Decisions at IWC69

The following decisions were taken at IWC69 on 26 September 2024.

Schedule amendments

Schedule amendment to establish a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary (SAWS) (Agenda item 8.1)

A necessary majority of 75% must be achieved in order to make amendments to the Schedule. The vote results are as follows:

Yes: 40
No: 14
Abs: 3

With a percentage of 74.08%, the proponents failed to garner the necessary majority, the proposal was thus rejected.

Status: Rejected.

None of the parties expressed joy over the decision. Norway and Antigua & Barbuda, despite being on the ‘winning’ side, noted that this win is not a reason to rejoice, but rather demonstrates how dysfunctional the IWC is. Guinea expressed that this is a demonstration of African states standing up for their own rights that they exercise in their own Exclusive Economic Zones. South Africa, Brazil and others expressed disappointment over the rejected proposal.

All parties, however, expressed appreciation over the respectful way the vote was conducted.

Resolutions

1. Draft Resolution on Food Security (Agenda item 9.1)

On behalf of the proponents, Ghana announced that no consensus had been found and that it would not put the resolution to a vote. Instead, it wishes to continue the work on the resolution in the intersessional period.

Status: Withdrawn

2. Draft Resolution for the Implementation of a Conservation and Management Program for Whale Stocks aimed towards the orderly Development of the Whaling Industry (Agenda item 9.2)

Antigua & Barbuda, on behalf of the proponents, announced that in light of the lack of consensus, it would not put the resolution to a vote and that it would withdraw it at this point. Antigua & Barbuda provided the following statement to be included in the records:

“Following consultations, a decision was not sought at IWC69 on the Draft Resolution for the Implementation of a Conservation and Management Program for Whale Stocks aimed towards the orderly Development of the Whaling Industry” Work will continue intersessionally amongst the interested contracting governments and representatives from civil society to continue dialogue on the issues raised in this proposal, aimed to present a new proposal at IWC70. Any efforts to meet in person will be in a manner that does not require additional resources from the Commission.”

Even though the resolution was withdrawn, Palau announced it would still want to be recorded as a co-sponsor. Both the United States and St Vincent & the Grenadines acknowledged the way Antigua & Barbuda’s manner to deal with the resolution.

Status: Withdrawn.

3. Resolution on Co-operation with CCAMLR in Antarctica (Agenda item 9.3)

Belgium introduced the resolution, which did not spark a discussion. The resolution was adopted by consensus.

Status: Adopted.

4. Resolution on Synergies between the IWC, the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the BBNJ Agreement (Agenda item 9.4)

A revised version was introduced based on the discussions from 23 September. Iceland announced that they are generally supportive of the resolution as it stood when it was first introduced. However, reference to the CMS and CITES in the revised draft does, in their view, dilute the resolution. In the spirit of cooperation, however, Iceland does not block consensus. The resolution was adopted by consensus.

Status: Adopted.

5. Resolution on International Legal Obligations in Commercial Whaling (Agenda item 9.5)

Denmark noted that as an EU member state, it aligns itself with the EU position, but as the Kingdom of Denmark it also represents the Faroe Islands and Greenland. The Faroe Islands thus stated that the IWC is not the only international appropriate organization for the conservation and management of whaling, but that also the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) is a relevant organisation in this regard.

The UK announced that it would co-sponsor this resolution.

Norway announced that it does not support this resolution and that the statements in it are something they cannot agree to.

Palau also announced that it would not join consensus on this resolution.

Colombia announced that it was content with the original version, but since it is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, it requested that the original version be restored.

In light of the different views on the resolution, Hungary as the proponent of the resolution moved the resolution to a vote. In order for this resolution to be adopted, a simple majority is required.

Yes: 37
No: 12
Abs: 8