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

(1)

increased cooperation, which is being developed through the SOWER 2000 programme, collaboration with CCAMLR and SO-GLOBEC;

(2)

non-lethal research, through the SOWER cruises monitoring whale species abundance south of 60°S and the blue whale project; and

(3)

long-term framework for non-lethal research, included in (1) and the Report of the Workshop on Climate Change and Cetaceans.

The Scientific Committee discussed whether the designation of the Sanctuary was important to research. Japan argued that research conducted in the area would have occurred whether or not the Sanctuary had been designated. A number of national programmes were cited in addition to the SOWER cruises and the JARPA programme, while the Australian programme was a direct response to the establishment of the Sanctuary.

The Scientific Committee recalled its earlier inconclusive discussions concerning the issue of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.

7.1.1.2 ABOLITION OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY
Japan argued that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was not based on scientific grounds when it was established in 1994, and was legally contrary to the Convention. It introduced two amendments to Schedule paragraph 7(b):

(1)

to delete the word 'irrespective' in the 3^rd sentence of Paragraph 7(b) thereof and inserting the words 'in respect of' in its place; and

(2)

to insert the following sentence after the 4^th sentence of Paragraph 7(b) thereof: 'This prohibition does not apply to minke whales'.

France recalled that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was subject to revision 10 years after it was established, i.e. in 2004, and suggested waiting until then. Accumulation of evidence, especially on environmental aspects, is slow and there is no need to re-open discussion now.

On being put to the vote, the first amendment was defeated with 9 votes in favour, 22 against and 1 abstention.

Japan saw this as the Technical Committee turning down respect for science and, since the second amendment was also based on science, it withdrew its request for a vote on the proposal to save time.

7.1.2 South Atlantic Sanctuary
Brazil stated that there are still important issues to discuss and resolve amongst the range states, and it therefore wished to postpone this matter until next year.

7.1.3 South Pacific Sanctuary
Australia reported that since the 50^th Annual Meeting it and New Zealand had conducted extensive consultations on their joint proposal. A document setting out the case for the Sanctuary had been submitted to the Commission. It looked forward to further discussions before consideration at the 52^nd Annual Meeting following reference to the Scientific Committee.

New Zealand voiced strong support for the proposal, as the Southern Ocean Sanctuary protected only feeding grounds, not the breeding grounds of several baleen whales species whose abundance had been drastically reduced by whaling.

Denmark saw the proposal as a move to close waters to future commercial whaling, and wondered how this related to Schedule paragraph 8(d), which already closed the area to most factory ship whaling.

Japan strongly questioned the scientific content of the proposal and looked forward to the scientific review of the proposal next year, pointing out the abundance and recovery of some stocks. It also saw the possibility of conflict between the Sanctuary and other fisheries and food resources.

The discussion ended after both Brazil and Monaco supported the proposal.

7.2 Action arising
In the Commission, Japan reiterated that its proposed amendments were based on science, and it could not accept the language in Schedule paragraph 7(b) 'irrespective' of scientific findings.

The USA could not support any erosion of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. It was aware of the robust status of the minke whale stocks but that does not affect the purpose of the Sanctuary. It believed the Commission should wait until the review due in 2004. The Netherlands and Brazil supported this position, as did New Zealand, who noted the vote in the Technical Committee and thought Japan could not be serious.

Norway recalled that it did not participate in the 1994 vote, and supported Japan.

France wished to protect all whales regardless of their stock status and did not want to break the global approach. It preferred to wait for the full 10 years and so opposed Japan. Chile concurred. Australia also supported the continued integrity of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, while Monaco wished to consolidate and not erode the Sanctuary.

Antigua and Barbuda supported scientific integrity and supported Japan, as did Dominica, the Solomon Islands, St Lucia, Grenada and St Kitts and Nevis.

Finally, Japan commented that there seemed to be different views on whether the Sanctuary had been established regardless of scientific findings, or if there were factors other than science. It withdrew its right to call a vote.

_