Australia
.....It's simply a question of expression, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that what actually happened was that Iceland expressed the view that UNCLOS [United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea] "requires" coastal states rather than "pointed out that" [coastal states]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairperson of the Technical Committee
Thank you for the comment but I should ask Iceland if it feels comfortable with the proposed wording in his statement. Iceland.

Iceland
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's a fact not necessarily a view. Thank you.

Chairperson of the Technical Committee
New Zealand.

New Zealand
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I don't really want to get involved in legalities here, but I would suggest to Iceland it would have to be a view because it doesn't conform with the text of Article V⁵⁴ of the Law of the Sea Convention which says 'States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organisations for their conservation, management and study. That is the only fact that I'm aware of. Thank you.

Chairperson of the Technical Committee
Thank you, New Zealand. Well, we will have the chance to go back to the whole report at the plenary level which will just, you know, two seconds ahead, so maybe we should agree on the written form of this report and refrain from further comments.

Iceland
Mr. Chairman, I can be very boring about the Law of the Sea, I assure you. Thank you, Chairman.

(Verbatim Record 1991:49)

USA
Mr. Chairman, two quite separate points. One going back to the Iceland statement in the Technical Report which notes that UNCLOS "requires" coastal states to decide, etc. I agree certainly with my colleague from New Zealand that is not the interpretation of the Law of the Sea Convention that I have, and as I expect he has, and I expect most of others have. I note , however, that the Law of the Sea Convention has been written in a sufficiently ambiguous way that many nations are allowed to interpret it in the ways they wish and certainly my Icelandic colleagues have been in the past shown somewhat greater imagination than many of us in so interpreting UNCLOS3 as well as UNCLOS1 and 2 going back to 1958 and 1960.

(Verbatim Record 1991:50)

Brazil
.....I would propose, please, that it reads as follows. "Brazil noted from the Danish opening statement that Greenland's aboriginal whale meat need seemed to have increased from 400 to 670 tonnes. It wondered if modern methods of preservation might not justify a reduction in the latter figure." And then, of course, the rest from Denmark.

Chairperson of the Technical Committee
Thank you, Brazil. Denmark.

Denmark
Mr. Chairman, I think it gives us a problem with respect to the drafting of the report, that's what we are doing now, because if we had understood at that time the Brazilian intervention to be what Brazil now is saying it was we would certainly have responded, because the need of 670 is not something which is increased. It is a need which was recognised by this Commission last year.

Chairperson of the Technical Committee
I will have to rule here that the Brazilian statement, and it's reflected in the report now, is to our best what you said on the discussion of this, and in that respect I will rule that we'll keep your wording as it was taken by the Secretary and in the plenary when we review again this, which is just 30 seconds ahead, you will have the chance to make your point. And then Denmark will have the chance to reply. Brazil.

Brazil
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do understand that this is a problem, and there is a word that I would like to change if that can help Denmark. I am not comfortable with it myself and it's the word 'increase'. If I could think of something else, but as it's a diplomatic word I would need a few minutes. Would that be all right for Denmark? Thank you.

Chairperson of the Technical Committee
Denmark.

Denmark
Mr. Chairman, we find it quite difficult to respond so quickly to the Brazilian proposal. We hardly had time to note your first proposed text and we are now in the totally new ball game, and if we have to rewrite the whole thing which went on yesterday, which didn't go on after all, we find it very difficult. So we would suggest that we stick to the text as it is and we come back to the substantial comments a bit later. Thank you.

Chairperson of the Technical Committee
Thank you, Denmark. Brazil.

Brazil
OK, yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairperson of the Technical Committee
Thank you, Brazil. Then the text will remain as it is now in the report.....

(Verbatim Record 1991:53,54)

Japan
Mr. Chairman, I like to express my sincere appreciation to the very warm comments made by our colleagues from St. Vincent and The Grenadines and St. Lucia and Iceland. Mr. Chairman, this Commission takes up the subject of humane killing as a very important one. At the same time I believe that humaneness on human beings should be considered almost at the same level. In consideration of these I believe that minke whaling by Norway and Iceland should be considered in the same context as the case we are presenting with regard to the small-type coastal whaling off Japan. As we have heard at the Working Group for the Small-type Coastal Whaling and the Socio-economic Implications, it has been four years already since the implementation of the moratorium was imposed on the small-type coastal whaling off Japan. In spite of the fact that time has been lapsed the effect of the moratorium became severer year after year, We conducted the sightings survey up to last year and, based on these sightings surveys, the population size of the minke whales in question have been assessed to be more than 20,000 in the area and at the Comprehensive Assessment conducted by the Scientific Committee this year a population estimate based on the analysis which have incorporated all the possible biological cases, the replacement yield at the very conservative level has been attained to be 209 whales. Under these circumstances the delegation of Japan has considered the importance of the socio-cultural and economic significance on which the local small coastal whaling communities have heavily depended upon, and in the view that the very serious and tragic influence has been inflicted upon these communities we are asking for the emergency relief quota of 50 minke whales under this agenda item.

We have been requesting the Commission the emergency relief quota for the small-type coastal whaling of Japan every year since four years ago. At the meeting last year the Commission told us that it would depend on the result of the Comprehensive Assessment of the stocks in question and also it will depend on the adoption of the Revised Management Procedure. And therefore we waited for another year. This year the Comprehensive Assessment was conducted by the Scientific Committee and the Revised Management Procedure is likely to be adopted within this year. However, it seems that according to the time schedule suggested by the Scientific Committee the Revised Management Procedure will not be ready to be implemented to this stock in question within the foreseeable future. Mr. Chairman, the inability of the Commission to resolve this question which has been over and over presented to the Commission and continuation of the present condition and situation indefinitely would preclude the maintenance of our trust in the ability of the Commission, and it is a very critical matter.

Mr. Chairman, the colleagues from Denmark at the Working Group saw the need of such whaling activities as has been presented in the case of small-type coastal whaling and also at the opening statement given by Denmark to this meeting says that those whaling activities which have been going on since the time before the World War Two should have some allowance and consideration for the new category, and we fully support this way of thinking. Mr. Chairman, the details of our request for the emergency relief quota for the small-type coastal whaling is described in document IWC/43/25. I hope for the serious consideration of the members of the Commission on this matter. Thank you.

(Verbatim Record 1991:77,78)

Iceland
Yes, thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Commissioner of the United States was, I think pressing Iceland for its imagination in various other fora dealing with Law of the Sea matters. So I think perhaps we could consider ourselves as experts on imagination and I'm therefore able to assess that this organisation is clearly one which has a near total lack of imagination. We come here every year and go through the Agenda Item 10.1.2, 10.2.3 and so forth, action arising, move back and forth to Commissioner meetings, look through these proposals after having spent what most people consider quite a boring week of Working Groups. Mr. Chairman, this organisation is completely stultified. The reason for that is perhaps, well, two-fold. First of all - I've identified it in the Technical Committee - What I see the automatic majority which can be developed around any particular proposal. That's fair enough - there is easy entry to this organisation and there should be no difficulty in establishing a majority around any position which is shared in the world community. The problem, Mr. Chairman, for this organisation is not that, but rather that there's no debate which takes place between that majority and the others who might have legitimate interests and, in fact, legitimate interests which many in the majority would be pleased to take account of. The reason for that is that this discussion takes place in antechambers and the discussion here is choreographed in those antechambers. One after another this person is to take this step, another person is to take that step, and there is as a result no debate at all within the plenary. The second reason I think, Mr. Chairman, is the motives which have been identified within the schedules that we operate under and I wonder what national government would accept the constraints which are established by those provisions when a clear need can be demonstrated, when everybody knows that there will be no danger to the various stocks concerned and nonetheless one is completely constrained by certain words which cannot be changed easily and particularly because of the situation I mentioned before.

Mr. Chairman, in this organization we can probably identify three periods. The first period, admittedly, a period when whaling was not sufficiently regulated. The second period was a period of concern amongst a number of members of this organization to try to establish some kind of control over that unrestricted whaling. And the third was the period which began in 1982 with implementation from 1986 in which it can be said that the efforts have been quite successful to deal with the problems of the first period. Mr. Chairman, problems which will not return. But nonetheless we seem to be acting at this third period as if the first period were still going on. Mr. Chairman, I think we should develop plans for a fourth period - a fourth period when we can cooperate in a decent manner to take account of the interests such as we have had identified before and, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can do better than the Human Rights Commission does in the protection of human rights. Thank you, Chairman.

(Verbatim Record 1991:80,81)

India
Thank you, Chairman. I agree with this US view and I would also like to comment on one new concept which has been introduced. It is a comment on humaneness to human beings. That is why ???? doesn't belong to the Whaling Commission because that is not the Whaling Commission's subject. That belongs to the Human Right Commission so I don't know whether that concept can be introduced in the Whaling Commission at all. Thank you.

St. Vincent and The Grenadines
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I can't resist a comment on the last intervention by the Commissioner from India because I always thought that we in this Commission were specifically dealing with the human rights of human beings to manage the resource of whales and whale stocks. But I think he has perhaps hit on one of the main problems underlying a lot of the lack of progress that is often made in this Commission, and I just wonder that until we really deal with this fundamental matter how much progress we will ever make. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

India
Thank you, Chairman. My friend of St. Lucia has taken me in a different light. I only gave response to the new concept which some people are, you know, putting it, because I have a feeling that, you know, the Whaling Commission had got a different parameter than the Human Right Commission. So Whaling Commission is working within one parameter and if you are bringing another parameter into it then perhaps we have to go to the Human Rights Commission also for their recommendation.

Chairman
Thank you, Japan.

Japan
.....I like to respond to the intervention by the Indian Commissioner. Perhaps we have to remind him that the quota given to aboriginal subsistence whaling in based on the humanity, not only whales' stock level which have been classified to be protected. It was a humanity question rather than a whaling question. Thank you.

Chairman
Thank you, Japan. Any further comments? India.

India
Thank you, Chairman. I think the Commissioner of Japan is misunderstanding me. What I mean to say is that the Whaling Commission has set up some parameters so this Whaling Commission has always accepted our original thing, but if we have now to bring in a new category, that will be completely new procedural aspect, and to that extent I support the US and the UK position.

Japan
Mr. Chairman, in response to the intervention by the Indian Commissioner, I have to perhaps ask him to note all the past records of the Commission since 1986 throughout which the Commission has been seriously considering the case presented by Japan. You are here for the first time, and perhaps you are not knowledgeable about the past history. However, the Commission itself has been taking a very serious stance about this case that we have been presenting. Thank you.

(Verbatim Record 1991:79-83)

Iceland
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have already in the earlier meeting on this item applauded the Japanese Government for the research which is being undertaken and which is subject of the Resolution before us, and we've noted that it is solely the Japanese research activities on these whale stocks which make a contribution to the knowledge of these stocks. Seeing now the Resolution before us we must only recall the general attitude of Iceland towards Resolution of this kind. We consider them to be ultra vires to the organization, taking into account the provisions of Article VIII. Structurally, Mr. Chairman, looking at the fifth Whereas clause after having plodded through the first four Whereas clauses, one wonders why - after that clause when reference is made to Article VIII - the Commission therefore does anything, because as stated in that paragraph it is the prerogative of the Contracting Government to issue these permits. The fundamental flaw in the Considering clause is that, in practice, it gives every individual in the Scientific Committee a veto on the right of the coastal state contained in Article VIII. This in fact is the nature of the Scientific Committee today, unfortunately. So, aside from the questions of general principle - and in fact we also have some problems with the grammar of that clause which if it were to be taken seriously would be seen to be absolutely impossible to implement - but, as I say Mr. Chairman, we regard Resolutions of this kind to be illegal for the organization to adopt and we'll vote against it. Thank you, Chairman.

(Verbatim Record 1991:108)

New Zealand
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't like it to be thought that because only Article VIII of the Convention is mentioned in this Resolution that therefore that is the only binding commitment on contracting states. That is, of course, not the case. There are two binding commitments: Article VIII of the Convention and Article 30 of the Schedule which stipulates that a Contracting Government shall provide the Secretary of the Commission with proposed scientific permits before they are issued. In sufficient time they should specify objectives of the research, etc etc. They shall be reviewed and commented on by the Scientific Committee at annual meetings, and so on. So those, the Schedule, has equal binding force with the Convention. It is equal to and not less than the Convention. So there are two binding forces. And then in addition, of course - we are also not legally bound but we have certain guidelines in the form of our Rules of Procedure which under Scientific Committee rules provides for the review of scientific permits - and then we have a number of Resolutions back to 1986 which [we] have adopted and approved and which have the force of recommendation. So to suggest that it is all wrapped up in Article VIII is not in accordance with the views of the New Zealand delegation and I would just simply like to make this clear at this point. Thank you.

Chairperson
Iceland.

Iceland
Mr. Chairman, as usual I listened with interest to the intervention of the Commissioner of New Zealand, but do I understand him to say that Japan has breached its obligations under paragraph 30 of the Schedule? Thank you, Chairman.

Chairperson
New Zealand.

New Zealand
I think there must be some failure in communication, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I said anything that suggested that anybody had breached their obligations. I was simply trying to clarify a situation which seemed to become slightly distorted, but I am not making any accusations against any state represented here. Thapk you.

Chairperson
US.

USA
Mr. Chairman, in this respect the US would like to draw attention to Article VI wherein the Commission may from time to time make recommendations to any or all Contracting Governments on any matters which relate to whale and whaling and to objectives and purposes of this Convention. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

(Verbatim Record 1991:108,109)

Denmark
Mr. Chairman. This resolution text IWC/43/41 was distributed this morning at 8:42 a.m. in the pigeonholes by Mrs. C from the IWC Secretariat. As you know the Rules of Procedure say that unless copies of this resolution have been circulated to all delegations no later than the day preceding the Plenary session as a general rule no proposal should be discussed. This very late distribution puts my delegation in an impossible situation. We are working with the so-called like-minded group, it's like working with Icelandic geyser, you never really know when they are able to produce and bizarre enough - my Minister of Foreign Affairs has not been sitting waiting by the phone until the like-minded group was able to produce. If you continue with this discussion at this moment Mr. Chairman you put my delegation in an impossible situation and we want this to be clear for everybody. We cannot discuss this at this very moment and we suggest that at the very least that the discussion is postponed until after the lunch break. Thank you.

Chairperson
Thank you. If we look at Rules of Procedure, page 12, B1, it states "As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed at any plenary session unless copies of it have been circulated to all delegations no later than the day preceding the plenary session. The presiding officer may, however, permit the discussion and consideration of amendments, or motions as to procedure, even though such amendments, or motions have not been circulated previously". Australia.

Australia
Mr. Chairman I need some advice. I understand the difficulties that may be facing the Danish delegation if indeed they did get it or claim that it was in at 8:42 but my understanding is that this resolution was in fact distributed late I agree but late last evening. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairperson
Denmark.

Denmark
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was personally watching when this distribution was distributed because I believed we were involved in discussion with the so-called like-minded group and other delegations on the very development of this text and I was surprised we hadn't found it. I can assure you I received it at 8:42. It was faxed immediately to my Minister of Foreign Affairs so the timing is absolutely correct. But it is written on the bottom of this page by the same computer as had written the rest of the text and it doesn't reflect the actual situation. You have to take my word for it Mr. Chairman. It was distributed exactly at 8:42 a.m. on 31 May 1991 in the pigeonholes and I want this to be recorded. Thank you.

Chairperson
Thank you. UK.

UK
Mr. Chairman if I might point out that the distribution my colleague from Denmark is referring to was a secondary distribution. I personally put the resolution in peoples' boxes last night before I had finished my work and so I can tell you they were in as stated and I would also hope that you could observe the rules as you did yesterday that exceptions can be made, because as you will appreciate a number of Commissioners worked extremely hard to find a text that might be acceptable to all the Commission, and if it is late it is because it is of our earnest intention to achieve something and I think in fact since it was in heads of delegations' pigeon holes last night. We are within the rules. Thank you.

Chairperson
Thank you. I have two speakers on my list - Denmark and Norway and after that I will make a ruling.

Denmark
Unfortunately then if this is true it has been removed from the Danish delegation and it has put us in exactly the same situation as I described and it was absolutely not to be found in our pigeonhole neither last night or this morning. Thank you.

Chairperson
Norway.

Norway
Well, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that I totally completely support the views expressed by our Danish colleague and I do contest what was just said by the UK Commissioner. I mean when we talk in the Rules of Procedure of submitting, introducing draft resolution, we are talking about a time of the day where people are normally awake. This resolution was submitted, I don't know if it was submitted, I suspect it was printed at 11:45 p.m. that is a quarter to midnight. That is not the proper hour to submit a draft resolution unless one has a sitting in a night meeting which was not the case at that hour yesterday, so I will try and cooperate with you Mr. Chairman. I think you are right in suggesting that we may have this resolution now introduced and maybe discussed but in all fairness to the Danish delegation and others, I am sure there are more delegations who are in a similar position, and who were not able to see this resolution until 8:42 this morning, so that the voting at any rate will be postponed until after lunch. Thank you.

Chairperson
Considering that we are approaching lunch time and as I guess that the Danish delegation would accept that we deal with it in perhaps the voting matter after lunch. I will permit discussions - an introduction and discussions before lunch and then we break for lunch break. Australia.

(Verbatim Record 1991:134,135)

Australia
.....Whatever the faults in retrospect, the New Management Procedure represented a major advance in the Commission's approach to the management of whale stocks and change in perspective that had continued to develop. Even as they were being implemented however it became clear that there were serious problems with the New Management Procedure in data requirements and availability and certainty in estimates and classifications and the risk of depleting stocks. Attempts at revision began in 1978 and continues through the period in which the moratorium decision was passed in 1982. Simulation studies of the effects of the application of the new management procedure by Bill de la Mare presented to the Scientific Committee in 1984 were an important step forward in the process of the revision of the procedure. As Geoff Kirkwood had said so clearly in his final report on the development of the revised management procedures, a satisfactory revised management procedure must be able to meet the Commission's management objectives and it must do so regardless of existing and continuing uncertainties in the basic data, stock identity and dynamics of whale populations. We are seeking a management procedure that is robust to these uncertainties.

Whether or not a procedure is robust can only be determined by examining its performance across a wide range of plausible situations. Since experimental application of the potential procedures to actual whale stocks is clearly out of the question, the approach has been taken to simulate the management of whale stocks. The series of working groups, sub-committees and other aggregations that have examined the issues have now come to fruition with I think inadequate advice and guidance from the Commission on important issues such as the weighting to be applied in the three management objectives that we had managed to agree. Despite that, the management procedures working group vigorously tested and reviewed the five procedures that had been developed. It has now, perhaps earlier than some of us had thought possible at this time last year, provided advice. The Scientific Committee, emphasising that all five procedures performed satisfactorily in single stock trials, has agreed that no single procedure performed uniformly best over all trials and all tunings but it had recommended the C-procedure for acceptance by the Commission. A concern amongst some members that the procedure can in some circumstances lead to continued catches from a proportion of stocks below levels at which they would have been protected under the current schedule provisions has lead to the suggestion that the question of protection levels be further examined by the Scientific Committee and guidance provided to the Commission for consideration next year. It is clear that the work required for that and the other specific single stock trials and development of multiple stock applications required will not be accommodated in the normal meeting of the Committee and that an inter-sessional meeting may be required. It is clear that there are difficult questions to be resolved both within those countries committed to the resumption of commercial whaling and others such as Australia. There are important matters of principle to be addressed by my Government as well as the more direct and urgent matters of implementation of the best advice we have available. That would also allow time for Governments to consider in more depth the consequences of the advice on protection levels in particular so that they are in a position to deal substantially with the issue in this Commission.....

(Verbatim Record 1991:136)

Denmark
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask the floor in response to the interventions by Australia and United States as to the lateness of the arrival of this proposal. In the wording it should have delayed because there had been widespread consultations in order to reach a consensus. I can assure the Commission that these consultations have not taken place with Denmark. We were left out of the discussion last night in the same elegant way as we were left out of the so-called like-minded group, we were just not consulted any more and we just did not receive any other papers and to my best belief none of the former whaling nations were informed to or consulted either. The reason for the lateness of this proposal is that there were strong disagreements within the like-minded group. Some of these nations cannot accept the fact that the Scientific Committee almost unanimously has come up with a recommendation for a new management procedure, the so-called Cooke procedure and they will use any element to prolong the process of developing a new Revised Management Procedure. This development makes the situation impossible for the former whaling nations and is to our best belief a tactic which may be the final step which undermines the work of the International Whaling Commission. Denmark has worked very hard to reach a consensus in this absolutely vital issue of the IWC. A consensus was not wanted by some of the nations present in this room and we deeply regret that fact. Thank you.

(Verbatim Record 1991:140)

Iceland
Yes, thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the closer we get to the end of our meeting the more necessary it is to be completely frank in the statement of our views. Mr. Chairman, even if the Resolution proposed by Iceland, Norway and Japan had been accepted, which involved accepting totally the recommendation of the Scientific Committee and providing that the necessary work for the implementation of the Cooke procedure would be completed for the Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic minke whales at the 1992 meeting, even then, Mr. Chairman, we would not have been secure that some efforts would not have been made in the intervening year to sabotage that approach. It is in the nature of the work which is being planned that a great number of opportunities are presented for raising questions, throwing up smoke screens, raising doubts about the conservative elements of the recommended procedures, such that even when arrived here at the 1992 meeting it would have been possible to point to so many caveats in the process such that a political decision on the opening up of commercial whaling would have been made nearly impossible for countries which have a position including those who propose a worldwide ban on commercial whaling. I should now like to compare that situation with the situation which would result if the amendment of the proposal before us were to be adopted.

Here we see an even greater number of possibilities to retard the process. Already reference had been made to the fact that no schedule is set out specifically in the Resolution. I note with interest that the Commissioner of the United States has referred to the Committee report which does include the schedule on page 11, the third paragraph, which would result, if the Commission so requested, in the completion of the process for the Southern Hemisphere and the North Atlantic minke whales. I also note that the proposal by the Commissioner of Sweden to which reference had been made earlier by the Commissioner of Australia, that an intercessional meeting would be useful in order to achieve these aims. Both these points are very important to our delegation in the assessment of the Resolution. I spoke before of the many possibilities found in the Resolution for delay and procrastination. I should refer first to the first 'agrees' clause, paragraph 3. We have been assured that this was a relatively simple change in the Cooke procedure involving a change from the figure 50 to the figure 54 within that process, and I hope that can be understood as the sole intent of the paragraph, I fear that many of the more legalistically inclined scientists would find another interpretation for that clause and I hope that tendency can be resisted when the time comes. Even more concern is the second 'agrees' paragraph, and of special concern is the link between the implementation of the Revised Management Procedures and this paragraph which may require some looping back into the process and further delay. I see the reference to 'significantly below the protection level of 54%' would also give some opportunity to delay work and certainly to present a report which would make it very difficult for the Commission at its next Annual Meeting to deal responsibly with this situation.

Mr. Chairman, how have we reached the situation that we have this resolution before us? The Commissioner from Denmark has quite colourfully pointed out his experience of the working of the like-minded group as a former member of that group. I didn't know, in fact, that he had been so unceremoniously prevented from participating further. But over the past two or three days we have witnessed an effort to start negotiations for a new type of relationship within the International Whaling Commission and I know all Commissioners here would applaud the work of the Commissioner of the United States in that regard, whom I believe was sincerely interested in achieving the new relationships between the members of [this] organization. I can easily identify the source of some of these points. I recognise efforts were made to minimise the possible adverse effects of these points, but it seems to me that once again the Commission as a body is being wagged by its tail. The small number of countries who have a firm position against ever opening up whaling seem to be able to prevail upon the majority within that group I mentioned before and thereafter without any debate in the Commission itself. This type of policy must be seen as totally intolerable to Iceland whose attitude towards conservation of marine mammals and other marine resources should by now known to all parties here. It is a fear that reaching this position next year once again it is impossible under the structure of this organisation with the essentially four day period to engage in serious negotiations, that we cannot accept a proposal of this kind. Thank you, Chairman.

(Verbatim Record 1991:143,144)

New Zealand
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. New Zealand abstained in the vote we have just held and I would like to explain why. This is the first time I have spoken under this item and if you would allow me I would like to deal with our position, or explain our position, which leads into the reason why we abstained and so if you can give me a minute or two to do it. New Zealand policy doesn't favour the resumption of commercial whaling. We have arrived at this position because of concern about the degradation of the environment and because of our desire to preserve the great natural resources that are an integral part of it. we should be pleased if all other countries shared this point of view but they don't and we have therefore to try to find whatever measure of agreement exists within the provisions of the 1946 Convention to guide us through the difficult period ahead. The question of management procedures is undoubtedly the most complicated, confusing and important one to come before the Commission during my term as Commissioner. Time is needed to understand it. We are under pressure to get a management procedure up and running very quickly. I would wish nevertheless to take a few minutes to explain how New Zealand sees the present position.

The reality behind it is that the world has changed a good deal since 1946 but the Convention hasn't. It's still the same Convention incorporating principles laid down 45 years ago by a relatively small group of whaling countries. Those principles were appropriate to the era in which they were drafted. In 1946 whaling was universally regarded as adventurous and acceptable and whale stocks as virtually inexhaustible. It's a different story today. The presence at this meeting of so many NGOs, no doubt at considerable cost and inconvenience to themselves, demonstrates the strength of public opinion in many countries and the concern that is shared for the future of the whales. I could perhaps also note that the membership of IWC includes all the whaling countries but only some of the conservationist-minded countries. It doesn't necessarily therefore reflect the world at large. As founder members of this organisation, however, we are loyal members and we are trying to work within its rules and regulations even when they don't exactly accord with our national policies and priorities. Up to this point the IWC Convention has shown itself sufficiently flexible to meet changing circumstances and I quote by way of example the delayed but eventually positive response to the call of the 1972 United Nations Conference for a moratorium on commercial whaling. In one way, therefore, the Convention had stood the test of time. We certainly don't see the need to revise the Convention or replace the IWC with another organization, but the question remains whether the IWC is going to be sufficiently adaptable to face the challenges of the future of a Revised Management Procedure.

This is the third time the organisation has tried to put in place the key element in its work represented by this procedure. As we all know, the first attempt based on the blue whale unit was an unmitigated disaster. The second, the New Management Procedure, was fatally flawed and continued the process of depletion of whale stocks. We now have one more chance and if we get it wrong it will be our last chance. For this reason it's essential in our view to ensure that full consideration is given to all aspects, that all the tests are carried out, and that the implementation arrangements are fully worked out. We must not allow ourselves to be stampeded into hasty or premature decisions. The Scientific Committee has recommended that we now accept the C procedure as the basis for our future work and this has been endorsed by the Resolution just adopted subject to some provisos. The procedure is an extremely sophisticated procedure and is not easy to comprehend. I have had the benefit of two briefings from the distinguished Chairman of the Sub-committee and I can only say that I am still confused but at a higher level. I think I can say with 51% confidence that I understand the basic approaches that are followed. I quail at the thought of having to try to explain this procedure to my authorities and I can assure you that the general public will never understand it. They will react to its product in the form of whales proposed to be taken, and I suspect they won't like a fair bit of what they see. Inasmuch as I can make a judgement I'd have to say that the management procedure appears to be very much like the curate's egg - good in parts and not so good in others. For the good news first, it does appear to provide a better measure of protection for depleted stocks than the old NMP and it contains measure derived from experience which should reinforce this. As for example the proposal to tie quotas to much smaller geographic areas than in the past. The not-so-good elements seem to derive largely from the attempt to apply one uniform approach to all whale stocks regardless of their depletion or relative abundance. We recognise the administrative advantages of having one formula applicable to single stock of all species and all areas and I'm not too surprised by this emphasis on uniformity, but efficiency isn't everything.

If I could just say as an aside, it might be scientifically more efficient if people could be gradually genetically harmonised so that we all finished up the same size and shape and wearing the same clothes and having the same tastes, but it wouldn't be very interesting. I sometimes wonder also whether the beauty of the smoothly functioning mathematical model may at times blind the operator to the lethal effects of its application out in the field. Perhaps for all these reasons Contracting Governments of this organisation decided in the Convention that, although decisions should be based on Scientific advice, the decisions themselves should be made by Commissioners who have to take account of much broader considerations. Uniformity through the management procedure approach is in practice achieved through the construction of a sort of scientific procrustean bed. I have only fading memories of the Greek legends of my childhood but as I recall one legend was about a gentleman by the name of Procrustes who was in the habit of offering overnight shelter to weary travellers. The only snag was that they found they had to fit the bed provided. If they were too short they were stretched up to the right size. If they were too tall they were chopped down to size. Now the Scientific Committee's proposal for whales is not quite as harsh as Procrustes had in mind in one direction. It does seek to ensure that depleted stocks will be allowed to recover and build up to a target population level by their own means. It's not entirely clear to me when whaling should actually be allowed to resume under this model, but I have fewer problems with this aspect of the management procedure.

I must say quite frankly, however, that New Zealand has serious problems with the Cooke model, even with the guidelines provided in the Resolution just adopted. The major stumbling block for us is that if the population is above a certain target population size it has to be depleted or tuned, to use the approved expression, over a period of time until the population level conforms with a standard pattern. Although a good deal is talked about sustainability of yield, it seems to us that no importance at all has been attached to sustainability of existing stocks. Applied to the Southern Hemisphere minke whales, a subject of particular interest to New Zealand, a stock which is the last great whale stock on earth and in a region where more and more nations are coming around to the view that its resources should be preserved for all time, the result of this procedure would be (assuming the option of the highest population target level which was suggested in the Resolution just adopted) the reduction of those stocks over time by well over 100,000 whales. This is out of a stock of 400,000 or so mature animals. The lower population target level preferred in the first Resolution we voted on would result in much greater removal. No matter how scientifically sensible that may seem it will appear to the people in New Zealand that we are repeating past mistakes all over again, playing God and reshaping the environment. It will also, I must say, seem to people in New Zealand that the Northern Hemisphere whaling countries, having ruined the stocks in their own hemisphere by over-fishing, are now planning to make massive inroads into the Southern Hemisphere minke whale population, and all that with the blessing of the International Whaling Commission. I would have to say frankly that in this respect it may be a Revised Management Procedure but it doesn't look like a very safe management procedure. If I am right in my assessment then I'd have to say very bluntly that, although what is proposed may seem sensible and acceptable to the majority of the Scientific Committee who proposed it, in my country it's not politically acceptable. I'm well aware that there's more work to be done but until the proposed procedure is more fully developed and applied to multi-stocks and we can see more clearly how the system is going to work out in practice, my delegation had no choice but to attach a reservation and is not in a position to endorse even as the core single management procedure a system which is fraught with such grave implications for the last great whale stock. Thank you, Sir.

(Verbatim Record 1991:145-147)

Iceland
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to present the viewpoints of the delegation of Iceland, our position towards the International Whaling Commission. Mr. Chairman, when we decided two years ago to invite the Commission to hold its Annual Meeting here in Reykjavik we were, of course, first of all motivated by the desire to have the members of the Commission and the representatives of the Non-Governmental Organisations come here and see for themselves how important it was to Icelanders to take a rational attitude towards the management of all marine resources. But a secondary motive, Mr. Chairman, was to allow the Icelandic public to see better for themselves what can happen at meetings of the Commission and see for themselves the structure under which we live. Many Icelanders have found it difficult to imagine how states so well-known for responsible attitudes in international relations in general and towards international organisations in particular could end up conducting themselves in this organisation as we have described to our public in past years. Now, one aspect of this perception problem is that much of the activity to which we object in fact takes place even subterraneously, even involving the work of a kind of fifth column in the Scientific Committee which assiduously works to prevent the reaching of consensus decisions, and even when a majority decision cannot be prevented these members insert a sentence here and a sentence there which, lo and behold, are resuscitated in the Commission to justify taking decisions here which are contrary to the advice of the Scientific Committee.

I should also like to comment on the role of the press in this perception problem, and in fact a third reason why we considered it advisable to invite the Commission to meet here was that during meetings of the IWC we have in attendance representatives of the serious press, and those writing on the question here in Iceland need not rely solely on the anti-whaling news network for the often distorted version of the facts. Mr. Chairman, I think it was very useful when we heard yesterday statements by one Commissioner and another today referring to the policies of their countries which involved, in fact, a total ban on commercial whaling. Mr. Chairman, it is not for us to dictate the policy of other governments not to seek to prevent them from expressing these policies in this Commission, for after all it is a political organisation.

But can a country like Iceland seriously be expected to subordinate its vital interests, for example, to how successful the Commissioners of such governments are in establishing a balance between their national policies and their assessment of what constitutes constructive work or loyalty to this organisation. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important at this point that I try to put Iceland's policy on whaling in the perspective of Iceland's environmental policy as a whole. I hope that representatives here have had the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the attitudes of the Icelandic authorities and the Icelandic public in general towards environmental concerns. On the international plane, indeed, Iceland had been considered to have played a leading role. We cannot accept that our views of whaling should be seen otherwise than as a part of and parcel of a dedicated concern for the environment. Indeed Iceland, regrettably, has found on many occasions in working in other international fora that the IWC format has been seen to cause states to shy away from active international cooperation in other fields of the environment. We consider this very regrettable for environmental concerns as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I turn now to the results of recent meetings of the Commission. I could refer to the four year period when we challenged the activity of the IWC on scientific permits, when the Commission adopted over and over again Resolutions addressed against Iceland which we considered as illegal and ultra vires the organisation. These Resolutions were, in fact, particularly pernicious because they produced language in the legislation of one member government which in turn led to serious bilateral disputes with an important friend. Then last year we had a refusal by the Commission to reclassify the minke stock around Iceland, despite evidence that no harm would be caused to the stock. This year that legal travesty continued after a very messy debate on Rules of Procedure. The Commission refused even to allow a vote on the Icelandic proposal once again. You will understand, I'm sure, the feelings of the members of my delegation who are from the fishing industry when they felt that they could no longer remain in this room with us. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we had a decision here on the Revised Management Procedure which in our view gives ample opportunity for further procrastination of efforts to have the organisation live up to its management obligations.

Mr. Chairman, we have earlier today pointed out what we call the structural difficulties of this organisation which automatically leads to such results as those which I have described. It is popular today to speak of windows of opportunity. In this Commission it seems that window is open for less than 48 hours per year. The same seems to apply even in other committees of the IWC. This period is simply too short for the kind of consultations which are necessary to achieve imaginative solutions to our differences. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of this recent experience I have regrettably come to the conclusion that this organisation is fundamentally flawed. I have come to this conclusion with regret. I feel that Iceland has played a significant part in the work of the organisation. Iceland's scientists have participated in the scientific work not only with respect to our stocks but in others as well. But we have always felt that the majority within the Commission of what I consider moderate nations would have to choose between accommodating the views of extreme protectionists and those who wish to carry our scientifically-based conservative whaling. Too often over the past years the Commission appears to have chosen to favour the extreme group. Mr. Chairman, therefore I have come regrettably to the conclusion, following consultation within the Icelandic delegation to this meeting, to propose to the Government of Iceland that Iceland withdraw from the International Whaling Commission.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I should like to make quite clear the consequences of a decision to withdraw from the organisation. First, Iceland's withdrawal would not take effect until 30 June of next year and we would participate in the work of the Commission until then and work hard, for example, to ensure that our fear on the sabotage possibilities on the RMP will not be realised. Secondly, until such withdrawal would take place we would not pursue any whaling in Iceland. And thirdly, any decision on whaling at some later time would be based on an analysis of all possible legal aspects. Mr. Chairman, I said twice that I've come to this conclusion with regret. But, Mr. Chairman, I fear for the IWC and I even see some Kafkaesque governments in its work. I can only hope that with some imagination some way may be found to take account on this question of the legitimate interests of all members of the international community. Thank you, Chairman.

(Verbatim Record 1991:168-170)