IWMC World Conservation Trust wishes to express to the Government of Italy its sincere thanks for hosting the IWC's 56th Annual Meeting in Sorrento. IWMC is hopeful that the Commission will regain some of its credibility and effectiveness in the management and conservation of whale stocks and the orderly development of the whaling industry.

For the last twenty years, the word "loophole" has been part of the language spoken by opponents of the sustainable use of whale resources. The most complete definition of this word can be found in The Collaborative International Dictionary of English and is as follows:

"Loophole: An ambiguity or unintended omission in a law, rule, regulation, or contract which allows a party to circumvent the intent of the text and avoid its obligations under certain circumstances - used usually in a negative sense - distinguished from escape clause in that the latter usually is included to deliberately allow evasion of obligation under certain specified and foreseen circumstances."

A clear distinction is made here between "Loophole" and "Escape Clause". "Loophole" must be interpreted in the general sense that activities are undertaken that are not covered by the text of law, or for which the text of law is so vague as not to provide any proper guidance to cover the activities. Scientific research whaling is clearly provided for in the text of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which has enabling provisions that expressly permit it. Commercial whaling, undertaken under an objection to the moratorium, could, at worst, be classified as benefiting from an "Escape Clause". But neither activity can be accurately categorized as exploiting a "Loophole".

However, there are several areas where members of the Commission take advantage of "Loopholes". What happens at IWC meetings, and is translated into the Schedule, is substantially the result of the exploitation of loopholes in the original ICRW. Unfortunately, it is the loopholes, rather than the substance of the text, that now defines the IWC's approach to whaling. Unless these loopholes are closed, there is little chance that the IWC will be able to operate as a legitimate international organization.

In 1946, the drafters of an international convention for the "orderly development" of the whaling industry would have expected its signatories to act only in a way consistent with this objective. In the 1980s, a slew of countries that didn't share this objective joined and effectively reversed it. While the text of the original treaty cannot be changed, the Schedule that contains the detailed arrangements for its implementation - and that may regularly be modified - is regarded as part of the Convention. No limit was specifically placed on this characteristic, creating a loophole that has allowed the IWC to become opposed to its original purpose.