require the Committee 's attention.

A number of delegations congratulated the Scientific Committee on the work it had done and for the progress achieved. Both the Objectives and Principles were recommended by the Technical Committee to the Commission.

The Netherlands contemplated incorporating these items in a Resolution, which would give them more weight. Discussion suggested the need to keep these interim guidelines open so that other aspects might be incorporated as they arise.

Japan stated its view that this topic does not fit with IWC competence; noted the possible conflict of the whalewatching industry with others such as the fishing industry; and looked for an ecosystem perspective in the development of the whalewatching industry in balance with other industries. It further stated that the task of the IWC, if any, to develop general guidelines for management of whalewatching seems now to have been completed because detailed elaboration and implementation of these guidelines are to be left to each nation.

The question of future work by the Scientific Committee was forwarded by the Technical Committee to the plenary.

Spain concluded the discussion in the Technical Committee by announcing it had adopted new regulations for whalewatching in the Canary Islands, and its intention to have regulations for its mainland.

6.2 Development of guidelines
The Netherlands reiterated its view of whalewatching as a form of non-lethal and sustainable use of whales. It thought it useful to enshrine the objectives and principles in a Resolution which the Commission can offer to countries for the development of their own national rules.

6.3 Action arising
The Commission adopted the Objectives and Principles for managing whalewatching proposed by the Scientific Committee. It also approved the future work programme of the Scientific Committee on this topic after clarification in response to the Russian Federation that this would be part of the normal work pattern of the Scientific Committee with no major financial implications for the member governments.

The Netherlands, on behalf of Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, Mexico, Monaco, Oman, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, UK and USA, introduced a Resolution which underlined the IWC's future role in monitoring and advising on whalewatching, provided a foundation for taking forward further scientific work needed to ensure policies and decisions are soundly based, gave coastal states authoritative advice to assist them in developing national policies and rules, and aimed to ensure that educational, economic and social aspects are addressed.

The Russian Federation pointed out that control should not be limited to coastal states but was a matter for flag states on the high seas, and thought that the Commission should only give advice on such economic activities of sovereign states. However, it did not oppose the Resolution. Japan restated its belief that this matter is outside the framework of the Convention, expressed concern over possible adverse impacts of whalewatching on whales and noted the change in the work priorities of the Commission itself.

The Commission noted these comments and adopted the Resolution shown in Appendix 2 by consensus.

_