23. IWC ADMINISTRATION (1997)

23. IWC ADMINISTRATION

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

23.1 Review of administrative arrangements
New Zealand submitted a document discussing the administrative practices of the IWC and suggesting that some of these might be reviewed. The idea of a review had been supported by Commissioners at their Special Meeting held in Grenada in January 1997.

The discussion of this Item in the Finance and Administration Committee began with the Secretariat reviewing the history and growth of the IWC and its Secretariat and noting that it was 15 years since the last review, so that another review would be timely. After the Secretariat declared its support, a number of delegations also supported the idea of a review and the concept (if not the name) of an Executive Committee as described in the New Zealand paper. It was agreed that New Zealand should meet informally with other countries to produce a version of the New Zealand proposal that the entire Commission will be able to endorse.

23.2 Action arising
Discussion on a first draft proposal from New Zealand included suggestions from Spain that IWC meetings should be shortened, that any advisory committee should deal with administration rather than policy, and that the external review should cause the minimum disruption to the work of the Secretariat.

Switzerland suggested that IWC meetings could be held every second year, and compared the proposed advisory committee to the CITES Standing Committee. Japan was concerned over the 0,000 suggested cost of the external review compared to research expenditure and oversight of abundance surveys, while Norway strongly supported comments from the Chairman of the Scientific Committee on the value of the work of the Secretariat to his Committee.

The Chairman concluded that there was support for the issues but concern over the details, and suggested that two separate Resolutions should be prepared. He stressed that there was no implied criticism of the Secretariat, but that a review is a normal practice.

Subsequently, New Zealand introduced two draft Resolutions - one on the need for an external review of the Commission's administrative systems; and the second on the establishment of an Advisory Committee to the Secretariat and Commission. The latter would have a support role, and be composed of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and two Commissioners serving for two years.

Japan raised the budget implications of the administrative review, and with the addition of the words 'with a budget of no more than 」50,000' the Commission adopted the Resolution shown in Appendix 9. This authorised the proposal and requested the Advisory Committee to consider the proposed Terms of Reference, and to select and appoint an external consultant to report back to the 51st Annual Meeting.

The UK supported the concept of an Advisory Committee and suggested that the Secretary draw up a Rule of Procedure for the next meeting in Oman.

After clarification from the UK to Spain that it was not suggesting a delay in creating the Advisory Committee, but that the Committee should be created and then later codified, the Commission adopted the Resolution shown in Appendix 10.

The Vice-Chairman informed the meeting that after consultation, the Commissioners for Norway and Mexico had volunteered to serve in the first year until the next meeting in Oman.