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

Later in the meeting, Mr. Canny reported that he was encouraged to continue the process already underway. Ireland would not put forward a formal proposal but wished to retain the item until next year.

Brazil recalled the Commission's well-defined conservation profile and indicated that it will be making a proposal next year for a South Atlantic Ocean Sanctuary to promote whalewatching, research and conservation. The USA encouraged this action and supported non-consumptive use in the area.

Denmark noted that it is important to preserve whale stocks and to secure the survival of the IWC. Governments must cooperate with each other and it therefore hoped the Irish initiative would succeed.

The USA said it was willing to join a dialogue. It favoured conservation and protection and was concerned about the increase in catches. It had not seen progress in the discussions.

New Zealand spoke of its support for sanctuaries and will consult with partners on a South Pacific Sanctuary. It was willing to talk about all the elements underlying the Irish proposal but there needs to be participation from both sides. It highlighted the issues of coastal whaling and trade by Norway and an end to scientific whaling in the Antarctic by Japan, but thought that there was substantial middle ground. The Netherlands agreed, but this issue cannot be kept on the Agenda indefinitely.

Concerning a Sanctuary, Argentina mentioned the provisions of UNCLOS, and Mexico also referred to these principles. It was committed to whale conservation and protected areas, and had an interest in continuing the work.

Japan spoke of the different cultures, with New Zealand representing the meat-eaters and the Japanese as people whose main diet is fish. Fish make up about half the world's food supply. The IWC has turned into an organisation to protect whales, whereas it should consider the sustainable use of ocean resources and the total ecosystem. It saw no sign of this from New Zealand, and wished for a return to the original purposes of the Convention. More than 50% of countries in CITES supported Japan and it believed public opinion surveys supported whaling.

Sweden urged the two sides to move towards the middle ground; it is not enough to talk, there must be compromise. Switzerland agreed. The Irish proposal was courageous and it would like to see progress as patience will not go on for ever. Finland agreed with Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands, as did Germany which looked to protect whale stocks in future.

Norway stated that it was prepared to engage in talks. It could not accept the proposals as they stand but took them as a basis for discussion. It asked what compromises were expected, that it should give up everything?

The UK supported New Zealand and while it was prepared to talk it was not sure that progress is possible. Unless Japan will give up pelagic scientific whaling it saw no hope, but it was unsure about coastal whaling. It believed that if agreement is not possible then the process should not be prolonged. South Africa expressed its alarm at this view. The IWC has lost control over scientific whaling and national measures. The status quo does not achieve much, but the demise of the Commission will not improve matters. It saw no alternative but to pursue the issues as suggested by Sweden, a position also shared by Spain.

Antigua and Barbuda recalled that it had hosted the intersessional meeting of Commissioners because of its interest. It thought the anti-whaling countries had no flexibility, and cited a survey of four developed countries where the majority of people had no detailed information on whales but would support strictly controlled whaling.

Chile was optimistic for the future and asked for everyone to reconsider their positions. There was a new atmosphere from the countries in the middle ground where negotiations could start. Monaco thought compromise was honourable. A resumption of commercial whaling should be limited to coastal whaling under IWC control, with something else given up. There should be a limit to the time, but progress could be made by the next meeting in Grenada. France also thought there should be further consideration of a convincing basis for the conservation of whales, a clarification and renewal of the concepts used by the Commission, and a better adaptation to the present realities of international environment protection, but this should not continue for too long.

Australia looked for the key to the future. Governments must seek to bridge their differences. It wished for an end to scientific whaling, a ban on trade in whale products, and sanctuaries in the South Pacific as well as the South Atlantic. It could not embrace commercial whaling and sought a definition of aboriginal whaling, with no new categories. This was no basis for negotiating, and so was unlikely to be successful, but there is an evolution of attitudes.

St Lucia was disturbed to hear the view that the Irish proposal was not a basis for discussion, and commented on the antagonistic negotiating styles, with a deadlock between the east and west, and the IWC versus the NGOs. It thought more flexibility might lead to a solution.

The Republic of Korea recalled its own coastal whaling and its reasons for joining the Commission in 1978, to bring an orderly development, but it had accepted the moratorium in 1986. It wished to restore the objectives of the Convention and found the Irish ideas helpful. The People's Republic of China also found the proposal attractive. It favoured active conservation and reasonable utilisation, but on a sustainable basis for the future.

Italy commented that it was too early for it to join the discussion but that it was ready to examine any proposal.

The Irish Commissioner took note of all the comments and would continue the process, taking account of the reservations expressed.

18.2 Health effects
Under this Agenda Item, Monaco introduced a Resolution co-sponsored by the USA on IWC concern about human health effects from the consumption of cetaceans. It spoke of the unclear health effects of organic contaminants and thought the IWC could consider under Article V.2(d) not just the economic but also the health interests of consumers. It invited national, international and WHO collaboration. The USA stated that it was concerned by the transfer of pollutants from cetaceans to people and wished to broaden IWC cooperation.

Japan noted the natural interest in this subject since the fish and krill eaten by whales causes an accumulation which required research on prey, feeding and pollutants. It was engaged in research in the Antarctic and the North Pacific and found that DDT, PCB and Cd levels are very low in minke whales but are higher in the North Pacific. They were also higher in fish than cetaceans and Japan asked why the focus was on cetaceans.

Denmark had concerns for two of the three parts of its Kingdom. This was not a general problem and related to toothed rather than baleen whales because of differences in the food chain levels. It looked for a reduction in sea waste deposits.

Norway saw this as a serious problem for indigenous people with a high marine mammal food intake. It was discussed at the Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council held in June 1997 in Norway and it was surprised one member put this forward here, as a matter of competence. It supported the substance of the proposal, but it lacked important elements and should be postponed for input from the Arctic Council.

The USA commented that whale research in the Arctic is not exclusive to the Arctic Council, with which we should co-operate as it does not have authority for whales. Norway responded that there was no reference in the Resolution to the Scientific Committee nor management of whale stocks.

Monaco recalled that Antarctic PCB levels are generally below safe thresholds and priority concerns are to gather information on small cetaceans which are consumed by people. North Atlantic pilot whale blubber has been found to have ten times the safe level, which is a reason for worry.

France voiced its hope for consensus, and the Resolution given in Appendix 12 was then adopted, noting the comments made.

_