IWC 65 Monday Closing

We move to the very serious business of day one – the consideration of the proposal for an aboriginal quota for Greenland.

And here I will break from my usual style of reporting for there is little cause for levity in what follows. I will tell something of the story of how we get to the conclusion, but the conclusion – which has been pretty clear since the EU decided to support the quota request – was that the quota was agreed 19 fin whales, 176 minke whales, 2 bowhead whales, and 10 humpback whales each year for four years can now be legally taken. And I say that it has been pretty clear because once the EU and the pro-whaling nations were lined up there was enough of the vote to go ahead. (3/4 of those voting being required).

Please remember this is not verbatim and I am sampling what is said. Corrections welcome.

This proposal was rejected at the last IWC meeting and Greenland went on whaling anyway. It is also true that a few things have changed since then – Greenland has presented an updated ‘needs statement’ and a small change was also made to the numbers of whales being requested following advice from the IWC Scientific Committee; but it is difficult to see how the 2014 proposal is substantially different from the 2012 one.

This is approached in a somewhat roundabout way. First the report of the relevant subcommittee is presented by its Chair, in this case the Swiss Commissioner Bruno. Then at an appropriate point we find we are in a debate about the ‘bundled proposal from EU nations to give Greenland back its proposal. The EU nations have been in negotiation about this for some time and are all required to sing from the same hymn sheet or those poised European officials will come and sort them out (or something like that).

The proposal for a quota consists of a ‘needs statement’ which explains why the Greenland people ‘need’ the whales; a schedule amendment which includes the numbers of whales of each species and stock and the years in which they should be taken; and a resolution which directs the IWC to work to sort out some of the problems dogging aboriginal quotas. These three documents, referred to as “the package,” are readily available on the IWC website if you would like to see the details.

As each Commissioner comes to the microphone to support or oppose the proposal they make a formal comment to Slovenia to thank them for hosting the meeting and typically compliment the surroundings. I will not include these in my précis here of who said what – which is really just a sample of comments.

So it is that when the Commissioner from Denmark (also representing Greenland) comes to the microphone she extends the usual compliments to the host and then focuses on her proposal. She stresses that the quota will not harm the stock and that it is a carefully balanced compromise that should allow for better planning for the hunters. She refers to intense discussions over the last few days and passes the microphone to her colleague from Greenland who – with the help of a powerpoint describes the importance of marine resources to her people.

Italy speaks on the behalf of the EU nations and lists them all [she promises to do this only once] and emphasises the support of the whole EU for the package.

In the debate that follows, Argentina speaks on the behalf of the Latin countries (sometimes called the Buenos Aires Group or BAG) and comments that the catches made by Denmark over the last two years [for which they had no quota] should be treated as infractions and he comments on a strong commercial aspect to the hunts. He would like to support a consensus but he cannot.

Monaco also has several concerns. He does not find the request consistent with that made by others for ‘aborignal quotas’ and he is concerned about the meaning of  subsistence, noting that Greenland takes many fish and seals and that it appears that economic and nutritional needs are well covered.  How many whales does Greenland really need? Monaco will remain uncomfortable until these matters are resolved but he hears the call for consensus.

Guinea however supports.

Japan has strong and continued support for this proposal and he encourages consensus. He disputes that ‘local consumption’ means no commercial aspect. He adds that the fact that you have other fisheries resources does not mean you don’t need whales. He makes an analogy to clothing: its sounds to him that just because you have trousers and other clothes,  there is no need to give up the kimono.

Antigua and Barbuda notes that we seem to be debating two proposals at the same time (the schedule amendment and the resolution, and seeks clarification how these will be voted on.

Norway associates his position with that of Guinea and Japan.

Chile however associates with Monaco and then Uruguay associates with them.

Iceland says something like he does not support the principle of aboriginal …either whaling is sustainable or it is not.

NGOs are not called to speak in the first ever NGO intervention under the relevant agenda item [an innovation for civil society participation]  – WDC is given 2 minutes and notes from a recent economic study that a different and lesser amount if whale meat than that being requested by Greenland is calculated.

Then a representative of the Alaskan Inuit Organisation makes an eloquent intervention about the circumstances of his hunt.

The NGO interventions from up on their large soft seats even precede the interventions from an Australian minister who stresses that his country and Japan are the best of friends on issues other than whaling and describes the outcomes of ICJ [where they were not the best of friends]; he goes on to describe modern threats to whales including two mentions of marine debris

After a hasty lunch, we return to the great Hall of the Grand hotel and Greenland’s quota request.

Costa Rica raises concerns about commercial sales and the way that meat is apportioned to the population.

The USA speaks in favour of the Greenland quota and gives some history to the issue of Aboriginal Whaling at the IWC.

Korea takes the floor and links culture in his country to the issue – reminds us of ancient petroglyphs of whaling near to Ulsan.

Ghana supports Greenland.

Russia likes Slovenia and notes that the Slovenian Commissioner has already improved the weather since last week and congratulates Slovenia on its caves. Russia supports Greenland. He regrets that the Buenos Aries Group [the BAG] broke consensus.

The Dominican Republic associates with Argentina.

St Lucia is very grateful to the IWC and Slovenia and ‘provides support’ to GL and Denmark proposal and associates with countries that support it.

Chair: So I have listened to the discussion and note that we have not come to consensus, so I will turn to Denmark and ask how she would like to proceed.

Greenland: thanks those who have supported her and those that have tried to reach consensus. She would like to respond to some issues. With respect to reporting, Greenland has honoured all the necessary requirements and she covers various points including that she is reporting as  ASW and not any other form of whaling; our proposal is for 2015-2018; in terms of coordination with ranges states we are keen to do this; thanks for giving us a good time to carry this over lunch and hear the view of others; there were questions on local use and commercialisation – thanks the UK for referring to previous resolutions including sharing of currencies; over lunch we exchanged views with the sponsor of the package. We have exhausted all ways forward and we should take a decision that will allow other matters to be worked on during the week.

Italy is called to the microphone and says that she has explained in previous days what the intention of the resolution was and she is pretty sure that it is understood. This is a package, so we are in favour of both of them; we should actually vote on the resolution as soon as possible after the schedule amendment. It would be difficult to negotiate extensive changes. We have worked for a consensus but it is not possible.

The Chair is disappointed that we could not reach consensus but she appreciated the efforts that Denmark-Greenland have made.

Argentina commenting for the Latin nations would like to ask that the resolution should be voted later as we are going through some negotiations and we would like the opportunity to continue and try and reach consensus.

Italy… pause… finds herself in a difficult position, these are a package; I can only take a decision when the EU has consulted. Please allow me thirty seconds to at least speak with Denmark.

Chair – I will give you five minutes

I

taly: thank you 30 seconds for Italians is 5 minutes. [There is some laughter]

Impromptu EU Coordination

An EU huddle breaks out (over on the right side of the amphitheater pit) and then disperses again.  T

Then an even larger Latin huddle forms (even more people and on the other side of the room); finally a smaller EU huddle occurs with just the Commission officials and a couple of delegates including a lawyer.

Latin American coordination

Other commissioners watch with wry smiles on their faces.

After about ten minutes of this, the Chair calls on Italy. She thanks all who support their draft resolution and will move to a vote on the resolution despite Argentina’s offer.

The Chair then asks to proceed to the vote. We shall vote first on the schedule amendment (the quota). The vote will proceed by roll call and they will be recorded on the screen. It will be part of the status of agenda document says the Executive Secretary. We will start with Switzerland he adds. 

(The Swiss Commissioner is being photographed by his alternate.)

Switzerland – yes.

US, Japan and UK – yes

Australia abstains

Otherwise the voting is rather predictable. Eritrea is absent; as is Palau.

Gabon abstains, as does Monaco.

The final tally is 46 yes, 11 no – 3 abstains and no non-participations. The motion is passed.

There is some applause, but not from where I am sitting.

Chair: thank you very much and congratulations to Greenland/Denmark.

Explanation of votes follow:

Mexico: says that his delegation recognises the effort made by Greenland over the last two years;  we regret that we were unable to support the package; we recognise the needs of indigenous peoples but the quota exceeds the needs required for their population and that raises concerns for us. We welcome the draft scheme from the EU and this may make it possible for us to support in the future.

New Zealand says that he would also like to give credit to Denmark – we were surprised that similar numbers to those rejected before were put forward again. But we did see a new needs statement.Because the vote was very close we voted as we did.

Australia stressed that she supports aboriginal subsistence whaling when it is according to the rules of the IWC and notes that she was concerned that whaling continued by Greenland despite the fact that they were not awarded a quota at the last meeting. Australia abstained because she did not want to 

stop things from moving forward.

No one else wants to speak and we move to the next vote. This is the resolution from the EU about Aboriginal Subsistence whaling. The roll call starts with Tanzania. It is a curious vote with many abstentions. In the end 40 say yes, 5 no, and there are 15 abstains.

Congratulations to Italy and the EU says Chair and opens the floor for explanation of vote. The Russian Federation says he would like to repeat again what he said during the debate. The Russian Federation (one of the four aboriginal whaling nations) will not follow the decision of this resolution.

Denmark thanks everyone and Antigua and Barbuda note that they support sustainable use and that use of food should be unconditional.

Mr Russel Smith the new USA Commissioner thanks GL/Denmark and the EU for their work on this and notes that the ASW report is on the website and that this should address some of the concerns raised in the debate.

Cambodia thanks Slovenia for the nice reception last night (actually many nations have said the same and I have not noted them all down – just sampling some of the debate here) – and associates with 

Antigua and Barbuda: People have a right to survive.

Italy – then thanks everyone on the behalf of the EU and we move to a statement from the UK minister.

Stay tuned.