The new Conservation Committee, established controversially at IWC55, is behaving more like a "conversation" committee as it struggles to develop an identity.

One of the main criticisms of the original proposal was that it had not been properly thought through. Many countries felt that conservation should be applied through the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) and believed that the new group would needlessly duplicate work already being carried out by, for example, the Scientific Committee.

According to the first Report of the Conservation Committee, presented in Sorrento this week, no agreement has yet been reached on the definition of "conservation". The report details that, "a definitive answer was beyond the capacity of the Committee's first meeting."

In understated language, the report went on to say that the absence from its proceedings of many countries was viewed by some "as an indication of dissatisfaction with the process by which the Committee was established." Since the Conservation Committee was set up, several countries have made clear that they may leave the IWC altogether.

Eugene Lapointe, President of IWMC, said: "When they created the concept of a Conservation Committee, the environmentalist groups failed to anticipate any consequences. They are continuing to lead the IWC into the abyss."

The Committee has now established a sub-group to examine the language of the original proposal and discuss its terms of reference. Further discussion will also take place on how the Committee is to be funded.

Meanwhile, the Finance and Administration Committee heard a proposal, initiated by environmentalist NGOs and dutifully introduced by the United Kingdom, to give these groups greater powers at the IWC.

The campaigners want to be even more directly involved in the Commission and its sub-groups, presumably to reinforce and more closely supervise the policies they already inject with the help of complicit member states. On Tuesday, several Commissioners from anti-whaling countries repeated verbatim a series of arguments presented in WWF's speaking notes that criticize the Chairman's RMS proposals.

In particular, the NGOs want to have the authority to speak at IWC meetings, where their accusations about the integrity of nations can attract greater attention with the international media.