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.