17. COOPERATION WITH OTHER ORGANISATIONS

(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting")


The Scientific Committee received and considered the relevant aspects of the reports from IWC Observers who had attended the meetings of other Inter-Governmental Organisations with whom we have reciprocal arrangements. These included CMS (Scientific Council and ASCOBANS), ICES, IATTC, CCAMLR, NAMMCO, SO-GLOBEC, FAO/COFI. Its comments were noted by the Commission.


17.1 CMS
CMS had requested that the IWC consider developing a Memorandum of Understanding to improve communication between the two Secretariats.

Japan saw this as a low priority since it concerns small cetaceans and would not support the idea.

Germany pointed out that CMS also deals with whales through ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS and thought it would be useful to have close contact and that the idea should be explored. The Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, UK, France, Finland and Sweden agreed with Germany, while the Russian Federation, although not a member of CMS thought it would be useful to use the results from that organisation and so supported cooperation.

Dominica expressed its reservation because of the small cetacean question.

The Chairman concluded that there was wide support to explore the idea further.


17.2 CITES
The USA introduced a resolution on cooperation between the IWC and CITES, co-sponsored by Austria, Brazil, Monaco, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK. It commented that all species of whales are listed in CITES Appendix I apart from the West Greenland minke, which are listed in Appendix II.

Norway saw this as an attempt to divert the legal responsibility of the IWC, since CITES is concerned with species threatened with extinction. Grenada agreed, commenting that CITES has particular functions. It recorded its serious reservations. Japan also concurred, believing that CITES should make its own judgements. The zero catch limit is a political decision and scientific information is required.

Spain endorsed the resolution, noting that commercial and market questions are the responsibility of the EC.

Denmark recalled that trade issues are the concern of CITES and the WTO and would abstain, and noted that there had not been much progress on the RMS.

Antigua and Barbuda thought the resolution badly drafted, confrontational and interfering, and requested it be withdrawn.

Switzerland supported the resolution, pointing out that these are separate Conventions which act independently, and the CITES Secretariat has an obligation to consult with the IWC on cetacean issues. Oman and Chile also gave their support. Finland voiced its support to prevent illegal trade in whale meat, noting that this is appropriate because of the CITES Conference of the Parties to be held in Spring 2000. Sweden agreed.

St Lucia believed that the 140 countries in CITES will take the right decision as they did with elephants. The Russian Federation supported cooperation but opposed the resolution for the reasons given by Norway, Denmark, Antigua and Barbuda and others. The Solomon Islands were also opposed, pointing out the respective memberships of 140 and 40, Dominica noted that the Scientific Committee has not recommended zero catch limits, and St Kitts and Nevis would not support a resolution of this kind.

Australia believed that this proposal does not interfere with the flow of scientific information and gave its support, since there are different positions in the two bodies.

In response to a question from Antigua and Barbuda, the Secretary related how scientific advice is forwarded to CITES through provision of the appropriate sections of the reports of the Scientific Committee. Antigua and Barbuda thought this resolution would restrict the flow of information.

Japan commented that FAO promotes the sustainable use of resources, and thought that CITES should manage whale stocks rather than the IWC.

The Resolution given in Appendix 7 was then adopted, with 21 votes in favour, 10 against and 3 abstentions.

_