13. SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY

(from "Chairman's Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting")


13.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
For the last three years the Scientific Committee has requested advice from the Commission on commonly agreed objectives for the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, in the context of a recommendation from a Commission Working Group in 1995. The Commission had as yet made no comment and the Committee drew the attention of the Commission to this and requested its advice. In particular, it noted that such advice is important in the context of developing a longer-term work plan and given that the Commission may require scientific advice when it reviews the Sanctuary provision in 2004.


13.2 Other matters
Japan circulated a paper summarising previously presented legal arguments and additional aspects concerning the IWC's designation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. It believes that the IWC has acted outside the terms of the Convention, without sciehtific justification, and it has not taken into account the interest of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry. It should not re-interpret the original purposes of the Convention and should consider the disputes resolution provisions under UNCLOS.

The UK commented on the late presentation of the document by Japan, which it therefore could not consider in detail. It should have been available several weeks in advance to contribute to the ongoing debate, but in its view the Sanctuary decision is legally valid. France supported this statement, and Italy stressed that a treaty has to be interpreted by custom, it was not convinced by Japan but inclined to the UK's reasoning and the evolutionary interpretation is correct. Chile commented that the Sanctuary was passed by a sufficient majority and was therefore legal. Brazil agreed. New Zealand strongly supported the Sanctuary which it believed was valid, noting that Japan had accepted it with an objection. It was open to move a further Schedule amendment to overturn that decision. Spain had no doubt about the validity and the USA considered all the issues had been resolved to its satisfaction. The Netherlands concurred with all these comments.

Antigua and Barbuda spoke of protected areas for fisheries management and sought an independent legal opinion on the legality of the Sanctuary. Dominica supported this view, and St Lucia noted that the decision had been taken by less than 50% of the world community. It thought the Commission should consider abolishing the Sanctuary.

When Antigua and Barbuda attempted to speak again, the UK raised a point of order on the number of interventions, considering the heavy agenda. Following exchanges between Norway, Japan, Grenada and Dominica, the Chairman ruled that Commissioners should speak once, but with a right to reply by the proposer. On a show of hands this was agreed by 20 votes in favour, with 1 against and 7 abstentions. Japan did not take part in the vote, considering the result was already known. A second vote on limiting the length of an intervention to two minutes was adopted by 11 votes in favour, with 1 against and 16 abstentions.

The Plenary was then adjourned for a Commissioners' meeting. After this it was announced that agreement had been reached such that there could be two interventions of reasonably limited length.


13.3 Action arising
Australia, on behalf of Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Italy, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, UK and USA introduced a Resolution setting out agreed objectives for the Sanctuary and promoting increased scientific research and cooperation.

Because of the large number of co-sponsors and wide-spread support, Australia suggested that the Resolution could be adopted by consensus. Japan stated its view that the Sanctuary does not have a scientific basis, which was why it had lodged its objection, since it applies regardless of the stock condition. The Resolution shown in Appendix 4 was then adopted. The Commission noted Japan's opposition.

A further Resolution proposed by Japan, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia and St Vincent and The Grenadines had the purpose of immediately abolishing the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and instructing the Scientific Committee to proceed with implementation trials for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. The Chairman ruled that this would commit the Commission to amend the Schedule and was therefore out of order; in addition, it had not been submitted 60 days in advance of the meeting. Japan said that it would observe the 60 day rule at next year's or a later meeting.

_