(from "Report of the Scientific Committee", the version distributed at 2001 meeting)

The Committee agreed that it would not discuss legal, political or economic issues regarding the South Atlantic Sanctuary proposal. These issues included questions of interpretation of the Convention, the level of support for the proposal amongst nations of the South Atlantic region and relative merits and compatibility of whalewatching versus direct exploitation. Such matters were raised in some working papers submitted to the Committee but were not discussed.

Palazzo introduced IWC/53/7 The proposed sanctuary is shown in Fig. 2. Its longitudinal range encompasses Areas I, II and III. It is contiguous with the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in this band. The proposal states that irrespective of stock status, there will be no commercial whaling within the proposed sanctuary area. Ten species are known to occur within the proposed sanctuary area: blue whale; humpback whale; sperm whale; southern right whale; fin whale; sei whale; Antarctic minke whale; dwarf minke whale; Bryde's whale; and pygmy right whale. Almost all of these have been harvested commercially at some point in the past. The blue, fin, right and humpback whale populations are probably the most severely depleted, but there is little firm evidence on the status of most of the species relative to their initial abundance. Information on the location of breeding grounds and migratory routes of the whales in the region is generally inadequate, apart from for the information available for humpback and right whales. The proposed sanctuary would include all known breeding grounds of the great whales in the South Atlantic. Humpback whale and right whale populations are probably the best studied compared to the others in the South Atlantic. Generally more is known of the mysticete species on their feeding grounds in the Antarctic than on the wintering grounds in the South Atlantic. There is no commercial or aboriginal/subsistence whaling in the area at the present time. Only minke whale populations have been considered in the context of the RMP. There is little information on the nature and magnitude of bycatches of large whales occurring incidental to commercial fishing within the area proposed for a South Atlantic Sanctuary.

The Committee agreed that the major points made during last year's Scientific Committee meeting (IWC, 2001a, pp.65-66) regarding general arguments in favour of sanctuary proposals and general arguments not in favour of sanctuary proposals were pertinent to this agenda item. The major arguments from last year's meeting are summarised below.

General arguments in favour of Sanctuary proposals
Sanctuaries:

(1)

provide a focus for regional cooperation at the government, inter-government and non-government level;

(2)

provide a focus for the development of national and international non-lethal research programmes;

(3)

provide a non-lethal research framework that will enable the Commission to make appropriate decisions to ensure the effective conservation of whale stocks in the region;

(4)

provide an area to study whales undisturbed by any whaling activities,

(5)

provide an 'insurance' against unforseen problems with the RMP;

(6)

protect all whales within a large habitat - an IWC sanctuary protects whales from commercial whaling and this is seen as a necessary first step in a more comprehensive management regime.

General arguments not in favour of Sanctuary proposals

(1)

Sanctuary proposals only address direct catches. Current (Schedule) and likely future (RMP) management strategies of the IWC would only allow exploitation of abundant whale stocks and then at conservative and sustainable levels.

(2)

Sanctuaries provide no extra protection for the most vulnerable depleted stocks from actual threats that they face such as habitat destruction, pollution, shipping, fisheries interactions, etc. and do not distinguish between areas of critical habitat and those of little importance. Such stocks are already protected under existing IWC management measures.

(3)

Sanctuary provisions may prevent utilisation of stocks for which a sustainable catch would be allowed under the RMP/RMS.

(4)

Whether or not an area is designated as a Sanctuary is irrelevant to whether or not research is carried out in the area.

(5)

The need to provide information relevant for management and utilisation of one species may stimulate research that is also of value in monitoring depleted species.

In the context of these arguments, a number of views were expressed and these are included in Annex R. The Committee was unable to reach a consensus view. The Committee also noted that it had not received guidance from the Commission on factors of interest to the Commission in reviews of sanctuary proposals. As last year, the Committee agreed that advice from the Commission with respect to reviews of sanctuary proposals would be useful in the future.

16.2 Other
The Chair noted that a new document regarding the South Pacific Sanctuary proposal had been submitted to the Commission, but the Scientific Committee had not been asked to review it. She had read the document and found no new information that would change the Committee's evaluation of the proposal as submitted last year. The Committee agreed that no further discussion of the South Pacific Sanctuary proposal was necessary.

The Chair noted that the Commission expects a thorough review of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary in 2002 and of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in 2004. SC/53/O6, which provided a preliminary review of cetaceans in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary, was not discussed this year as the Chair believed it was more appropriate to consider it during next year's review.

The Commission has provided only limited guidance as to what it expects from these Scientific Committee reviews, (IWC, 1995, pp.27-28, pp.45-46; IWC, 1999, p.42). The Chair therefore appointed an intersessional Steering Group (Zerbini (Chair), Bjorge, Butterworth, Childerhouse, Donovan, Kell, Kock, Morishita, Thiele) to plan for these reviews. The Terms of Reference for the group are to develop:

(1)

a process by which the Committee will complete a review; and

(2)

evaluation criteria for the reviews, taking into account the Commission's previous comments and any further advice that might be offered by the Commission this year.

It was agreed that the process and evaluation criteria referred to in the previous paragraph will be used by the Committee next year in its review of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary.

_