1.9.4 Report of the 1988 Meeting to Review the Operation of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, London 12-16 September

Opening of the meeting
1. A meeting to review the operation of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, convened in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention, was held in London from 12 to 16 September 1988.
2. All the Contracting Parties to the Convention were represented: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America.
3. Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Peru and Sweden participated as observers by invi- tation of the Contracting Parties.
4. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) were also present as observers. At the special invitation of the Contracting Parties the International Union for Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) provided an expert to assist the Meeting in its consideration of the conservation aspects of the Convention's operation.
5. A list of participants is at Annex A [not reproduced].
6. The Meeting was opened by Mr Tim Eggar, MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The text of this speech is at Annex B [not reproduced].
Election of Officers
7. Mr David Edwards (United Kingdom) was elected Chairman of the Meeting. Mr Michael Snell (United Kingdom) was appointed Secretary. Opening addresses
8. Opening addresses made by Heads of Delegations are reproduced at Annex C [not reproduced].
Adoption of agenda
9. The Provisional Agenda was adopted. A copy of the agenda is at Annex D [not reproduced].
Adoption of Rules of Procedure
10. The Provisional Rules of Procedure were adopted. A copy of these Rules is at Annex E [not reproduced].
Review of the operation of the Convention
11. In accordance with the requirement laid upon the Contracting Parties by the terms of Article 7 of the Convention to review the operation of the Convention at regular intervals since its entry into force (on 11 March 1978) the Meeting considered the number of seals that had been taken under special permit and the expedition that had taken place during this period.
12. The Meeting noted the conclusion of the SCAR Group of Specialists on Seals that the number of seals killed or captured under special permit had been low and could not be considered to have had any significant adverse effect on any seal populations. The numbers of seals killed and captured in the Antarctic over the 21 year period 1964-1985 had been tabulated by Dr R. M. Laws (CCAS/RM88/INF2 reproduced at Annex F [not reproduced]). Over the 21 year period, 10, 142 seals had been reported killed or captured under the system of special permits. This was an average of 483 seals per year. When the data were considered for two sub-periods, the following facts emerge. For the decade 1964/65-1973/74, 6949 seals were reported taken, an average of 695 per year: for the eleven year period 1974/75 - 1984/85, 3193 seals were reported taken, an average of 290 per year, less than half that for the previous decade. This reduction in the average take reflects the reduction in seals killed as food for dog teams as they were replaced by mechanical transport. The Meeting noted that the SCAR Group of Specialists had previously reported that it saw no cause for concern that these catches were having a significantly harmful effect on the total stocks of the species concerned, nor on the ecological system in any particular locality and that the Group had seen no reason to change that view given the sustained reduction in the second period. 13. The Meeting noted that the reporting of seals killed or captured under special permit had been incomplete and therefore reminded all Contracting Parties of their reporting obligations under Article 4(2) (see paragraph 17 below).
14. The Meeting noted that during the 1986/87 austral summer, two vessels had been active in the vicinity of the Balleny Islands and the Ninnis and Mertz Glaciers (approximately 145 E to 165 E and 66 S). A report of this expedition was made available to the Meeting. It was noted that a programme of scientific research had been carried out. The Meeting heard with interest that the results of this expedition had been such as to indicate that the initiation of commercial sealing within the next five to ten years was not at all likely. In this context delegations indicated that their countries were unlikely to engage in commercial sealing in the foreseeable future.
15. In concluding its consideration of this element of the operation of the Convention the Meeting generally felt that, on the basis of the information it had before it, there was no evidence to suggest that the Convention had not operated in a reasonably satisfactory manner. Some delegations, however, felt that it would be advisable to review and improve various elements of the Convention, more especially with respect to the Annex, to ensure the more effective operation of the Convention in the event of more sustained sealion activity than had occurred hitherto.
16. Papers submitted by the delegations were initially discussed in Plenary. On the proposal of the Chairman it was then agreed that two open-ended working groups should be established to examine these matters further. A Working Group on the Annex was convened under Dr John Heap (United Kingdom) to consider sub-items 6(i), 6(ii), 6(iii) and the question of a review of protected species as proposed by Australia under sub-item 6(vi). The second group, the Chairman's Working Group, took sub-items 6(iv) and 6(v). It also considered the remaining matters tabled for consideration under sub-item 6(vi) consisting of proposals by the United Kingdom to clarify the means by which suggestions made by SCAR under Article 5(4)9a) of the Convention for amendments to the Annex might be handled and for a consideration of the current accession procedures under Article 12 of the Convention.
Special Permits (Agenda item 6(i))
17. The Meeting discussed the operation of Article 4 of the Convention, including the proposals by Australia aimed at clarification of the objectives of this Article and at ensuring its effective implementation. The Meeting agreed:
A. When considering the issue of a special permit, each Contracting Party should:

  1. ensure that the number of seals permitted to be killed or captured is strictly limited to the minimum necessary to meet the purpose for which the permit is sought;
  2. for permits for scientific research, take all feasible steps to encourage co- operative planning and to minimise wasteful duplication; and, for all permits, take all feasible steps to maximise the scientific benefits derived. To these ends, permits should be issued as far in advance as possible of the commencement of activity under the permit.
B. Contracting Parties should provide to other Contracting Parties and SCAR the fol- lowing information in respect of each permit:
  1. without delay after a permit is issued:
    1. the purpose of the permit, including the specific objectives of the re- search for which a scientific research permit is being issued;
    2. the content of the permit including the locality, time period, number, species and relative age of seals permitted to be killed or captured;
  2. annually, by 30 June, a report describing activities undertaken under special permits in the previous year, including, as appropriate, the following informa- tion for each seal killed or captured:
    1. Specimen number
    2. Species
    3. Collection date
    4. Collection location
    5. Sex
    6. Relative age or size
    7. Reproductive condition (immature, mature, pregnant, lactating)
    8. Type of specimen material collected (eg teeth, reproductive organs, skeletal material, stomach contents, tissue samples, blood, urine, organs etc.)
Exchange of information (Agenda Item 6(ii))
18. The Meeting considered the existing provisions for the exchange of information on seals killed or captured (other than under special permit) as set down in Section 6 of the Annex to the Convention. The Meeting had before it a number of proposals as well as the results of an examination of this matter by the SCAR Group of Specialists on Seals at their 1988 meeting.
19. The Meeting recognised that exchanges of information were an important element of the Convention. It therefore felt that proposals for amendment should be considered with particular care. While there was a considerable measure of agreement as to changes that could be made with advantage, there was not enough time to give adequate consideration to other proposals based on papers which had been circulated only a short while before the Meeting or which had not been available until the Meeting opened. (In the case of the report of the SCAR Group of Specialists on Seals this had occurred because the Review Meeting, for unavoidable reasons, had had to be scheduled a short time after the relevant SCAR meeting.) The matters on which there was concordance were as follows:
  1. The existing requirement for information to be provided by SCAR by 31 October each year meant that the Contracting Parties would not be able to have the benefit of SCAR's advice until after a further sealing season had begun. Since this had implications for the proper operation of the Convention, it was considered that the following dates could, with advantage, be changed to overcome this problem:
  2. data on the number, sex, reproductive condition, and relative age (adult, juve- nile, pup) of each species of seal taken could with advantage be reported by areas of one half degree latitude by one degree longitude (as determined by the noon position of the vessel each day) and by 10-day reporting periods;
  3. careful consideration should be given to providing for the collection of biological information from a statistically valid random sample of seals taken along the lines proposed in paragraph 3.2.2 of the Report of the SCAR Group of Specialists on Seals;
  4. if such provision were made it should be followed by a requirement for the re- sults of the analyses of specimen material from the sample to be reported to SCAR within 12 months of the end of the sealing season, including the ages for each individual in the sample as estimated from teeth and the results of macroscopic analysis of ovaries (counts and size of corpora and large follicles);
  5. the advance notice of the departure of sealing expeditions from their home ports under Section 6(d) of the Annex could, with advantage, be increased from 30 to 60 days and that information might be provided on the location(s) of proposed seal harvesting and the name of vessel(s), gross and net tonnage, brake horse-power and number of crew;
  6. connection with paragraphs 6(a)(i) of the Annex, which requires Contracting Parties to provide certain information on vessels under their flags engaged in sealing, it was agreed that they would also provide the information required under paragraph 6(a)(i) in the case of vessels chartered by their nationals, wherever possible.
20. Other matters in this context upon which the meeting was not able to complete discussion were:
  1. the precise extent to which (if at all) the Annex to the Convention applied to the capture and killing of seals undertaken in accordance with a special permit issued under Article 4;
  2. the desirability of introducing requirements (cf paragraph 17 above) dealing with activity under special permits as a new section of the Annex to the Convention.
21. Representatives, pursuant to paragraph 19(a) above, agreed to recommend for approval by their respective Governments, that the Annex be changed in the following way:
Sealing Zones and Catch Concentration (Agenda Item 6(iii))
22. The Meeting noted that since the conclusion of the Convention, further information had been gathered on the distribution of seals in relation to the pack ice. There have also been advances in understanding of the broad physical and biological processes operating in the Southern Ocean ecosystem, affording an ecological basis for distinguishing semi-discrete sub-systems or zones. The present information suggests that the boundaries of the sealing zones as specified in the Convention are not fully consistent with the current knowledge about the stock structure of the seal populations, and alternative boundaries might be preferable.
23. At the same time it was recognised that information was far from complete, and that new information might suggest further amendments to the boundaries. It was therefore premature to recommend changes to the boundaries as set out in Section 4 of the Annex to the Convention. In the meantime it is important that information on catches, particularly any large-scale catches taken, should be reported by small areas, so that they can be allocated to existing, or alternative, sealing zones or to sub- divisions within these zones.
24. In view of the current uncertainty the Meeting recommended that the scientists of the Contracting Parties and SCAR should keep the question of appropriate boundaries under review with the aim of re-defining zones in a manner more suitable for maintaining a satisfactory balance within the ecological system in a particular locality, as expressed in the preamble to the Convention and in Articles 5(4)(b) and 6(3).
25. As the Convention and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources share common ground in such an ecosystem approach, communica- tion should be maintained between the Parties to these Conventions in reviewing zones.
26. The Meeting noted that the distribution of any future commercial sealing was un- likely to be evenly spread through the Antarctic. There was therefore a possibility that sealing could have a negative impact on local seal stocks of one or other species or on the local ecosystem, even when the catches for the Antarctic as a whole are well within the limits set in Section 1 of the Annex to the Convention. It further noted that, under Article 5(4)b, SCAR was invited 'to report when the harvest of any species of seal in the Convention Area [was] having significantly harmful effect on the total stocks of seal species or on the ecological system in any particular locality'. However, if the Convention is to operate in a predictive rather than a reactive manner, it would be essential to receive reports, not only when such effects had been clearly demonstrated to be occurring, but when there was a significant probability that they might be occurring, or could occur in the near future.
27. The Meeting therefore recognised the need for regular reviews of current information on the distribution and magnitude of localised stocks of each species of seal, and on current catches, and likely future catches. These reviews should inter alia examine the annual and cumulative catches of each species by moderately small areas, chosen to reflect available knowledge of the population structure of seal stocks, and other information relevant to seal population dynamics (eg the distribution of krill), likely future trends in these catches and the relation of these catches to available estimates of population abundance of seals of each species in these areas.
28. SCAR was invited to carry out studies and to report:
  1. on measures that could be taken to avoid the possible adverse effects of sealing being concentrated in one or a few areas, and;
  2. when it appeared to it that there was a significant risk of the occurrence of the harmful effects referred to in Article 5(4)(b). It was further invited to report on any additional information eg on seal biology, or on commercial activities, which might be provided, and which might facilitate these studies.
Commercial Sealing (Agenda Item 6(iv))
29. The Meeting discussed the question of when commercial sealing should be deemed to have begun for the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention, in the absence of notice by a Contracting Party that it or its nationals are commencing commercial sealing. The Meeting concluded that it was unnecessary to amend the Convention at this time to specify any particular criterion and that the matter was one for determination by Contracting Parties, in the light of all the circumstances, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 6. It was recognised, however, that in reaching a determination that commercial sealing had begun, Contracting Parties would need to take into account, in particular, the following factors:
  1. that in any sealing season the number of seals of any species taken exceed what could reasonably be required for the purposes described in Article 4(1) of the Convention; and
  2. the number of seasons in which the taking of seals in such numbers has oc- curred.
Consistency and Co-operation with Other Components of the Antarctic Treaty System (Agenda Item 6(v))30.
Representatives reviewed developments in the Antarctic Treaty System since the Convention came into force in 1978. They considered it desirable and appropriate that there should be cooperation between the Contracting Parties to the separate instruments within the System. They agreed that such cooperation would best be expressed by the fullest possible exchange of information between the Contracting Parties to these instruments, relevant institutions of the Antarctic Treaty System, such as the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and SCAR.
31. Accordingly, they agreed on the text of the following amendment to the Annex (new paragraph 8) which they recommended to the Governments of Contracting Parties for their approval.
Other Matters (Agenda Item 6(vi))
a. Procedures for dealing with amendments to the Annex to the Convention that may be suggested by SCAR
32. The Meeting discussed the procedure to be followed for dealing with any amend- ment of the Annex to the Convention which SCAR might suggest in pursuance of Article 5(4)(a) of the Convention. The Meeting concluded that any such suggested amendment should be treated in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention provided that it is submitted to the Depositary by a Contracting Party in accordance with paragraph (1) of that Article.
b. Accession Procedures
33. The Meeting discussed means to facilitate the procedure for considering the issue of invitations to States wishing to accede to the Convention in accordance with Article 12. The Meeting agreed that it would be appropriate, whenever the Depositary notifies Contracting Parties of the wish of a State to accede to the Convention, that the Depositary should issue an invitation to that State if it receives no objection from any Contracting Party within 120 days of the date of the notification.

c. Protected Species
34. The Meeting considered the proposal by Australia to extend the protection already given to the adult breeding stock of Weddell seals to include the pups, and also to afford similar protection to crabeater seals during the breeding season.
35. In the case of Weddell seals, it was agreed that locally concentrated stocks are highly vulnerable during the breeding season, warranting the extension of protection at that time to include the pups.
36. Representatives, noting that they agreed on the desirability of extending the protection afforded to Weddell seals to include pups during the breeding season, agreed to recommend to Governments the deletion in paragraph 2 of the Annex of the words 'one year old or older'.
d. Avoidance of the Accidental Introduction of Infectious Diseases
38. During the Meeting much concern was expressed about evidence that the recent deaths of many thousands of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the North Sea might have been caused by a viral disease and it was recognised that this had emphasised the vulnerability of Antarctic seal populations to infectious diseases originating outside Antarctica. While noting that there are measures already in place under Annexes C and D of the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora aimed at reducing the risk of accidental introduction of such diseases, it was agreed to draw the attention of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties and the Executive Secretary of CCAMLR, to the concern that all possible steps be taken to reduce the risk of accidental introduction into Antarctica of viruses potentially lethal to native mammals or birds. SCAR was invited to consider what pathways there might be for the accidental introduction of such virus infections into Antarctica and to advise as to what steps might be taken to render such introductions less likely.
39. Meanwhile Representatives urged that steps should be taken to:

  1. avoid as far as possible the introduction into the Antarctic of any potential virus carrier;
  2. minimise contact between dogs and seals in the Convention area;
  3. quarantine sick dogs and carry out post mortem examination of all dogs and those seals which are believed to have died from unusual causes;
  4. cremate or remove all dead domestic animals from the Antarctic in sealed containers.
Adoption of the final report
40. The Final Report was adopted by consensus. The Meeting requested the Depositary to transmit the Recommendations contained in paragraphs 21, 31 and 36 of this Report to all Contracting Parties in accordance with Article 9(2) of the Convention.
41. In view of the relevance of this Report to the interpretation and application of the Convention, the Meeting decided to request the Depositary to transmit a copy of this Report to all Contracting Parties, to observers invited to the Meeting, and to the Government of any State which indicates a wish to accede to the Convention. Closing of the Meeting
42. The Meeting warmly expressed its gratitude to the SCAR Group of Specialists on Seals for the important work they had done since 1972 to improve understanding of the scientific basis for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals and, in particular, for the Report prepared by the Group,at its meeting in Hobart in August this year specifically for consideration at their review meeting. The Meeting also thanked Professor Don Siniff for his expert assistance to the Meeting. Following a closing address by the delegation of Australia, on behalf of all delegations, expressing warm thanks to the Government of the United Kingdom, to the Chairman, and to the Secretary and his staff, the Meeting was closed at 5.15 pm on 16 September.

1.9.5 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals: Contracting Parties

The Convention entered into force 11 Mar 1978

Signatures and Ratification
StateDate of signatureDate of deposit
of ratification or
acceptance (A)
Argentine Republic9 Jun 19727 Mar 1978
Australia5 Oct 19721 Jul 1987
Belgium9 Jun 19729 Feb 1978
Chile28 Dec 19727 Feb 1980
France19 Dec 197219 Feb 1975 (A)
Japan28 Dec 197228 Aug 1980 (A)
New Zealand9 Jun 1972
Norway9 Jun 197210 Dec 1973
South Africa9 Jun 197215 Aug 1972
Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics		9 Jun 19728 Feb 1978
United Kingdom9 Jun 197210 Sep 1974
United States of America28 Jun 197228 Dec 1976

Accessions
StateDate of deposit
Poland15 Aug 1980
Germany, Federal Republic30 Sep 1987
Canada4 Oct 1990
Brazil11 Feb 1991
Italy2 April 1992

Next Section - 1-10