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

This year, Japan proposed the following rule:

'Votes can be taken by a show of bands, or by roll call, as in the opinion of the Chairman appears to be most suitable. Votes shall be taken by secret ballots when this request is made by a Contracting Government and seconded by three or more Contracting Governments, one of whom is either a proponent of the issue to be voted upon, or is specifically named in the said issue, or is directly affected by the vote to be taken.'

Japan explained that it had expanded the amendment proposed at the 49th meeting to the form above (new text in bold) because it believed it important that a country with no direct interest in an issue should not be able to call for a secret vote.

Japan pointed out that both the information compiled by the Secretariat and their own research showed that a number of other organisations (among them CCAMLR, ICCAT, CITES and ICSEAF) that could be used for purposes of comparison employed the secret ballot under certain conditions. Japan went on to say that because the press is allowed to cover the IWC, pre-vote discussions would reveal a country's intent, thereby obviating any concerns about the transparency of the organisation. Finally, Japan maintained that the IWC would be out-of-step with other similar organisations if it fails to approve the secret ballot initiative.

The UK spoke in opposition, stressing the need for true transparency in the IWC and strongly opposing Japan's initiative. The Netherlands, Spain, Germany and Brazil associated themselves with the UK's remarks. The USA also strongly opposed the proposed amendment, citing the IWC's history of mismanagement of whale stocks in its argument for transparency.

Antigua and Barbuda strongly supported Japan, noting the vulnerability of smaller member countries to potential economic measures that could be organised by groups opposed to the way a member country votes. It demanded the right to vote 'free of fear', and noted that CITES uses the secret ballot very successfully. St Vincent and The Grenadines, St Lucia and Dominica agreed. St Lucia questioned the fear of the secret ballot by the so-called developed countries which have categorically stated that they would never agree to a resumption of commercial whaling. Were these developed countries afraid that their satellites would vote against their dictates? St Lucia's concern was also expressed about the harassment and intimidation directed at developing countries by certain NGOs and associates of the developed countries.

Denmark intervened to deplore the sort of economic pressure described by Antigua and Barbuda, but stated that it had always opposed secret ballots in international organisations and opposed the Japanese amendment. New Zealand said the amendment would be a retrograde step, and that it believes the IWC should be subject to the maximum possible scrutiny. Australia concurred with New Zealand, then disagreed with Antigua and Barbuda's mention of CITES as an organisation where the secret ballot works well, noting that intimidation has not disappeared from that organisation and that not all vulnerable states were on one side of an issue. Norway said that the organisation owes it to the Caribbean countries to explore ways to address the sort of intimidation they could suffer. Norway also said it would go along with a 'reasonable' system of secret balloting.

At this point in the Finance and Administration Committee meeting Japan questioned the presence of a number of NGO observers sitting with a national delegation and displaying NGO identification badges. It recalled that the Finance and Administration Committee is closed to observers and requested that those observers wearing NGO badges leave the meeting.

The USA explained that, earlier in the day, it had submitted the names of several persons to the Secretariat for the purposes of accrediting them to its delegation during the discussion of the secret ballot item only. This was consistent with the Commission's Rules of Procedure. The USA pointed out that the question of secret balloting is one of policy, unlike the financial and administrative matters normally handled by the Committee.

Japan responded that, regardless of whether the USA submitted valid credentials and whether it was accepted, persons wearing badges denoting NGO status were present. The proper procedure that each NGO should follow is to acquire appropriate status and wear the correct badge with the status of national delegates and until such time as this was carried out the NGO observers should leave.

The Chairman asked the Secretary whether the credentials of the additional members of the USA delegation satisfied the Commission's Rules of Procedure. The Secretary confirmed that the credentials in question were in order. The Chairman then asked anyone in the meeting who was not properly accredited to leave the room. No one did, so he concluded that everyone present was properly accredited.

Japan objected to the Chairman's ruling, stating that it did not conform to what Japan understood to be the clear intention of the Commission's rules. Japan then left the meeting as an expression of dissatisfaction with the ruling, and Norway proposed that the meeting be adjourned. This was agreed.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION
In the Commission, Japan spoke of the survey of other organisations carried out by the Secretary which concluded in summary that secret ballots are available for use on request in CCAMLR, CMS, CITES, ICCAT and ICSEAF. In the case of IOC and ICES the provision for secret ballots applies to elections. It cited a number of other UN-based organisations with similar provisions and repeated its arguments for such an arrangement in the IWC, since small island nations are subject to NGO pressures of economic boycotts, while transparency is secured by the statements of nations voting in the meeting open to the Press.

The Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, USA, France, New Zealand, Spain, Germany, UK, Norway, Italy, Chile, Monaco, Argentina, Sweden, India, South Africa, Finland and Austria stressed the importance of transparency and thought secret ballots were not the answer to the problem, although a number of governments accepted that they could be used in the election of officers. Japan commented on the differing positions of some countries in other organisations.

Ireland had some sympathy with the problem and did not condone intimidation, but could not support the proposal. Brazil spoke of the full accountability required under Agenda 21 on environmental matters, and the Republic of Korea spoke of the options of voting by show of hands or roll call which gives useful contact, and secret ballot.

Antigua and Barbuda stressed the importance of the issue of freedom from fear, particularly for small island states and their resource management. The Solomon Islands supported the idea for use if requested, and Grenada, St Lucia and Dominica voiced their support. The People's Republic of China also supported the proposal since it believed transparency does not contradict the use of a secret ballot, a view shared by St Kitts and Nevis.

Monaco believed that the majority were against the proposal for deciding policy, but thought secret votes could be used in electing the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, the appointment of the Secretary and the selection of Annual Meeting venues. Mexico agreed and the meeting set up a small group led by Monaco to report back.

St Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and Grenada commented that the presence of certain NGOs in the meeting was itself intimidating, even when they were members of a national delegation, and they issued Opening Statements which were untruthful. They called for their expulsion. Japan explained its overseas aid programme to more than 100 countries which was not linked to voting policy.

Following a Commissioners' meeting one Opening Statement was withdrawn from the meeting documentation by the Commission and a clarification of another issued by the NGO concerned. The Secretary was requested to draft guidelines for Opening Statements by observers in future.

Subsequently Monaco, seconded by Mexico, put forward an amendment to Japan's proposal to provide for secret ballots for selection of officers and meeting venues. Australia, seconded by Sweden proposed to add 'upon request by a Commissioner'; and Antigua and Barbuda, seconded by Dominica, proposed adding voting on non-binding Resolutions to those that shall proceed by secret ballot. This latter amendment was lost by 9 votes to 21, with 3 abstentions, whereupon Japan withdrew its original proposal.

The question of the effect of such a withdrawal by the proposer on the Agenda Item was then raised by Monaco and the Chairman was asked to give a ruling. From a precedent set by legal advice obtained by the Commission following the 13th (1961) Annual Meeting and based on UN rules, the Chairman made a distinction between an agenda item and a proposal under that Agenda Item. He ruled that the Agenda Item as such cannot be withdrawn at this time as it had been adopted by the Commission under Agenda Item 4. In relation to the proposal under the Agenda Item, it was valid for Japan to withdraw its sponsorship of the particular proposal made under this Agenda Item and the proposal now did not have a formal proposer. It was, therefore, open to any other nation to reintroduce a proposal.

Monaco and New Zealand accepted this ruling, but Japan believed the precedent used was inappropriate especially since the substantive discussion had taken place. St Lucia was not prepared to accept the ruling unless legal advice was available and the matter was put to the vote. The Chairman's ruling was then upheld, with 23 votes in favour, 5 against and 5 abstentions. Japan explained its abstention and appreciated the efforts of the Chairman; St Lucia stated it did not deliberately challenge the ruling of the Chairman; and Antigua and Barbuda commented on the fundamental importance of the issue to the organisation and thought the matter could have waited until the 51^st meeting, and therefore voted no.

21.2 Observers
The USA and the Netherlands proposed to add a new Rule of Procedure which would have the effect of admitting Observers to any subsidiary meetings of the Commission or the Technical Committee, and intersessional meetings, other than Commissioners' meetings and the Finance and Administration Committee. This was not discussed in the Finance and Administration Committee before that meeting was adjourned, and the USA notified the Commission that it would defer the matter to next year.

Antigua and Barbuda, on behalf of the People's Republic of China, Norway and South Africa, introduced a Resolution on review of observer status. It explained that this sought to establish a better relationship between state parties and NGO observers. Norway commented that the matter arose in the discussion of secret balloting. It thought something was needed in the Rules of Procedure to give more responsibilities amongst observers. Those carrying out criminal acts against whalers are already banned, and it foresaw a situation needing rules to cover those causing economic hardship.

New Zealand supported actions against observers which pose threats and was sympathetic, but it had problems with the operative paragraph. The USA agreed, and suggested referring the matter to the Advisory Committee. Denmark concurred. Norway formally proposed that the Advisory Committee should be the starting point for consideration, and Finland seconded this amendment.

Grenada disagreed totally with New Zealand and the USA, proposing that the Commission should go further and set up an IWC legal defence fund.

Italy could not support the Resolution since it was not within the competence of IWC to decide if states' laws had been violated. St Lucia disagreed, but thought the matter could be postponed to next year.

The UK questioned the role of the Advisory Committee on such an issue, and Norway and South Africa agreed with the elements of the Rule and the amendments. New Zealand urged finding an alternative to going to the Advisory Committee, since this would give a quasi-endorsement of the wording rather than a general mandate.

Monaco proposed that the operative paragraph should be to consider 'appropriate additions to the Rules of Procedure', but this was unacceptable to the sponsors.

Further exchanges involving Antigua and Barbuda, Norway, Italy, South Africa, the Netherlands, Australia and Austria showed that there was no consensus, and the Resolution given in Appendix 16 was put to the vote and adopted by 14 vote in favour to 10 against, with 10 abstentions.

Antigua and Barbuda thanked those who voted in favour for supporting small developing countries. Monaco expressed its support for the Caribbean states and the respect for freedom of speech, and South Africa explained that there was no attempt to limit freedom of speech.

21.3 Advisory Committee
Last year, when the Commission decided by IWC Resolution 1997-10 to establish an Advisory Committee, it suggested that the Secretary draw up a Rule of Procedure for consideration at the next meeting. After a brief discussion of his proposed text, it was decided that New Zealand and Norway would reformulate the Rule to better define the role of the Advisory Committee.

The text they submitted was amended at the suggestion of the Chairman, which Netherlands was happy to support, that the Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee should also be a member of the Advisory Committee. The text as amended is:

'The Commission shall establish an Advisory Committee. This Committee shall comprise the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee, Secretary and two Commissioners to broadly represent the interests within the IWC forum. The appointment of the Commissioners shall be for two years on alternative years.

The role of the Committee shall be to assist and advise the Secretariat on administrative matters upon request by the Secretariat or agreement in the Commission. The Committee is not a decision-making forum and shall not deal with policy matters or administrative matters that are within the scope of the Finance and Administration Committee other than making recommendations to this Committee.'

The Commission agreed to add this as new Rule of Procedure M.9.

21.4 Scientific Committee
Last year, the Scientific Committee had developed revised Rules of Procedure and agreed that they should be given final consideration at the 50th meeting. The Scientific Committee reviewed the draft Rules, and in particular the experience gained in trying to use the rules developed last year concerning invited participants. It agreed to a suggested modification to these to take into account problems encountered.

However, because the Finance and Administration Committee meeting was adjourned before it considered these rules, the Commission agreed that they should be tabled again next year.

21.5 Action arising
No other actions were taken.

_