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