The purpose of the RMS Working Group Intersessional Meeting was to: Make further progress on revising the section of the Schedule that deals with supervision and control, and Develop a text to incorporate the structure and elements of the RMS, including the Revised Management Procedure, into the Schedule.

So, what went wrong? Giving effect to Resolution 2000-3 has, in fact, been a disaster from start to finish.

For a start, the meeting was never supposed to be held in Monaco. At the Adelaide meeting, Japan formally offered to host the Intersessional Meeting. No IWC member country objected to that offer, thereby establishing acceptance. Official confirmation of the offer and acceptance was given in a formal letter from the Japan IWC Commissioner Minoru Morimoto.

But in an e-mail to the IWC two months later, the Alternate IWC Commissioner from Monaco, offered to host the meeting. This offer came about as a result of the United States Government’s protest over Japan’s whale research program in the North Western Pacific.

Subsequently, IWC Chairman Professor Bo Fernholm on 20 October 2000 called for a postal vote to determine the venue – Japan or Monaco. This was an extraordinary move, since the full IWC had agreed at its annual meeting it would hold the RMS Working Group in Japan.

When the results of the postal vote were made final – 19 votes were needed to change the venue – the IWC members were still in favour of holding this meeting in Japan. The vote was 17 in favour of Monaco, 10 for Japan, with two abstentions. Clearly, not the required amount to permit overturning a decision of the full IWC.

The legality of these measures taken by the IWC Chairman need closer scrutiny. If he believes he can simply overrule any decision made by the Commission, it will only further weaken the strands that barely hold it together as it is. The actions by Professor Fernholm set a bad precedent, not only for the orderly work of the Commission, but also for any democratic body.

The postal vote should never have gone ahead. Moreover, when that vote clearly failed, he should have reverted to the decision made by the Commissioners in Adelaide.

Nine IWC Commissioners have written to Professor Fernholm, protesting at the unreasonable and inappropriate actions taken by him. IWMC awaits with eager anticipation, as do other sustainable use nations and organisations, the Chairman’s reasons for his actions.

Whatever his reasons, it’s clear to IWC observers what they were. Extreme pressure by the United States actively supporting the selection of a country other than Japan to host the Intersessional meeting was no doubt the main reason. Opponents of sustainable whaling were annoyed over the progress made in Adelaide to complete the RMS.

It doesn’t alter the fact. The chairman’s position is one of neutrality. Professor Fernholm should avoid the perception he is being manipulated by anti-whaling Government’s and Non-Governmental Organisations. The IWC is an organisation in desperate need of a credibility fix. Actions by Professor Fernholm don’t help it to improve the situation.