(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting")
Votes can he taken by a show of hands, or by roll call, as in the
opinion of the Chairman appears to be most suitable.
The election of the Chair, Vice-Chair, the appointment of the Secretary of
the Commission, and the selection of IWC Annual Meeting venue, shall all
proceed by secret ballot.
Japan announced in the Finance and Administration Committee that it would propose an amendment during the Plenary session. Given the political nature of this issue, the Chairman of the Committee suggested that it be referred to the Commission.
In the Commission the USA stated it was in favour of transparency, recalled the long history of open debate, and supported Monaco. Germany spoke similarly.
Norway proposed that the secret ballot should be 'upon request by a Commissioner' and that 'if at least five Commissioners so request any other vote shall proceed by secret ballot.' These amendments were supported by Japan.
Denmark preferred the maximum transparency as a general rule and opposed a secret ballot. It was against the last addition and did not like to change the tradition for election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, was hesitant about secret voting for the meeting venue but could accept it for the appointment of the Secretary.
Italy and Finland wished for maximum transparency but could go along with a vote for officers.
New Zealand supported Monaco and Norway since this conformed with the 1982 UN draft Rules of Procedure for election of officers. It was in favour of the freedom of environmental information and since views expressed were well known, a secret vote is not necessary to protect anyone's position. Sweden, the Solomon Islands and the Netherlands agreed, the latter favouring the first Norwegian amendment.
Antigua and Barbuda spoke of the countries vulnerable to threats by individuals and organisations, and supported Norway so as to vote without fear.
Brazil was in favour of transparency and so did not support the Norwegian proposal, while Germany wished to safeguard transparency and so supported the Monaco proposal.
The Chairman concluded that, with support indicated by Austria, Dominica, Grenada, Ireland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, UK and USA, the first addition by Norway was agreed.
The second addition proposed by Norway was then put to the vote, but was not adopted, there being 9 votes in favour, 21 against with 1 abstention. Spain explained its vote against was to improve transparency.
A proposal by Japan to amend the original Monaco text by adding:
and proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure may be decided by secret ballot.
For these mailers a secret ballot shall be used if requested by a Commissioner
and seconded by at least five other Commissioners
was also defeated with 11 votes in favour, 22 against and 1 abstention. Denmark slated that it accepted the majority position, even though it felt it was not transparent enough, and the Chairman confirmed that all the reservations expressed would be noted.
23.2 Environment Research Fund
By IWC Resolution 1998-6 the Commission agreed to consider at the
51st Annual Meeting the establishment of a dedicated Environment
Research Fund to facilitate research on environmental change and cetaceans as
well as the attendance at the Scientific Committee and other related meetings
of Invited Participants with relevant expertise in the priority areas of the
Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns.
In the Finance and Administration Committee, Japan stated that it was not happy with the creation of this fund. It would propose at a later stage a modification of the name of the fund. It was Japan's view that the creation of the fund requires the amendment of the Financial Regulations. The USA explained that this subject was under this Agenda Item in case a change to the Rules of Procedure were needed, which would be the case if a stand-alone fund were established. The alternative would be to earmark funds within the existing research fund, which could be done by a simple Commission decision. The Netherlands agreed with the USA, and it supported the alternative solution.
Denmark stressed its green credentials, but said it was very concerned with this item because of its belief in free choice among scientists. It was unhappy with the idea that scientists will be able to propose research in only one area. The Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee pointed out that unless a country proposes a change to the rules of procedure, the Committee does not have to deal with the issue. The Chairman closed the discussion by saying it appeared unlikely that a proposal to change the Rules of Procedure to establish a separate environmental research fund would emerge.
In the event, the Commission took no further action.
23.3 Observers
Last year the Commission decided, by IWC Resolution 1998-12, that the Advisory
Committee consider the following addition to the Rules of Procedure and report
to the 51st Annual Meeting:
The accreditation of an international organisation referred to in [Rule of
Procedure] C.1.(b) would be subject to immediate review and decision upon
submission to the IWC by a Contracting Government of legal evidence that such
an organisation has violated the laws of the Contracting Government or
threatened any individual; or upon submission of documentation that such an
organisation has caused economic hardship to the Contracting Government
because of participation or views expressed in the IWC.
In the Finance and Administration Committee the Netherlands mentioned that, with the USA, it would table a proposal different from the above. Japan announced that it too might propose a different rule. The Chairman of the Commission noted that the Advisory Committee had decided it was an inappropriate topic for that committee. The Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee then ended discussion by referring the matter to the Commission.
In the Commission the USA and the Netherlands proposed to amend Rule of Procedure C as follows:
Once an international organisation is accredited, it remains accredited until the Commission votes to revoke the organisation's accreditation.
Observers accredited in accordance with Rule C.1.(a) and (b) are admitted to all meetings of the Commission and the Technical Committee, and to any meetings of subsidiary groups of the Commission and the Technical Committee, except the Commissioners-only meetings and the meetings of the Finance and Administration Committee.
The USA believed that revoking accreditation is a political action, and observers should be admitted to all except Commissioner only and the Finance and Administration Committee to allow proceedings to be transparent. It disagreed with the suggestion from the Administrative Review that observers should be restricted to the plenary only, and it should not be possible for one delegation to bar an observer. It confirmed that these proposals do not apply to the Scientific Committee, which has its own rules.
The Secretary received confirmation that the present arrangement of retaining an observer on the invitation list up to two years after its last contact with the Commission is acceptable.
Norway thought the present rules function well, including the need for unanimous agreement on admission of observers, so it thought there was no need for change. Japan opposed the proposals which it saw as a violation of minority rights, and Denmark stated that it would abstain from a vote because it would have preferred to discuss an alternative Norwegian proposal first.
The proposed amendments were adopted by 21 votes in favour, with 9 opposed and 4 abstentions.
Norway then introduced a proposal for a new paragraph C.1.(c) worded to reflect the text of last year's Resolution for immediate review and action for behaviour resulting in hardship.
Antigua and Barbuda expressed its disappointment that the Advisory Committee could not handle this matter and the procedure just followed. Denmark suggested deleting the text following the semi-colon referring to economic hardship, which Norway still thought had merit. The UK queried some of the language proposed; who would carry out the immediate review and decide? The text was ambiguous concerning legal evidence and violating laws, and it would prefer to leave the matter to the procedure already decided. South Africa had similar concerns over the language. The USA found the narrow approach suggested difficult to accept, Switzerland had similar views, while it was sympathetic to the concerns of small states, and the Netherlands thought the proposal was an unnecessary restriction on how to handle such cases.
St Vincent and The Grenadines thought that the Commission should draw the line at economic sanctions, and St Lucia also supported Norway, since Small Island Developing States were convinced that action must be taken against such perpetrators and it was already agreed to admit observers to all meetings. Dominica expressed its support to strengthen the arguments put forward last year. Japan recalled that it had been libelled in a document last year which led to the Resolution resulting in this text, and wondered why governments were opposed now. Some NGOs go too far, and it cited the threats to its research vessel damaged by fire and the leaking of confidential information from a preliminary meeting this year. The Solomon Islands pointed out that it lacked the resources to counter these problems and thought Norway had provided the mechanism. Antigua and Barbuda agreed, stating that less developed members need protection and looked for cooperation in sustainable use of the ocean resources. The People's Republic of China gave its support in principle, seeking to obtain a balance between the NGOs and Contracting Governments in an orderly manner.
After determining that the deletion proposed by Denmark had not been seconded or accepted by Norway, the proposal was put to the vote and was lost by 12 votes in favour to 14 against, with 7 abstentions. Argentina explained that its lack of support did not imply a lack of sympathy and consideration for those affected.
On 26 May the Chairman notified the Commission that demonstrators representing Breach Marine Protection had forced their way into the Secretariat offices in Cambridge and had to be removed by the police. This was not acceptable behaviour by an NGO, and he proposed that the Commission should revoke the accreditation of Breach. This proposal received overwhelming support from the Commission.
A letter signed by many of the NGOs attending the annual meeting also condemned the action.
23.4 Scientific Committee
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee introduced the revised proposals for
amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee.
Delegates in the Finance and Administration Committee were encouraged to
comment on the changes by the Scientific Committee to its rules.
Australia mentioned that it was glad to see that the language of the preambular clauses had been amended since last year to reflect more closely the Convention text. It further commented that paragraph A.6.(g) of the draft should be further examined. In particular, Australia considered its reference to the Chairman ruling Invited Participants out of order was inappropriate in a letter of invitation. It was agreed that the relevant phrase 'the Chairman may at his/her discretion rule them out of order' would be deleted. In response to a question from the UK, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee confirmed that the proposed procedure (set out at the end of paragraph A.6.(b)) of notifying the governments of domicile of Invited Participants was intended simply to provide more flexibility within the budget and not as a means of vetting or vetoing participants.
Japan expressed concerns regarding Section F of the proposed Rules, entitled Review of Scientific Permits. It agreed with the proposed changes in principle, but wanted to retain the ability for special permits to be reviewed by postal procedures, e-mail or fax. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee responded by saying that the Scientific Committee believed that past experience had shown the need for face-to-face dialogue in the review process, as such discussions had often led to improvements in proposals.
Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica expressed their concern over the proposed rule F.2 that stated: 'The review process shall take into account guidelines issued by the Commission,' questioning whether that implied a sort of censorship over IWC scientists. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee did not consider that Commission guidance, such as IWC Resolutions 1986-2 and 1995-9, amounted to censorship.
The Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee noted that the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee, as amended above, were endorsed by the Committee and recommended for adoption by the Commission.
In the Commission, Japan repeated its support in principle for the amendments but again expressed its concern over the review process for Special Permits, especially if the annual meeting of the Scientific Committee was held in the Autumn again.
The People's Republic of China questioned the reference to the domicile of Invited Participants, especially if it were not a Contracting Government, and why not nationality? The Secretary explained the present procedure and why the Commission had decided it preferred the place of domicile.
23.5 Action arising
The decisions on the various sub-items of the proposed amendments to the
Commission's Rules of Procedure are described above.
The texts of the revised Rules adopted are included in the latest published
version of the Rules of Procedure from pp. 93-103 of this volume.
The Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee were also adopted by the Commission and are published in this volume.
_