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

Norway commented that the IWC is not adhering to the Convention, it has become a protectionist organisation with no will to lift the moratorium. Whaling is carried out by non-members so that the IWC is irrelevant. Norway is willing to continue in the Convention, but any compromise must not establish provisions incompatible with general international law. The continuing dysfunction is a concern to conservationists.

New Zealand spoke of the alleged slow progress on the issues of the RMS and small-type whaling, and the changed views on the international commons. The Commission can still reach decisions and negotiate so it is not hopelessly deadlocked. New Zealand is still prepared to talk on all aspects of the Irish proposal, and asked if Norway is prepared to talk about trade and Japan to discuss a possible end to research whaling.

Denmark supported a compromise allowing cautious limited commercial whaling in a safe procedure. All sides must give up something to keep the IWC alive.

The UK supported the comments by New Zealand. It had given much thought to the Irish proposal, but its ultimate aim is a permanent worldwide moratorium on all whaling other than aboriginal subsistence whaling. It saw no indication yet of an end to whaling on the high-seas, including scientific whaling; it strongly supported proposals for regional sanctuaries; and it wanted to encourage the emphasis of scientific advice to be directed away from management of stocks and more towards conservation issues. The Commission should continue assessment of the impact of environmental changes and have a greater involvement in small cetaceans. It believed whalewatching provides a benign and sustainable way of exploiting natural resources, and that the IWC should continue to concern itself in welfare issues and the development of more efficient and humane killing methods, particularly in aboriginal subsistence whaling. It thought that the IWC does have a future.

Spain believed that the IWC should control whaling all over the world to ensure the conservation and recovery of species, and consensus is needed.

The USA thanked the Chairman for his leadership. It was willing to join in discussions to maintain stocks at healthy levels, and spoke of the issues of trade, lethal scientific and pelagic whaling, and small cetaceans.

Japan noted the Irish proposal as the focus of discussion, and remarked on the use by the UK of the term conservation, which implies rational utilisation, as in CCAMLR. New sanctuaries are being proposed and a core group of four nations is opposed to whaling. There are negative elements in the Irish proposal such as permitting whaling only in coastal waters, halting scientific whaling, and monitoring the trade channels, but it hoped for compromise and the completion of the RMS.

St Vincent and The Grenadines wanted an identification of those countries opposed to a resumption of commercial whaling regardless of the RMS.

Chile wished to continue the search for consensus. It thought a picture is emerging and there is a need for flexibility in negotiation, not confrontation. It was hopeful for the future. Switzerland agreed with these comments and those of Spain and the USA. It noted increased whaling activities outside IWC control and supported the Irish proposal.

Australia commented on the issues which divide members. It supported some of the Irish proposal, but not the return of commercial whaling, and saw no basis for consensus. It hoped that this would not paralyse the other work of the IWC, where there had been solid work and achievement in the past year.

France looked to find a way out of the stalemate, with efficient protection of whales and continuity for communities which rely on whales. It suggested a procedural Approach through a small group.

Sweden recognised that the IWC is the only internationally accepted body for the conservation of whales. It looked for a comprehensive solution based on the precautionary principle and sustainable use. Mexico supported these views.

Germany said that the package contains difficult elements for everyone. For it, renewed coastal whaling is one, and it looked for concessions from whaling countries. It wished for credibility of the IWC and the best use of its instruments to effectively conserve the whale stocks.

The People's Republic of China expressed its view that there should be active conservation and rational utilisation of whale resources, with sustainable development based on science as the way to step forward.

The Netherlands welcomed the Irish proposal as a basis for effective conservation. It would continue to play a constructive role, and opposed practices not adopted by the Commission. It supported research on the environment, measures to conserve threatened populations of small cetaceans, development of humane hunting methods and promotion of regulated whalewatching.

Antigua and Barbuda identified other problems. The IWC membership is too narrow, there is a need to attract new members, particularly developing nations, and it noted the money made by NGOs from the whaling issue rather than coastal states.

Finland supported the statements by Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands.

Monaco thought that the cessation of yearly meetings will not change attitudes. There is a need to change the rules, which will take time, with longer intervals.

Brazil wished to keep the spirit of cooperation, discussing all aspects, with intersessional consultations. South Africa also supported the efforts made to break the deadlock and for conservation of the whale resources.

Dominica thought the discussions only perpetuated the deadlock. There are cultural differences and need, and the Commission does not heed scientific advice, and it cited the RMP. Governments are not willing to compromise, and it shared the views stated by Antigua and Barbuda and Monaco.

Finally, St Lucia argued that the IWC is only surviving from year to year, it has postponed the RMS for another year, the finances are controlled by a core group and the membership is small. It commented on the UN scale salary of the Secretary and the high government contributions, and wondered about the future.

_