IWC 65 - final article for the Huffington Post re. IWC65

I have produced a final blog on IWC 65 - focused on Japanese whaling - and which can be found HERE.

And just for a change here is a view of the sunset in Gothenberg in Sweden last night.

IWC 65 and Marine Debris

As some readers will know, I should probably by rights, be in the Guinness Book of World Records for both convening and chairing the highest number of IWC Marine Debris workshops even held in an IWC intersessional period (i.e. two)!

Waikiki Seafront

Anyway, the main point of this blog (apart from self-aggrandizement) is to emphasize that the International Whaling Commission is not just all about whaling. Inevitably the canon of work on other threats to whales gets overlooked because of the public interest in the whaling debate. And this was certainly not helped by the scant attention paid to the work of the Scientific Committee at IWC 65. Nonetheless, the IWC and especially its Scientific Committee of 200 or so souls who meet each year, have steady, significant and ongoing programmes of work looking at pollution (in all its forms), climate change and other matters. (None of these are dependent on data from scientific whaling by the way.)

One of these issues is marine debris and the first IWC workshop was held in March 2013 at the Woodshole Oceanographic Institute in the USA. This mainly evaluated the state of knowledge of this threat to cetaceans.You can find its report here and a review of the topic that I wrote here before the workshop..

The second workshop was in August this year in Honolulu, Hawaii (so close to the Commission meeting that it was a battle to get it's report ready in time). The full report is here and I gave a summary report of this meeting to the IWC Conservation Committee (CC) and here is what I said (which includes the acknowledgments that did not make it to the CC report):

Simmonds reported that were two IWC marine debris workshops (in effect a two-phase process) since the last meeting of the Commission. 

The first, reported to the Scientific Committee was held at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in May 2013 and this dealt mainly with assessing the current status of knowledge of the impacts of debris in terms of entanglement and ingestion by cetaceans and the emerging threat posed by microdebris.  It also provided some recommendations for the second workshop. This second workshop was held in Honolulu from 5-7 August 2014 and it was charged with trying to find ways to mitigate the threats posed by marine debris.

A considerable amount of preparatory work was required for this workshop especially as we were outreaching to a number of other key international bodies and I would like to thank Claire Bass and Sarah Baulch in particular for preparing materials ahead of the meeting and helping to identify and build those links. Thirty-four participants from ten countries attended, including several from the Pacific region. Importantly, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Environment Programme and its Convention for Migratory Species were all represented, as were relevant industry bodies and a number of non-governmental organisations concerned with marine debris. It transpired that the workshop coincided with the predicted landfall of two hurricanes in the Hawaiian archipelago and I would like to thank the participants and secretariat team for their stoicism in continuing with the workshop whilst this almost unprecedented scenario played out.  

Fortunately, these weather systems eventually reached Honolulu as a tropical storm with limited impact. The workshop may also be the first IWC event to meet in part in the empty premises of a night club when our original meeting room proved not to be viable because of building noise. So we were both stoical and adaptable!

The objectives for the workshop are detailed in Rep 04 and the workshop reviewed initiatives from around the world that are practically addressing marine debris in general and entanglement of cetaceans in particular. These initiatives ranged from high-level agreements between countries to address the issue, to efforts in the field to remove materials directly from the seas and recycle or burn it for energy, to efforts to disentangle whales and other cetaceans snared in netting.

The Workshop emphasised that the issue of marine debris, while important for cetaceans, was a major environmental issue in its own right that was already the subject of a number of important international and national initiatives and that there is a need for improved coordination to help bring these initiatives together. Any lack of strong evidence of quantified impacts for some cetacean species for some debris types at present should not preclude efforts to remove existing debris and prevent future accumulation in the marine environment. It also agreed that from an animal welfare perspective, the absolute number of cetacean entanglements and the associated suffering and times to death are unacceptable, irrespective of population level effects.

The Workshop agreed that the IWC’s primary contribution should be to ensure that cetacean-related issues are adequately represented within existing initiatives and that its strong scientific and other expertise is made available in collaborative efforts.

It strongly recommended as the highest priority that the IWC and its Secretariat work together with the Secretariats of the other major IGOS and RMFOs relevant to this issue to ensure consistency of approach, synergy of effort and exchange of information to develop appropriate mitigation strategies that recognise that (a) prevention is the ultimate solution but that (b) removal is important until that ideal is realised.

The workshop went on to make recommendations about suitable collaborations, stressing the importance of working with fishermen and the relevant international bodies and relating to how IWC member nations can help in data collection. It also called on the IWC Scientific Committee to explore ways of combining estimates of oceanic debris and information on cetaceans to identify priorities for mitigating and managing the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans.

As a workshop focused on mitigation, it also looked at how outreach can be improved including highlighting the IWC’s own work and potential in this.

Finally, the Workshop endorsed the planned IWC workshop (anticipated March-April 2016) on prevention of the incidental capture of cetaceans. It agrees that this should incorporate entangling debris as well as in-use fishing gear. It reiterates the importance of ensuring participation of experts from industry and relevant IGOs especially FAO and the Workshop also appreciated the excellent progress made by the IWC’s disentanglement programme (led by the redoubtable David Matilla) and encouraged all members and non-members of the IWC to take advantage of the IWC disentanglement network especially in those regions where entanglement represents a threat at the population level (e.g. Western Pacific, Eastern South Atlantic, and Arabian Sea).

Meeting in a night club - note the dancing platforms/cages to right and left

An example of the dangers posed by plastic in the seas to whales was provided to the IWC HERE.https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3514
 :

IWC 65 - overviews and blogs REV REV

I plan to write one more piece about IWC 65, which closed yesterday. Some sort of final assessment of where the many twists of the meeting have left us  but I need a couple of days to get my addled neurons back together again. It was an intense meeting and one of great highs and lows.

Meanwhile here is a link to a new Huffington Post article where I look in a little more depth at the Icelandic demarche and views in Europe on whaling. LINK

Here is Wayne Pacelle of HSUS providing a well-informed overview LINK

You may also like to look at the very clear and clean reports from the meeting provided by Chris Butler Stroud of WDC. Here's his report of the last day LINK

And very helpful overview - including a voting record from WDC- LINK

New Scientist view LINK

For more about the background to the ruling to the International Court of Justice ruling here is an editorial in Antarctic Science from a few weeks ago LINK 

The official summary from the IWC meeting is now online HERE This includes all the conclusions made and the texts of the agreed resolutions.

New Zealand Commissioner interviewed

IWC Day Four - the final issues

This report is liable to revision - note it not verbatim (none of my blogs are) but I try to capture the main points made by delegates and add some background. Corrections welcomed.

Ryan Wulff Alternate Commissioner for the USA, delegation and small friends.

In the break many Japanese TV crews have been busy interviewing the charismatic mega-fauna of the Commission (the New Zealand and Japanese Commissioners’ and others of similar import). The tension is building as we move towards the vote on Japan’s proposal for Small Type Coastal Whaling.

Back to Chile’s first resolution (IWC/65/12 Rev 4), concerning civil society participation.

[This resolution is a response to the very limited opportunities that the Commission meeting allows to observer organisations to contribute directly to the meeting. At IWC 65 the Chair agreed to trial comments from the non governmental organisations under appropriate agenda items. This is the practice in other conventions and this is why we have been hearing some NGO contributions.]

The four-times revised resolution contains the following key parts:

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION:REAFFIRMS the important role of civil society participation in its proceedings and in ensuring that the IWC remains an open, transparent and fully accountable organisation;

And ADOPTS the amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission contained in the Annexes to this Resolution.

[and the main addition to the rules are]

“ 3. Observers accredited in accordance with rule C.1.(a) and (b) will have speaking rights during Plenary sessions and sessions of Commission subsidiary groups and Committees to which they are admitted to under C.2, in accordance with the Rules of Debate of the Commission. Observers might also submit documents for information to the delegations and observers participating in such sessions, provided these are submitted through the Secretariat at least 48 hours before the session in which they are intended to be made available, and are duly authored or endorsed by the accredited organisation making the submission, which is to be held responsible for its contents.”

[and it also includes a change that means that observers can now be admitted to the meetings of the F&A Committee .]

You can find the full text as agreed here: http://iwc.int/iwc65docs

Japan now joins the consensus  – and also refers to the need to hand out code of conduct for NGOs where they register.

Chile thanks everyone.

Onto Chile’s other brave Resolution  No. 13, about the Scientific Committee now also at its fourth revision (Rev 4). One key aspect of this is that it consolidates the work of the Scientific Committee on small cetaceans.  

Iceland says that it does not recognise the competency of the IWC on small cetaceans. The RMP is the single most important activity of the Scientific Committee. The RMP is a conservation tool. We will not block the consensus with the understanding that it will not cause further delays of the Scientific Committee on implementation reviews and similar.

Japan associates with Iceland. This resolution will not, he adds, change the basic position of Japan with respect to small cetaceans. Japan continues to read the word conservation in the common sense interpretation [that this includes sustainable use of whales] and we will not block this resolution.

A&B associate. Norway and Russia feel likewise.

Australia notes he made recommendations on this that should be recorded.

Guinea is concerned that the IWC has [too] much to do – management of small cetaceans is another burden. However, we will not block the consensus.

St Lucia and St Vincent – we have always been of the view that the IWC does not have competence.

Monaco refers everyone back to his resolution [65/11] which speaks to all sizes of cetaceans.

The resolution passes by consensus and Chile is congratulated.


Resolution of the New Zealand Resolution.

Finally, we move on to the first of the big shows today – the New Zealand resolution – rev I is on the website.

The heat in the room soars; some NGO delegates wish they had had less cocktails last night.

The Commissioner for New Zealand says that in the end he could not keep all parties pulling in the same direction; a consensus resolution would have been an effective way forward. We have to proceed on the basis of there not being consensus.

He notes that the resolution is very close to its original meaning. Some requests from Japan have been included but not all; the last preambular paragraph on sanctuaries was the most difficult – sanctuaries are not affected by article VIII as the ICJ said.

Japan appreciates all the parties and the discussion was ‘quite constructive’ and we appreciate the coordinating role and willingness of New Zealand. However, as just explained, from our point of view there is still a substantial problem – I will not reopen the discussion. The proposal restricts some provisions of the IWC. We appreciate that the resolution is trying to reflect the ICJ but we have some differences. We will not be able to support.

A&B appreciates NZ’s work. He congratulates Australia on trying to achieve consensus. The problem that I am having is that a resolution of such importance could have been so….. radicalized whereby some countries cannot come to grips with the fact that compromises are needed. The proponent was very open to compromise but some countries went beyond this. It begs the question as to who is in control of this resolution. I would have thought that given the preliminary agreement… why was credence given to a minority group [he would appear to be referring to the Buenos Aires Group] – I would have thought that the proponents would have realised the need for consensus.

Iceland adds: the resolution is too narrow; this is not the intention of article VIII. This process should not leave any room for political influence and therefore we cannot support it.

A phone rings. Some headphones tumble….

Norway (very quietly) says he indicated he had serious concerns previously – especially 1b – this limits the objectives. For the sake of clarity if we understood correctly on this interpretation of 1b.

New Zealand replies that we did debate this long and hard and recognise it is a development but we believe it would be very useful for the Commission.

Norway (quietly) thank you very much.

Chair – so we do not have consensus – I am instructing the secretariat to initiate the vote.

Mrs Alison of the IWC Secretariat moves swiftly to the stage to take control of the spread sheet which now appears on screen. The Executive Secretary reminds us that a yes vote is in favour of adopting the vote and a no vote means you do not support it.

The UK Commissioner hurriedly finishes his banana (reportedly his first meal for several days) as he is the first to vote and he says …..

Yes.

The USA said yes, A&B no, and so on, interestingly several Latin American countries abstain.

Chile abstains. Colombia –no; Costa Rica abstain; Dominican Republic no Ecuador abstain

And there is a moment of high drama when in the middle of the voting roll call (with the Executive Secretary carefully calling on each country by name and then repeating their vote) a lone protester seems to storm the stage…. But no it is Julie Creek, the Executive Secretary’s redoubtable personal assistant who has caused the roll-call to pause and she now whispers something of obviously great and terrible import in his ear.

[Is the Grand Hotel on fires; is Sea Shepherd climbing the cliffs in order to get in; is Julie fed up with being in the background and come to demand a seat on the stage; or has Scotland left the UK – perhaps meaning that the UK Commissioner only has half a vote? No it is revealed that an appropriate sum of money had reached an appropriate bank account and St Vincent and the Grenadines has had its vote reinstated. Such things can of course be key when votes are close.]

Julie is sent back to her place and with hardly a hair out of place the Executive Secretary continues with the vote. He come to St Vincent and the Grenadines and calls on them but there is no rely. They are not there and we move on and conclude this vote.

35 vote yes, 25 no 5 abstain and so is passed

Japan takes the opportunity to 'explain his vote' – he believes that the collection of scientific information is essential and in accord with the statement of his minister, Japan will be submitting a new research plan in November. All these activities are perfectly in line with international law.

Australia states with her F&A  hat on that it is only those members who have paid up at the opening at the commission who can vote and then goes on to thank everyone for their tireless activities; we wanted to see the core elements incorporated here. Even though consensus was not possible this is a strong resolution; we agree in principle with stronger sentiments, this is not about opposing lethal scientific whaling (although we do) this resolution was not the vehicle for this.

[This would seem to be a reference to the fact that some abstaining countries did not sign onto the resolution because they did not feel it was strong enough or that in some way it condoned/bought into scientific whaling.]

New Zealand thanks Japan for constructive engagement, noting again that several aspects that  they had requested have been included The forthcoming review by the expert panel [on the next Japanese ‘scientific’ research programme in Antarctica  which may or may not be called JARPIII] should encompass what we have just agreed. The Chair of this Commission should write to the Chair of the Scientific Committee about this.

A&B says that the ICJ cautioned us against the use of resolutions that do not have consensus. Australia says this should be sent to the Scientific Committee but  I would like to caution against this. The court warned us against using non-consensus resolutions – perhaps we need an intersessional on this?

Chair –you recommendation is noted.

Argentina would have likes a resolution not limited to what the ICJ provided we would have liked deeper modifications to special permits and reaffirm the need to put an end to whaling under special permits. We are firm to our commitment to the defense of sanctuaries.

Colombia voted no – as a conservation country and support not lethal use and thank the effort made by New Zealand; she does not like generalities.

Ecuador abstained but recognised the effort from New Zealand.

Mexico supports Australia in the steps to take to implement the resolution.

Guinea says that we are pelagic consumers.

A head-set goes flying.

Brazil said we wanted to consolidate the ICJ finding but we condemn lethal research and associate with Argentina

Dominican Republic – scientific use should not be lethal.

The Republic of Korea is called and, somewhat confusingly, whilst they speak, up on the big screens the Italian Commissioner is shown sitting quietly behind her flag. Anyway, Korea regrets consensus has not been found.

Uruguay would have liked a stronger resolution; they are against scientific whaling and would have liked this to be clear.

Chair: We are way over time. The list is closed. Even if you wave your flag I am going to ignore you.

Peru is thoroughly opposed and she associates with Mexico, Argentina and others.

Gabon – we supported.

.

Costa Rica thanks New Zealand – we had to abstain because the resolution was not [strong enough].

Italy speaking on the behalf of the member states thanks NZ. We regret that consensus could not be reached. You have already heard our arguments in support and we really hope that this will help us in our future work.

Panama associates with Argentina and others.

Then the Chair reverts to New Zealand who states that on the point from A&B it is clear that an instruction has been issued – there is no discretion and the SC as a subsidiary body must [now] comply.

[A long discussion on the food security resolution presented by Ghana and some other African nations follows but my attention was elsewhere and as it was ultimately put to one side for intersessional work, I will not say anything more except as reported to me, the debate included the notion of the sustainable use of NGOs – and that can’t be right, can it?]

The New Zealand (left) and Monaco Commissioners

We suddenly move to the vote on the South Atlantic Sanctuary proposal.

40 in favour 18 against 2 abstain – it fails [it needed ¾ vote and fails by just a handful] All EU countries – yes, UK yes, US yes, Uruguay yes, A&B no, Arg yes, etc etc

There is applause and one boo – ‘don’t do that’ says the Chair

Denmark aligns with the EU and speaks for Fareos and Greenland – any future sanctuary proposal should be agreed with rules

Guinea says that if we are working on an RMP why should adopt the sanctuary.

Brazil is disappointed but pleased that each time the support is higher. Sanctuaries improve fishing levels and are in line with food security issues.

The Chair then asks about the advice to be given to the Scientific Committee on how to review sanctuaries and a rather confusing series of exchanges follow which I think culminates with the issue being sent to two working groups that have to speak to each other and there was reference to some standing instructions.

The final huge issue in the room, the proposal from Japan for a relief quota of whaling for some coastal towns, rolls forward. [This would be in the category of Small Type Coastal Whaling which according to the ICJ ruling, does not exist.]

Japan thanks everyone for constructive discussion and we move to the vote,

Europeans  vote no, as does Gabon. Japan, Iceland, Norway and many developing nations vote yes. Oman abstains.

It fails – 19, 39, 2

The Chair notes her personal disappointment with the vote and that we have been coming back to this same issue for 20 years and that indicates dysfunction…

A&B asks why some proposals need a schedule amendment? And he adds that we will never vote for the Sanctuary unless those countries that want a sanctuary allow for the needs of others [or something like that] … we have a blocking minority. The sanctuary is tied to the other realities of this convention

Guinea reminds us of Bill Hogarth [a previous US Commissioner] and how he tried to move the blockage with a package – this should have been approved…. We should have a package if we want to go forward.

Japan thanks those who supported. The main thrust of our proposal is now changed and we are now working in accordance with 10e – so we meet all the requirements for whaling, legally and scientifically. We will establish a working group on this and make it open to all members of the IWC we would especially like countries that voted no to join. This will be a transparent process.

He continues mildly, I might have sounded like I exhausted my question yesterday but I have another question: many countries oppose commercial whaling and my question that will be addressed to this working group is why do you take this position – I have repeated explained 10e. This is a language that stipulates the process for resuming sustainable whaling based on RMP. Or is this about whale killing ethos and animal welfare or is this a view to put whales outside of the sustainable use principle. We would like to be told. These things will be discussed by the working group. The convener is Mr Moronuki – he also chairs the working group on countries of limited means.

We have four parliamentary members at this meeting. They are not here to make a statement but to listen to the arguments and have dialogue with as many as possible. It is exceptional that they are still here. They will have a meeting back home next week and amazingly the whaling policy of the Japanese government is supported by all parties. Political involvement will be substantially strengthened from this meeting.

And with those thoughts ringing in our ears off to a brisk lunch.

Tidying Up

Into the final session –all the debating is done, exhausted NGOs are slumbering in their big comfortable seats high at the back of the room, the film crews have stopped filming the megafauna, all the small cakes have been eaten and there is a general feeling around the room that we have exhausted all ways forwards, backwards and sideways. 

Meanwhile the UK Commissioner's missing and well traveled mascot, Meery, has at last been located deep in the US delegation with a lady meerkat - it appears that romance has blossomed. Mr Gooding appears delighted. 

Post-lunch and, almost as an afterthought, the Chair now asks the assembly can we support the report of the Scientific Committee in 2013 and ALL its recommendations?

[Vigilant readers will recall that the voluminous scientific committee reports were delivered way back on Monday as a power point and little has been heard from them since.]

There are no comments and the 2013 report is adopted.

Before we can endorse the 2014 report….Australia notes that was no agreement on Scientific Committee agenda item 17.1 (‘special permits’), with a number of states expressing the view that the Commission should not endorse that part of the scientific committee and that scientists from the following countries [a list is given including the UK but not USA and Japan] did not take part in this.

With this inclusion the report is adopted.

The Scientific Committee Chair Kitikato-san comes to the microphone and notes that his term ends in San Diego [the next Scientific Committee meeting] and we have to recruit a new Vice Chair. As I will not be Chair at the next meeting – this is my last intervention from the Chair. I thank all the SC participants for their contribution. We have all been working for science of whales and whaling trying to meet the IWC objectives, I hope you will cordially thank us. I have nine months to go and thank all for support.

Applause.

The report of the infractions sub committee is adopted. The Conservation Committee report is finally concluded and its Chair, Lorenzo, indicates that a new chair will need to be found. He is given warm applause.

Argentina missed the opportunity to comment on infractions and ask again to repeat the conclusions.

Chair – it is a procedural matter – I recommend this should be referred to the Operational Effectiveness committee and reported back on in 2016; there seems to be a gap in the process that we need to deal with – including the assignment of ASW quotas. Australia adds that this also relates to how an infraction is recorded.

So we adopt the infractions committee again.

The aboriginal subsistence whaling committee report is also formally adopted.

Similarly the report of the Finance and Administration Committee moves forward. Some new members are allocated to committees.

Fabian Ritter, the alternate Commissioner for Belgium, next carefully explains that for reasons of poor health, the Belgian Commissioner,Frederick Chemy, will have to withdraw his candidacy as Chair of the Commission (he is currently the Vice Chair but has been gravely ill the last few days). Fabian adds that he is deeply sorry Frederick will not be elected as Chair. “I have worked with him for several years and know his dedication; the sheer fact that he was compromising his health to come here it says it all”. He adds that we have to think about the future and that we have considered many possibilities. The future chair needs to be experienced and he nominates Bruno Mainini, the Swiss Commissioner, as the future Chair.

The Current Chair, Jeannine asks for a seconder and Costa Rica does so.

Switzerland thanks the Commission for having faith in him and extends best wishes to the Belgian Commissioner.

Chair what about the Vice Chair.

Norway says I nominate Japan. Ghana seconds. Applause follows.

Japan’s commissioner, Joji Morshita, says thank you for assuming me for this important job. I too hope that Fredrick [Belgium] will recover as soon as possible

We move on with a list of who is leading what:

Ryan Wolf of the USA becomes the chair of the F&A Committee. Lars Walloe continues as the Chair of the Infractions Committee.

Argentina nominates the new Commissioner from Mexico as the Chair of the Conservation Committee.

When we come to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Committee nominations, it is the Commissioner from St Lucia (aka Jeannine the Commission Chair) who is nominated.

So I am being nominated says the Chair. Russia fully support this. The Commissioner from St Lucia knows our problems well and she has excellent skills he says.

It is hard for me to congratulate myself she says but many flags went up to second me so I must be doing a reasonable job.

Some other positions are sorted out and then we spy another person approaching the stage – is this Julie Creek returning with further urgent news. No it is Ecuador who is keen to give a whale 

watching presentation. In  the break, says Jeannine, firmly.

Argentina now starts to talks about the Scientific Committee and the work that is done by more than 200 scientists each year and there are some issues that we should make more relevant and we should have a fuller consideration of the work. The Scientific Committee should make presentations under the agenda items here he urges. [and many around the room agree.]

Chair – your recommendations are noted and should be brought up during the meeting of the IWC Bureau.

Iceland says he came here with hope for steps for the normalization of the Whaling Commission but we have moved even away from this. Iceland is disappointed – except for the correction of the Aboriginal  whaling by Greenland. The IWC is still dysfunctional to its main task.

Then retiring Commissioner from  Australia says that she  would like to reflect on her  years and to reply to Iceland who I disagree with. We have made progress and we have well held views – we have the sovereign rights to views but we can hear these matters and try to understand them from the differing positions. I still believe that this commission is about healthy whale populations, I would never call this Commission dysfunctional – not just because our side lost, this is not dysfunctional. This is democracy!

The Chair says ‘I agree’.

After coffee there is a little debate around the summary of conclusions that has been agreed and then this is followed by applause for the hosts, the hotel (The Grand Hotel Bernarduntidin) and the hardworking secretariat.

There are no offers to host the next meeting of the Commission in two years time, but the Scientific Committee of the IWC will have its nest meeting in March 2015 in San Diego.

The curtains are opened behind the big screens and sunshine beams in. Several delegates burst into flames.

Small Slovenian Cakes

IWC 65 Some (telling) images

NGO observer (soft) seating

Just a few images from around the meeting hall

Media scrum around the Japanese delegation on day 4 of IWC 65

NGO intervention - Clare Perry of EI

The Monaco Commissioner, Frederick Briand and his alternate
Justin Cooke of IUCN 

Part of the presentation on Safety at Sea from Japan

The Distinguished Commissioner for Luxembourg
Pierre Gallego

Javier (on the left), Kitty and Becky 

World Animal Protection:  Joanna Toole and
Claire Bass

Further interviews with Japanese representatives

Protest at ground zero outside Grand Hotel

And finally further to many requests (mainly from the UK Commissioner) to see more of his beloved mascot - Meery the Meerkat:

Meery flies 

...at the beach

In Honolulu

on delegation.

The happy couple

IWC 65 Day Four part one

Another bright and sunny day here in Slovenia.

A&B debates F&A and Chile has (another) radical idea.

There are many outstanding and important issues flapping in the breeze here at IWC 65. These include the outcomes of what happened with the round table discussion about the key New Zealand resolution on special permit (scientific) whaling? Rumour has it that the round table lost some of its potential participants very early on…. Which implies that there will have to be a vote.

Stand by for votes.

The Chair (aka Jeannine) opens by telling us that we are behind time now – too many resolutions are left open at this point. She makes a recommendation that, in the future, there should be a cut-off time for discussion of resolutions and schedule amendments, so that we can have a proper discussion on the report of the Finance and Administration Committee (F&A) in our last session.  . We will return to all our outstanding resolutions after the break.

The Chair of the F&A Committee (the Australian Commissioner) now takes us through the report of her committee. This includes the reports of various sub groups, and a report on the finances and funding of the work of the Commission.

I won’t go too deeply into this. [Not that it is not important]. At one point, the Chair of the Commission passes the microphone to the Chair of F&A who passes to the UK who is Chair of the Operations and Effectiveness Working Group [too many chairs maybe?].

Antigua and Barbuda (A & B) certainly thinks so and robustly notes that this last working group is being given more and more responsibilities and almost directing the work of the commission. Is this a closed working group? [The Chair had actually asked for countries to join the group and reminds him of this.]

A & B persists that he wants to see a more effective way for the group to work; we have to have modalities through which this group can work; he is concerned about the composition. He would like to become a member but first the modalities.

The Chair says that the group works by email – she recommends that for the intercessional, if you join the group, you can then make a recommendation to the 2016 meeting on this.

Australia moves to the Scientific Committee work plan and report. There was general agreement on this and some money unspent. Paying for the workshops for periodic reviews of JARPAI [Japan’s now discredited ‘scientific’ whaling programme in Antarctica] was not supported by Australia and a debate followed in the Scientific Committee. No consensus was reached on these items. To cut a longier story short, the books were balanced but we have not resolved the individual scientific whaling-related workshops, concludes Australia.

Australia in the distinguished form of Alternate Commissioner Bill De la Mare, then interjects that surely the costs of the special permit reviews should be born by the proponents [that would be Japan] and should better occur at close to the same time as the regular meetings of the Scientific Committee; they are part of the standing work of the Scientific Committee.

The US Commissioner agrees that these are part of the regular work of the commission and notes the Annex P procedure; he will consider ‘coterminous meetings’.

A small unofficial working group breaks out in the margins to discuss the meaning of ‘coterminus’ and whether the new US Commissioner Russell Smith just made the word up. This is resolved by use of the free online dictionary which advices thus:

coterminous (kəʊˈtɜːmɪnəs) or conterminous

adj

1. (Law) having a common boundary; bordering; contiguous

2. coextensive or coincident in range, time, scope, etc

So spot-on Commissioner Smith!

[A few further words of explanation here; Annex P is a document that describes the process of review that the Scientific Committee follows for reports on the research conducted under article VIII (special permit/scientific whaling). The famous ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) basically sets standards that any future article VIII whaling should meet and so discussions of revising Annex P are about this topic. Part of the Annex P procedure as it stands is review workshop that includes some ‘external experts’.]

On we go….

The UK associates with Australia.

Japan says that this workshop is part of the Annex P procedure with outside experts; countries with limited means will be at a disadvantage if they have to pay to attend.

France thinks that it is up to the countries that pay for the research to fund the review workshops and associates with Australia. Germany agrees.

New Zealand agrees that this is the Commission’s business. It is strange, he adds, that we are being asked to fund things outside of the Commission cycle.

Iceland supports Japan. There cannot be in any cherry-picking in this issue – or we will have to look at financing again as this is a regular item.

Argentina associates with Australia and others of like-mind.

The Chair concludes that we don’t have consensus. If we pass the New Zealand resolution it is Commission business. Please would Japan, New Zealand meet? We want all of these reviews to happen but the proponents must fund them.

Japan is happy to be in dialogue – there is short-term and long term aspects to this – the workshop needs to have enough time to come up with the report that the Scientific Committee can then consider and this all needs to happen 60 days ahead of the commission meeting. As to the sharing of the costs, we will have discussions with the countries concerned. Host countries (in this case Japan) have shared the costs in practice.

So some countries are left to discuss.

Back to the F&A – in the future media fees will be waved and observer fees will be looked at. Antigua and Barbuda is concerned about costs. Membership is difficult for developing countries and this makes it difficult for this organisation to reconcile  management … the UN charter does not ask for this … he makes a reference to rich counters and their NGOs, the main NGOs assist them here and at the same time we are not assisting coastal developing countries. We need resolution on inclusion and further democratisation. … we are being punitive to developing countries. [the chair tries to intervene but A&B continues] This is critical, please allow me to approach it in some detail; we cannot favour those that oppose how we want to utilise whales; we should link the resolution to bring more transparency – we should bring more NGOs into the debate but make it easier for developing countries onto this organisation – we cannot open this organisation to NGOs and not developing nations.

The Chair thanks him – there are various procedures where this can be looked at and she describes the options. I keep hearing options from all countries but we need a concrete proposal. I do not thin, she says, we are undemocratic, it may be it is biased sometime.

Guinea likes concrete proposals but our organisation works only in English [he speaks in French which is being translated simultaneously]

Grenada supports A&B and so does St Kitts and Nevis.

The Chair asks can we endorse the recommendations from F&A on this issue. Pause. Yes we can.

The report rolls forward and we move to note that some places on some committee need to be filled – anyone want to know about this.

A&B: We are using voluntary funds too much; if we want transparency we need to review how voluntary funds are used; one idea is that some part of a voluntary fund should go to the core work of this organisation – 20-30% should go into the general work of this organisation. Otherwise countries are using their economic advantage to the disadvantage of some poorer nation. He concludes that today is a very interesting day. 

The USA says he finds the comments from A&B very insightful. The particular fund being discussed is intended to help those that would not otherwise be able to join in with the work of this commission. This fund would assist native hunters.

Japan has a similar view to the USA and suggests that the tax or levy suggested by A&B should be looked at intersessionally.

Ghana supports A&B, USA and Japan. This will give a wider spread to the work of the IWC. St Lucia agrees.

Jeannine asks if we can also approve the voluntary find for ASW?

A&B asks could we agree that my recommendation is put to the working group?

Chair – this can be looked at by the Operational Effectiveness Working Group. The ASW voluntary fund is agreed. [this is a fund to allow governments and others to make voluntary contributions to help the work on Aboriginal  Subsistence Whaling.]

We move on.

The USA has offered to host the next Scientific Committee in San Diego [from around May 20^th].

They are thanked. Ryan Wulff of the USA becomes the new Chair of the F&A.

The Australian Commissioner is given two rounds of applause as she completes her six years in the F&A hot seat.

The UK would ”like to thank the Secretariat for all of the excellent work that has gone into improving communications both within and outside the Commission. In particular welcome the extensive and ongoing improvements to the Commission's website, improving information accessibility and providing regular progress updates on the Commission's growing programme of conservation and welfare work. We also very much welcome the Commission's move to paperless meetings and commend the Secretariat for this efficient transition. 

The Commission now has an extensive, complex and fast-moving agenda, and receives a significant volume of scientific and management advice from two years worth of Scientific Committee and sub-Committee reports. We believe it would be extremely beneficial if meeting participants were given constant and easy access to information on the next agenda item to be covered, as well as a summary of the scientific and management advice from the Commission's advisory Committees. This could be done, for example via large screens in the meeting room or coffee area. We would encourage the Secretariat to consider this request for the 2016 meeting of the Commission.”

Some NGOs now steal the microphone again:

Andy Ottaway of Campaign Whales speaks for small cetaceans which face increasing threats; sadly these small whales include some of the most endangered species. He lists contributions from 17 organisations constituting £16,000., including Whale and Dolphin Conservation, World Animal Protection (not to be referred to as WAP but is anyway by everyone but them) and WWF. These are for the small cetaceans fund.

We are entrusted by further generations he adds to make sure that other species do not follow the baiji (the Chinese river dolphin) to extinction.

The roving microphone is now lost but the NGOs prevail in making interventions when  WAP's Joanna Toole is allowed to sit among the delegates to make her comment. She speaks to welfare and notes contributions totaling £10,000. Donors include the Humane Society International. And this funding will be used to support the disentanglement network and response to strandings.

Jo Toole of WAP speaks - Lorenzo Rojas Bracho, Chair of the Conservation Committee, in orange  looks on

The microphone is wrestled away from the NGOs and returned to the Commissioners.

The USA associates with the request from the UK. Peru does too.

We are now suddenly back with the Conservation Committee and the Chair Lorenzo Rojas Branchos notes a suggestion from Chile that the Conservation Committee should meet annually.

Perhaps stunned by this radical suggestion, we move to a coffee and small cake break. 

IWC 65 Day 3 part 2

US (left) and UK delegations

Some discussion on Chile’s two resolutions follows.Japan wants to know which aspects will be sent to the Scientific Committee to be review and will be agreed here. After a couple of exchanges [which seem not to bring anything that might be referred to as clarity] the Chair declares a five minute break for Japan and Chile to confer; they do but Iceland needs some more time to understand what is going on.

How might time says the chair – overnight; ten minutes, twenty minutes?

It seems that an overnight reflection is required.

Jeannine takes a tour through the resolutions -

On the issue of Small Type Costal Whaling, Japan said that he made some questions yesterday. He would like some answers, so he can consider what he will do tomorrow.

Australia says we are discussing this issue now, not something hypothetical. Japan has not gone through the required steps with this proposal.

USA: thank you madam chairman – we support Australia. The [commercial] quota is zero.

New Zealand says that he thought he had already answered. If it is not article VIII it is in breach. I am not clear where my friend from Japan is going with his threat about what tomorrow might bring.

Italy: Italy on the behalf of the EU nations restates that their position is against – and that is where we are at the moment.

Chair - Any other countries, Japan?

Japan: we know the basic position of Australian government – whatever happens you cannot support the science; it is very inconsistent to me.

In reply to New Zeland he adds, this is not special permit or aboriginal, so 10e is [indeed] relevant; 10e allows that whaling can proceed when conditions allow. The EU nations are against commercial whaling; this is against 10e, if I sound threatening, that was not my intention. We have to think of the next step and that is a very simple step; we have to think of what we should say.

Chair – so this agenda remains open.

We move to the welfare work programme [the story so far just to remind you is that intrersessional work has led to the development of a draft work programme which the UK championed but the programme – the main aspect of which is to extend issue to non-whaling impacts, like ship-strikes and entanglements – was firmly rebuffed by some countries led by Norway].  

The Chair calls on the UK for an upodate: The distinguished Commissioner for the United Kingdom, Mr Nigel Goodling, says that he has listened carefully to all statements and is pleased to present a revised document. Referring back to the committee review, he notes that he heard many views in support and we have addressed many points made. Rev 2 was uploaded at lunch time; we have clearly distinguished between hunting and non-hunting welfare aspects – this document we think addressed the positive comments. I ask the parties to now adopt these recommendations?

Norway replies – reiterating that it had serious concerns with the tabled document. We still find the proposal ambitious but ‘in the spirit of good faith’, we will not block a consensus and we thank UK and co-sponsors for taking our concerns into account.

South Africa supports the adoption and would like to join the group.

Any more comments? encourages the Chair…. last opportunity she adds. She pauses. The proposal is that we adopt by consensus. Pause. Do you agree. Pause. Let us nod [we do with vigour]

Great nodding she says

Applause follows.

Jeanine says that she would like to commend the UK and Norway for the great work that they have been doing.

The UK says thank you to Norway and thanks to the IWC for the consensus adoption of this [welfare] plan. The UK will commit £20,000 to its delivery.

Chair – thank you UK.

The distinguished alternate Commissioner from Austria goes to shake the hands of UK and Norway.

Another attempt is made to look at the Chilean resolutions – the highly innovative approach of beaming them up onto the huge screens in the meeting hall is attempted but the chair says this is too confusing. Let us get a revised text in front of us.

And so we close. National delegates ease their sore limbs from their little chairs, whilst up in the cinema seats non-governmental observers seem almost reluctant to move. Many are filing copy with distant media colleagues and contacts. The big news for the day will be UK’s success with its welfare plan.

Meerkat Update

Further to my plea for reports, sighting of meerkats (believed likely to be Meery the missing companion of the UK Commissioner) have now been made around Piran and also in the meeting hall itself. Curiously, it is rumoured that there may be more than one meerkat in the Grand upside down hotel. As this is not a species indigenous to Slovenia this is quite surprising. 

Is this Meery up the bell tower in Piran?

IWC 65 Day Three

This is going to be fast and furious and ramble all over the agenda today - fasten your seat belts and secure your headsets - look out for mentions of marine debris and sightings of meerkats.

The day starts with Commissioners locked in one of the many private meetings that break out like an undemocratic rash around IWC meetings these days – and mostly belonging to the European Union.

When the rest of us are allowed into the great hall, there are few clues about what was happening in the Commissioner’s only meeting. No blood on the carpet, no black eyes – has someone complained about the NGOs being in the soft seats, has the infestation of meerkats been objected to? We shall never know.

The day starts with Madam Chair going through the long agenda noting that we have little time.

Japan then poses his main question for the meeting: if we complete the RMP process [this is the process that calculates quotas] will his STCW [small type coastal whaling] request be granted?

We move to ‘Cooperation with other organisations’ (agenda 21)

Simon Brockington sitting at the front of the Great Hall next to the Chair notes the mainly scientific exchanges with other organisations based on an exchange of observers. Delegates are invited to read them through themselves and raise questions. There is a long pause. Simon looks at Jeannine (the Chair), Jeannine looks at Simon. A few headsets tumble and …

Italy (for the EU) speaks of cooperation and notes MoUs and RFMOs and recalls the Monaco resolution agreed yesterday. He mentions specifically the importance of collaborative work on Marine Debris.

Costa Rica notes CBD and its work on marine protected areas.

Back to agenda item 14: the EU the now speaks around the issue of the demarche that it delivered in Reykjavik on Monday – but without actually mentioning it.

The EU nations supports the moratorium and he says he has formally approached Iceland on this issue and also asked Iceland to withdraw its reservation on international trade at CITES. Argentina likewise speaks to defend the moratorium and although he too recognises the conservation efforts made by Iceland in other fora he adds his voice to that of the EU and calls on Iceland to not issue further quotas for minke and fin whales. The United States comes to the microphone next and associates with Italy and Argentina and encourages Iceland to abide by the moratorium. He lists the numbers of whales killed in recent years which are a significant increase from the 7 taken in the preceding years. This is reducing the effectiveness of CITES and the IWC and President Obama has authorised US agencies to take certain actions. Iceland’s whaling damages its reputation. Whale watching is an alternative to commercial whaling. He also strongly encourages Norway to cease commercial whaling.

Australia associates with the previous speakers

Iceland asks why is it only focused on us? It is no news to us [gentle laughter]. Iceland attaches great importance to sustainable use. It is essential for long tern prosperity and is only addressed to abundant whale stocks; it is sustainable and strictly managed. It is practiced on the same basis as whaling in US waters. We are dependent on sustainable trade in marine products; all international relations should be based on the rule of law and not on emotions as seems to the case here. We were one of the first countries to take a conservationist approach to whaling –and he provides some further history here…. The moratorium has no scientific basis. The abundance of minke whales has been confirmed by the IWC and NAMMCO and can be seen on their websites. Our takes are within the limits of sustainable catches…. The stated aim of the IWC is the orderly development of whaling, we should keep this in mind. Lastly I want to say to you that there is a mention of whale-watching in this paper [the demarche], we see no reason why they cannot be operated together. Usually when we have critics of whaling we feel they are hiding something in their own back garden.

Incidentally you can find the demarche here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-529_en.htm

Japan is called to the microphone next and says that whilst listening to the interventions, he keeps asking the same question to himself, do they oppose all whaling and they base their argument on the so-called whaling moratorium. This is based on 10e which sets up the steps for the resumption of commercial whaling as long as assessments are completed. For this purpose RMP has been developed. How do you interpret 10e as the basis of elimination for all whaling? This is my first and standing question, and my question is becoming stronger. I understand that many countries support RMP – this is inconsistent with opposing commercial whaling. RMP was adopted by consensus in 1994; we should be calculating quota for commercial whaling. Many scientists are working on implementation reviews. This is a management system accepted by many of us. To me there are many clear inconsistencies in support for RMP and opposition to moratorium… inconsistent. The RMP is only applied when stocks are at MSY (many fisheries stocks are harvested below this) this is very conservative. The IWC has already conducted implementation review and NS Pacific minke, southern minke and others including North Atlantic minke are at MSY, that is why RMP gave us catch quota. Both Norway and Iceland used RMP for their quota. The guiding principle should be that it is sustainable.

New Zealand associates with US, Australia and others and they joined the demarche. New Zealand also objected to the Iceland reservation [to the moratorium] – Iceland left and rejoined with a reservation – the ICJ says if it is not aboriginal or article VIII, you breach the provision.

Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia and, Peru associate with the EU and others.

Norway associates with the explanation of principles from Japan and Iceland.

Russia reminds us that reservation on the moratorium extends to Russia… and Iceland. He is not involved in commercial take because of technical issues but still has the right for commercial whaling; with regards to Iceland he will not repeat the extensive comments from Japan and the response from Iceland was complete.

At the Shimonoseki IWC meeting there were six votes on Iceland rejoining and several countries pointed out that they did not accept membership. The secretariat later sent out the document telling this. So I am a little bit astonished that those countries that do not accept Iceland as a member are taking part in this discussion. Same countries do not want to discuss the problems of Indonesia or Canada but want to discuss this country. As Japan explained Iceland meetings all the requirements of CITES and UNCLOS. There is no concern about sustainability.

I apologise for taking the floor again – I love to have discussion with my colleague from New Zealand – he cites part of the ICJ ruling but notes that Iceland has reservations and legal effect is clear. 10e is a process to provide zero catch quota on a temporary basis.

Mexico objected to Iceland’s reservation when it rejoined and associates with Argentina.

Panama associates with the EU and others, as does Uruguay. He adds that he emphatically opposes any commercial whaling. Costa Rica says that sometimes we are not speaking within the framework of the convention when we say there is no moratorium, but we are not willing to accept any other interpretation. Dominican Republic feels likewise.

Iceland thanks some for the support and reiterates that Iceland’s whaling is based on the rule of law; criticism is based on something else that I cannot comprehend. Thank you.

Special Permits

The Chair explains how this agenda item will be dealt with – the government of Japan wants to give a short presentation and Australia and Japan reserve the right to reply. Before I open the floor I note there has been ample time to review the judgement. Therefore I wish to reiterate that I expect a factual debate on this judgement. Countries may want to make statements on scientific whaling but if you are making judgements on the ICJ you need to be factual – be factual and cordial.

Japan points at a paper, noting that there are no factual statements or misunderstandings.

I will try here just to pick up Japan’s main points as he slowly and carefully proceeds:

1.       The ICJ binds [only] Australia New Zealand and Japan – it does not bind the IWC;

2.       It is natural for another international body [IWC] to consider this;  ICJ decided that any extant programme should be stopped and no further permits should be issued – it only relates to JARPAII [the research programme that was the focus of the court case];

4.       The ‘orderly development of the whaling industry’ means the sustainable conduct of the industry;

5.       It does not ban lethal methods – but notes that other methods should be used when available;

6.       The ICJ does not ban sales of whale meat (as allowed under the ICJ) – the sale of whale meat does not make the activity fall outside of article VIII;

7.       The ICJ decided JARPAII was not reasonable – we regret this finding;

8.       Objectives were defined as broadly scientific [he adds that the does not understand how it can be scientific and not-scientific – but he will not dispute it]; and

9.       The Court expects Japan to take reasoning into account in further permits.

The Australia legal expert thanks Japan for his clear presentation. He made comments in a private commissioners hearing this morning and he will not repeat them. [So we will not hear them]

He says the ICJ judgement should be read in full. It is a very clear document. It does only bind the parties and pronouncements are reliable interpretations of international law. The summary of Australia’s position is as follows

1.       The court found that article VIII applied;

2.       Moratorium, Factory ship moratorium and Southern Ocean Sanctuary all contravened;

3.       Scientific whaling was not outlawed but the ICJ outlined the criteria that should be applied and these should be used by the IWC in future; and criteria included

a.       It must be for purposes of scientific research – to which the court applied the test of reasonableness; and

b.      The scale of lethal sampling cannot be greater than required.

New Zealand reminds us that he was a third party at the ICJ. Scientific Whaling is allowed for under the convention but the court sent a strong signal on this. It can no longer be business as usual. It needs to be seen in the light of this. The Japanese programme of eight years breached various aspects of the convention and supported criticisms levelled by many scientists over the years.

Japan made an observation about science but not science. The court points to only two peer-reviewed papers that do not even relate to the aims of the research and are based on a small sample size.

Japan says he will respond to ‘my friend’ because he likes this paragraph very much. The court judgement must be read as a whole – but the court judgement has lengthy dissenting opinions. Everyone should read these. We have 666 papers submitted to the Scientific Committee and elsewhere.

A long coffee break follows. There is much concern around the floor on the ICJ resolution from New Zealand and how it is progressing and also how many small cakes it is wise to consume in one break.

The Chair resumes the session and calls on all parties to be respectful [not that anyone has been disrespectful so far]

Mexico says this is an issue of the highest importance to Mexico and we must adhere to the ICJ findings. Argentina agrees. The Commission is sovereign he adds. Changes need to be made to take into account the standards established. We don’t want changes that will not change anything.

Monaco says there is an opportunity to now act wisely. There is an issue about how much this body should be consulted and we wish to draw your attention to para 61 of the ICJ judgement which says that the perception of states alone is not enough to issue a special permit. We have the right to be consulted.

Uruguay emphasises that the moratorium is in place.

Iceland associates with Japan.

Japan comes to the microphone again and he says he senses a possible misunderstanding. JARPAII has been stopped and there will be no JARPAII in the coming austral summer and Japan will fully abide by the ICJ judgement and we will take into account all the reasoning and conclusions of the judgement.

Any other comments? Dum dum dum. No.

Back to comments on existing special permits (meaning the review of Scientific Whaling results)

There are few comments and the Chair is noted that there was dissent in the Scientific Committee about whether or not review should proceed.

Japan extends his heartfelt thanks to all involved in the review (initially a workshop) – he is confident that all those positive evaluations will be taken into account in the conservation and management of whales in the Antarctic Ocean.

Australia then reads from the Scientific Committee report and notes that some scientists did not take part in the review or agree necessarily with the review conclusions. She notes that the review workshop took part in Tokyo but that the ICJ case ‘intervened’ after this. ICJ says this is not article VIII permits. Therefore any item involved from JARPAII should not be in the preview of the committee. She mentions letters she sent to the Scientific Committee Chair and the Chair of the Commission but this matter remained on the SC agenda despite her letters. Australia expressed its view at the SC, and ten other countries did likewise. The findings of the SC on this are unrepresentative. In Australia’s view the Commission cannot endorse this part of the SC report.

Argentina agrees. Argentina did not participate in this matter. Chile agrees.

Japan knows the opposition of those opposed to JARPAII review and also at the same time when advice was sought from the Chair you – madam chair – made a clear ruling; the gist of your ruling was that the Scientific Committee should proceed in accordance of existing rules. This is quite reasonable. So the scientific committee did review JARPAII. … Position of Japan is that JARPAII was revoked as of that time. There was discussion in the Committee as to how data from the past should be handled.

The UK Commissioner stops hunting for his meerkat and comes to the microphone to note that his scientists did not take part in the review. We considered it important to take the ICJ into account

Monaco associates with Australia and others. Continuing our business as usual would be frivolous. We should not take much more time on this.

Mexico respectfully requests that all mention of JARPAII data should be removed.

Australia says that she takes the floor to respond to a few points – 17.1 is the agenda item – this is an error. Remedy in operative para 7 does not work retrospectively. The court stated that Japan has not acted in conformity with each of the years that it has a permit in place.

[Are you confused yet gentle reader? – the background is that many scientists in the Scientific Committee took the view that they should not review the outputs from Japan’s ‘scientific’ whaling without instruction from the Commission and despite the fact that the Chair of the Commission and the Chair of the Scientific Committee both instructed them to do so. Some other scientists did take part in the review. ]

Chile will not approve this matter in the SC report. France says that their scientist did not take part. Uruguay feels likewise and supports Mexico.

Chair – so am I correct that Australia would like text removed from Scientific Committee report and the other proposal from Mexico is to strike out all reference to JARPAII? Correct? Yes. Australia so you will consult with Japan and Mexico you will look at the feasibility of this. Yes?

Yes.

The agenda item remains open. We move to the agenda item 15.5.2 – review of existing [scientific whaling] permits.

Japan says that the second cycle of JARPNII finished in March and an expert workshop is expected to follow in accord with annex P. 

We move to 15.2 – after a pause with some sideways glances between Chair and Executive Secretary, she notes that everyone is waiting for NZ resolution

Japan says JARPAII is finished and ICJ expects Japan to take account of its reasoning. He adds that on April 18, 2014, Japanese ministers made a statement. He reads from the pertinent statement: Japan will follow open and transparent process and secure the help of reknown scientists from home and abroad [in the revision of its ‘scientific research’]. This statement is in English and Japanese on the relevant website.

We will submit a revised plan. This should be six months ahead of the Scientific Research meeting. That will be in November. We are following a highly transparent process. The new plan will fully comply with the elements of the ICJ findings.

No comments follow.

We move to 15.4 – procedures for reviewing special permit proposals.

We do need to come to a conclusion on this says the Chair and I think, Gerard, she says addressing New Zealand, that we are all waiting for you. I am not asking for you to say anything now but I urge dialogues on this matter. We are now rapidly running out of time. Thank you for being expedient in dealing with this and maintaining brevity. We will return at 13.40.

Lunch comes and goes. A few delegates wonder up into the cinema-style seats being enjoyed by the ranks of the observers and the press and try them out.

Post lunch the Chair notes that she missed some NGO interventions and Sue Fisher for the Animal Welfare Institute speaks [I have already posted her intervention].

Next we come to one of the regular items of the IWC: the presentation on Safety at Sea by Japan, although this meeting it comes with a new twist.

A familiar range of images of clashes on the highs seas between whaling vessels and Sea Shepherd protestors is shown. Moving images at one point threaten to drench the Chair and Executive Secretary who are sitting right in front of the screen.

Japan speaks of violence in these clashes and then, to the surprise of many, a representative of the Taiji fishermen’s organisation is called to the microphone – although Japan notes Japan does not agree to the competence of IWC for small cetaceans. He speaks of the activities of Sea Shepherd and others and says that unjustified and prejudiced sabotage has been practiced. The Taiji hunt is based on a long history of whaling – and he adds ‘we will never stop whaling whatever sabotage we are faced with’.

Japan concludes that their research work has been hindered.

The EU speaks to say that it does not support violent actions; Australia does not support Sea Shepherd and will comply with international law.

Denmark associates with general position of EU. The Faroe Islands is not an EU member and the Danish Commissioner wishes to emphasise that she recognises the interests of others in the Faroes drive fishery and the right to peaceful process but she says that there is no basis for dialogue with Sea Shepherd which puts human lives and property at risk.

New Zealand likes safety at sea and has repeatedly called for restraint. Actions have been reckless and unsafe.

The US notes that as Taiji has been raised, they have concerns about its sustainability.

Japan says that several countries have the points of peaceful protest but this does not apply to sea shepherd. SS captains do not have proper certificates and this should be rectified.

Japan says that flag states now need to act.

The Chair next gives the floor to the Japanese Whaling Association. He notes that the Seamen of the organisation face dangerous sabotage every year and calls on flag countries to act.

We suddenly leap back to the conservation committee because we have reached the agenda item on small cetaceans. We hear the report on this and Mexico then speaks on the highly endangered vaquita. He notes the species faced imminent extinction. Steps need to be taken to address this. This is linked to the fishery for the totoaba – both Mexico and the US are working to compact illegal capture and trade of this species which is also endangered. Work is ongoing on alternative fishing methods.

IUCN (Justin Cooke) notes that the species is predicted to become extinct in about 5 years unless action is taken. He is encouraged by joint action by Mexico and the USA. However actions to date have not addressed the decline – he calls on IWC members to provide whatever assistance is needed. Gillnet fishing needs to end now.  We recently lost the Chinese river dolphin, the baiji, which has been declared functionally extinct. We are now facing the loss of a second cetacean species.

The EU is deeply concerned about three species – the vaquita, the Maui’s dolphin and the Yangtse dolphin in China. He supports all recommendations of the small cetaceans report. He appeals to all contracting governments to share on voluntary basis information on small cetaceans. Italy will contribute 15,000 Euro to the small cetaceans fund.

The US notes again their work with Mexico and commends Mexico for its action to date. The USA is very concerned about the plight of the species and has long worked on it.

Austria adds an impassioned plea for the vaquita. The UK also speaks in support and lists other species in peril and the task team approach – the ability to react intersessionally is more important than ever now. They commit £10,000 to the small cetacean fund.

Monaco associates with others including the IUCN who is also sitting on his delegation. He says we are moving towards smaller and smaller populations, regional extinctions and then suddenly everything is dark in the room; what about the rest. He emphasises the plight of the Maui’s dolphin. The vaquita is not in ‘much better shape’ and he joins the call to see how we as a body can be more helpful.

Argentina adds his eloquent to the voice of others and thanks Italy and UK for their donations.

Denmark agrees that data can be provided on a voluntary basis.

South Africa associates with Austria and the steps proposed by the UK, Belgium congratulates the Scientific Committee and the Conservation Committee for their hard work.

Cambodia responds to the UK on the Irrawaddy dolphin in the Mekong River – the government has plans in place with Japan; Japan has assisted in this research and provided equipment. They are also working closely with WWF. There are 15 posts with river guards and he visits the place almost every month. In Cambodia we are sure this species will not go extinct. He adds a comment on the Khmer Rouge. I am pleased to hear of funds and you may like to assist us.

Luxembourg expresses his gratitude to the people of Slovenia – he also congratulates the chair on the excellent way that she is chairing the meeting. Of course he agrees with the EU and calls for action to protect these species.

Uruguay speaks up in support too

Brazil updates us on the use of the boto as bait. A five year moratorium is in place from January. The cat-fish fishery should then be cleaned of the use of the dolphin. The gap in time is to allow the fish processing plants s to adapt and for monitoring programmes to be brought forward. He received  50,000 signatures on a petition.

Clare Perry of EIA then speaks on the behalf of 48 NGOs and restates the problems facing the vaquita. A gill net exclusion zone should be established across the full range of the vaquita with appropriate enforcement.

In another NGO intervention, AWI’s Barabara Mass speaks on the behalf of182 NGOs on the Maui’s dolphin – the smallest and rarest of the cetaceans. The population can only withstand one human-induced removal per year.

New Zealand says that whilst it might not agree with all the content of what AWI said, they share the concerns and have provided updates to the IWC, which they will continue to do, on their efforts to save the dolphin.

We move to the issue of environmental concerns and various work streams are mentioned. The SOCER (State of the Cetacean Environment Report) gets praise from the EU. On Health Issues – New Zealand notes that cetaceans accumulate high levels of pollutants and they support appropriate workstreams.

Monaco also speaks up for studies in this field. He has long been interested in pollution. Uruguay is concerned about mercury and associates with New Zealand.

We move to 19.9 – other matters.

The NGO Orca speaks about the perils of noise. Pro-Life then speaks on positive and negative health effects.  She draws everyone’s attention to an online resource that looks at this: www.toxic-menu.org 

The USA reports on the IWC Antarctic Workshop that was held in Anchorage in March– noting concerns about the effects of climate change including new activities coming into the Arctic as the ice retreats (see Rep01). It also allowed a dialogue with the peoples of the Arctic and many other stakeholders. There were many recommendations and the US encourages others to welcome its recommendations – these included increased cooperation with the Arctic Council, IMO and increase cooperation with stakeholders.

We move to the report of the infractions committee. Argentina thinks that the takes of Greenland should be reported as such. There is also an issue of whether calves taken by Alaskan Inuit should be similarly treated. The Chair says they are not infractions as such.

In future the subcommittee on infraction should not include such information as infractions. The Chair of infractions works on through his report (on the web) any comments?

Iceland says that with respect to the Greenland quota, they have been in constant dialogue and fortunately the quotas have now been granted. In the interests of fairness the GL takes should not be seen as infractions.

Norway quietly associates with Iceland and adds that Greenland were in a ‘forced position’.

Australia has two points on GL subsistence takes, we associate with Argentina and we simply want to point out that the processes of the IWC arte followed; the 2013 and 2014 takes should have been treated as infractions. No quota was approved – takes were not authorised under the convention. It cannot be left to a government to unilaterally deicide on this – it would have consequences for international order.

Secondly, Australia says JARPA II catches in the IWC database should have footnotes – at the moment it says discussed by the ICJ – we would prefer more appropriate language.

Argentina agrees with the Australian legal expert.

The Chair [in a rather remarkable statement] says it is not that we agreed to set the quota to zero (we did not set to zero) but we just did not agree a quota.

Japan associates with Iceland and says with respect to a possible footnote for the JARPAII takes we could link to a reference to the full ICJ ruling.

Russian Federation would like to associate with the Chair’s explanation as agreed in Panama. [He goes into a long explanation of why the situation is special for Greenland.]

But Chile supports Argentina. Uruguay agrees. He does not understand how not allocating a quota does not mean not allocating a quota.

So, the Chair comes back to him and says that a counter schedule amendment was not put through – no quota was agreed.

The USA agrees.

Guinea supports Russia – there was no vote – not zero quota.

There is a meerkat in the USA delegation.

Mexico thanks her for an explanation – this is a very delicate matter and we need to examine it in great detail – it would be very easy for any state to present an amendment to the annex and have it not adopted and then carry on whaling; this cannot be what was intended. Ecuador supports this.

Argentina apologies for coming back to the floor: this is a new interpretation of the convention text. We have spent a lot of time looking at the Greenland quota. Now Greenland can continue. So I believe this interpretation is wrong. We cannot have this loop hole.

Jeanine said she raised this at the last meeting. [This would have been before she became Chair and was speaking as the Commissioner for St Lucia.]

Costa Rica says that she is speechless but then adds where does this interpretation come from. Why have we been spending time on this issue when a new interpretation pops up saying this is unnecessary.

Monaco says your interpretation is highly personal; why should we study quota requests in this way. This is not correct chair.

Chair - In Panama there was no counter proposal; in my opinion we made an error

Further interventions follow but no voice from Europe speaks.

The Chair concludes that we need to deal with this intersessionally.

The distinguished Austrian Delegation - Andrea and Michael