IWC 65 Tuesday

IWC Day Two

In which many processes start but do not end and Monaco scores a goal.

A view of the Great Hall in the Grand Hotel

Slovenia held a reception for the IWC delegates last night. There were speeches from the same ministers that opened the meeting; more information about the tourist sites of Slovenia (there is certainly much beauty in this country – we noted that when the scientific committee met in Bled earlier this year and there are some pictures here); and much food and drink.

There was also some dancing from a particularly lithe young couple and a singer who also played the trombone – a rare combination. (Some of course may not have felt much like celebrating further to the Greenland quota decision. But let us put this behind us for now and look forward to a new day.)

The suns is shining – somewhere not far the bottlenose dolphins of the northern Adriatic are going about their daily business – and here in the Grand and upside-down hotel delegates are settling down into their seats again. Up in the comfortable tiered seats observers are unpacking their bags, unfolding the neat little tables from the amble arms of their soft seats and getting out the pop-corn to enjoy the spectacle that will unfold.

Back in the bear-pit where the national teams are limbering up for the day’s sparring, delegates are practicing throwing their headsets on the floor and quietly unplugging each others lap-tops and ipads as they start to fight over the access to electricity sockets.

The Chair calls everyone to order and thanks Slovenia for the nice reception last night (many similar compliments follow from national delegates).

The Chair reminds us that we must not forget to hand our headsets in…. which is a little odd as we have only just started the day. Anyway, some outstanding aboriginal whaling matters are tidied up and then the Commission moves to dealing with the review of sanctuaries – a matter discussed in the IWC Conservation Committee last week. After a long and slightly embarrassing pause – the Commission agrees to this plan presented.

Some NGOs are allowed to speak but at this point my computer has decided that the best way to help matters is to go on a major go-slow. Shortly after this the internet disappears from the part of the room where I am sitting.

Anyway, we move to the Monaco resolution [just a reminder that all the documents are wonderfully available on the website if you wish to see what we are speaking about]. This, in essence, calls for greater international collaboration on cetacean conservation. Now who could object to that? [Would you like to start to write the list at this point?]

The Commissioner for Monaco, Frederic Briand, speaks at length and with eloquence of the threats to highly migratory cetacean species. This includes several mentions of marine debris [for which he gets extra merits from this observer].

Norway, however, says that these threats are not specific to cetaceans and that it is not a priority task for the IWC to instigate research on small cetaceans.

Japan had a nice reception but associates with Norway and states that small cetaceans are outside the competence of the Commission. This has been their long standing position.

Iceland thinks the Monaco resolution is unbalanced. Iceland is always keen to collaborate internationally.

The USA notes much cooperation is already ongoing but supports enhancing this.

New Zealand thanks Monaco for persevering with this and notes that Monaco previously provided a related resolution to the last meeting that he withdrew when it was clear it did not have good support. He cannot see for the life of him why there would be any opposition to encouraging cooperation.

Many countries speak to support, including Italy for all the EU nations.

However, Korea does not thing that research on cetaceans is the priority for IWC.

The Chair concludes that we do not have consensus and asks Monaco what he would like to do. He replies ‘with your tolerance’ I would like to express some remarks on technical issues raised’; he thanks those who expressed strong support and he hopes that many parties saw that he had removed the divisive material in the version he provided two years ago. There is now no reference to whaling and takes. Some have suggested that small cetaceans are outside of the mandate of the IWC. This text does not take a position on this. So it is independent of this. There were some remarks that most cetaceans are not highly migratory – this is false. I assert that they do not stay within certain EEZs or jurisdictions only. Marine mammals and whales in particular are long lived, they do not reproduce very fast… each Commissioner in this room cares deeply about the maintenance of biodiversity, irrespective of the positions of governments… we care because we all have families; we need a diverse biota. Some animals play a key role because they are high in the food chains. Before we let anthropogenic effects remove these things, we need to think.

He continues that it was commented that this body should not play a major role in efforts for other cetaceans, but the point of this body is to ensure that we are not outside of this. In order for IWC to be heard, for its scientific recommendations to be heard, we should not say we do not want to take part. To the contrary we should speak up. This text is about other organisations – we did not name some of these actors but we have obviously the Convention for Migratory Species (although he adds that this does not have broad geographic coverage).

He goes on to list others – CBD, RFMOs, IMO, UNCLOS.

And then almost as an afterthought he quietly says…I would like to see this resolution taken to the vote.

The member of the IWC Secretariat in charge of spread-sheets is sent to the stage and the voting sheet appears on the big middle screen for all to see. The Executive Secretary explains how the voting works and that we only need a simple majority for it to pass.

Tuvalu abstains, Uruguay supports, Antigua and Barbuda does not and so on. Spain is absent. She arrives running in but is just too late.

37 In favour 15 against 7 abstain It is passed, there is applause.

Monaco thanks everyone and Switzerland explains that he voted yes because the IWC does – in the view of Switzerland - have a responsibility for all cetaceans. Then he adds that in his view, most of the highly endangered species are not even migratory. Colombia said she very much agreed with the guiding principles but here is problem in that we are not a party to the Law of the Sea. 

The Chair next tries to move to the Food Security Resolution promoted by several African nations. The lead, Ghana, says negotiations are ongoing.

A coffee break beckons – delegates whizz around negotiating; non-governmental observers somewhat reluctantly leave their large soft seats at the back of the room in search of small cakes and  juice.

The voice of the European Union: Caterina Fortuna of Italy and a friend.

In the complex session that follows both of the proposals from Chile are presented. The first deals with the workings of the scientific committee and the second civil society participation in the IWC meetings. 

Australia would like to see a two year detailed work plan and suggests that there should be a single report over two years. They recommend that a working group should look at working practice.

Antigua and Barbuda has other ideas and is encouraged to have lunch with Australia to discuss.

The chair is looking down her agenda and notes that what has to be the big show for IWC 65, the resolution on whaling under special permit, needs to have substantial time for discussion tomorrow. But the Chair opens the floor to New Zealand to present.

New Zealand reminds us that the ICJ said that Japan’s whaling programme did not meet the requirements of the IWC (the famous article VIII). The court requires that its findings are taken into account in any future whaling. So the resolution calls on the Scientific Committee to take this into account in its review and he offers a ‘round table discussion’ at 6pm today.

Norway replies at length  referring to the IWC as seriously dysfunctional and he thinks future scientific work will be discredited….

Japan says that the ICJ judgement is about JARPAII and does not change the IWC framework… he does not see the need for any resolution. He will engage in discussion of the draft and makes two general comments. One, if it is to be based on ICJ it needs to be accurate; and in this context he has some doubts and secondly, as to the operative, this goes well beyond the judgement and article 8 (and 30) of the schedule. This cannot be influenced by the resolution – either we need to ammend the schedule or amend article VIII. He will join the round table at 6pm

Antigua and Barbuda does not like the resolution. Many Latin voices do and the EU (via Italy) will work constructively to reach an agreement he concludes.

New Zealand would like a dispassionate debate on this matter that needs to be respectful to the highest court in the world. We could add other preambular paragraphs; we could adjust language where appropriate and we are keen to have an amicable and respectful discussion.

The Chair asks where the round table is – 6pm in the Adria room for all interested parties. The room is small so please limit the number of persons. [It is a small round table.]

She then reminds us that most items remain open under agenda 7.

She moves to IWC in the future but Ghana says that we have a problem, the EU is meeting at lunch, so he doubts they can present anything today [on food security]

Whale Stocks

Chair says that you have had the report of the SC for a long time and she will now just go through whale stocks:

Antarctic minke whale stocks – no one comments and she commends the Scientific Committee.

Southern Hemisphere Blue whales – no one comments and she commends the SC.

Western North Pacific Gray whales - no one comments and she commends the SC.

Southern Hemisphere right whales - no one comments and she commends the SC.

North Pacific rights and Bowheads - no one comments and she commends the SC.

International Research Cruises; Other Stocks - no one comments and she commends the SC.

Back to the Conservation Committee and some smelly gray whales.

The redoubtable Chair of Conservation Committee makes his report and starts with comment about gray whales with a medicinal smell and which are inedible. The cause is unknown. Japan says that when this was discussed in the ASW sub committee that it was pointed out that just asking the scientific committee to do something was not enough. The specific question should be what is the significance of removing a certain proportion of whales.

Russia says we should not ask the Scientific Committee yet.

The UK attempts to clarify the issue by suggesting that we need to ask the scientific committee to consider the cause of the stinkiness and noting that data on encounter rates at sea will be needed.

Japan takes the floor again and calls for a solution to this issue. I am not pushing for any particular number he says mildly, just that the scientific committee should do something. In my mind the suggested way forward is that they should treat them as struck and loss. Can the scientific committee do some kind of analysis?

.

Australia supports both Japan and UK and thinks that the SC should come back on this – but the whales cannot be treated as struck and lost and dealt with. In the end in a confusing debate the US provides a way forward based on discussions in a working group last week. [Confused? Does this matter? Yes because it relates to how many whales can be taken in the Russian hunt.]

The work of the Conservation Committee on Ship Strikes is presented next and discussed at length. Please see the report of the Conservation Committee for details.

We move on to the report of the ‘whale killing methods’ workshop made by its chair the redoubtable Michael Stachowitch – this included a report from NAMMCO.

It also looked at welfare issues outside of whaling, including entanglement in nets and marine debris. Mention here is made of the ‘indefatigable’ David Mattila who has been leading whale disentanglement workshops around the world for the last two years under IWC auspices.

Ultimately says Michael, the group did not come to a conclusion on how to take welfare forward.

Italy speaks, noting the successful intercessional workshop on euthanasia. The UK now speaks and says in IWC 64 in Panama we endorsed an intercessional working group to try to develop a plan. The recommendations were received (document 05) – in the working group there was a great deal of support and some concerns from some countries; in light of these we produced a revised version – see 05 rev 1. It seems to accommodate concerns raised by parties. He describes the changes and that he has been working with other governments and he would like this agenda item to remain open to allow for further discussions. This is intended to be non-controversial, so work can be taken forward. Germany associates with EU and UK. We are disappointed that at the sub-committee meeting last week at the number of times the secondary killing method was used and we would like to see data from fin whale hunts – this is the largest species killed and data on the use of secondary methods would be useful.

The USA thanks the UK for taking the lead on this matter. He supports the recommendation to broaden the welfare concerns beyond direct harvest but reiterates the need to also consider harvests and include the relevant experts. Expertise differs between harvest and other issues.

Iceland on the question from Germany there is an ongoing [welfare] study in fin whaling and his is made by individual experts and we expect that the results will be sent to NAMMCO next year.

Argentina associates with those that support the ongoing welfare work.

Then comes Norway. He gives the floor to his expert. During the meeting of the whale killing methods group, Norway could not support the proposal for work going forward. We have had a  bilateral subsequent to this. We appreciate that the UK dealt with our main concerns. But the removal of these issues seems to be only temporary because they are referred to for future meetings. He will now repeat some of the points made in the previous meeting and he gives (again) some history. He notes that they have completed their work on their own hunt and Norway decided to move reporting to NAMMCO – this he says was successful.

He adds that a change in the terms of reference now means it will be seeking requests for data that cannot be accommodated. Animal welfare standards have been used that apply to livestock …. This is difficult and unrealistic. Given the different nations and cultures assembled at the IWC – we should have separate workshops on topics, this is how we work in NAMMCO and how we can help in the future.

Japan notes that they have been taking this issue seriously in the past. However, the discussion about this issue became emotional and acrimonious and they stopped providing their data [to the IWC] after it was used against them. As a result they have declared that they will refrain from providing data. But to indicate our willingness to help with welfare we provide the data and join the discussion at NAMMCO. … with this particular proposal from the UK, we recognise that efforts were made to be neutral with appreciation. However, our observation at this time is that before we consider changes we will observe the development in the IWC with keen interest but we will put ourselves on the side-line of this discussion so that we can make an objective decision in the future.

Iceland notes that his country  uses the same methods as Norway. And associates with them.

Australia associates with the EU and UK and in addition it does not believe that NAMMCO is the responsible body – its mandate is in the North Atlantic. The competency is here and all countries should provide information here.

The Russian federation submits all data voluntarily [to the IWC] and will continue to provide all the data. Welfare is a philosophical question. We do not have a definition of death or how we know if a whale is dead or not… it would be interesting to get a definition from the scientific committee on this.

[I am looking forward now to the Scientific Committee working group on death.]

Russia continues that he does not agree with Australia on NAMMCO – at NAMMCO they are considering the scientific approach on these issues and they are discussing the same species that are in the competence of our convention. It is important to take the safety whalers into account and different communities use different methods.

Ireland thanks the intercessional group and believes that welfare is integral to the work of the IWC and associates with others who think likewise.

Denmark acknowledges the importance of welfare work but expressed some concerns in the sub-committee and continues to have some concerns.

The Chair reverts to the UK.  He thanks those that supported and thanks Japan for agreeing to look at this in a sensible way. This work is not about interfering with welfare related to whaling – it is about an approach to other welfare issues. I would like to keep this agenda item open. We would like to try and address the concerns of Norway and others and consult on a further revision.

NAMMCO is called to the microphone. She insists that NAMMCO is fully competent… it is not a global organisation but it is regional and she describes the principles that underpin NAMMCO and its work.

Beluga Hunters International speaks next – she refers to climate change and speaks of efficiency in the bowhead hunt and related matters. Efficiency is at 80% or more.

Coffee follows with small cakes for those that have time. [Many NGO delegates do not bother to leave their comfortable chairs.]

Those of us that do wander out in search of caffeine return only to find that we are sent away again. The Chair has decided that the meeting should break so consultations can occur and she cites the New Zealand resolution in particular. New Zealand says that the room available – with the small round table - will take about 50 people. [So quite a big table really.]

The day tomorrow will start with a special Private commissioners’ meeting at 8.30. We adjourn at 16.20 and an NGO reception follows at the pool bar a little later. Here the retiring Australian Commissioner Donna is rightly celebrated and thanked for all her hard work. There is much applause.

A small aside: The British Commissioner’s Meerkat is missing

Apparently Nigel Gooding, the UK Commissioner, has a small mascot in the form of a meerkat known by his staff as Meery.  Some months ago Meery went missing and has been sending Mr Gooding cryptic messages from around the world. There was one reliable sighting from Honolulu some weeks ago. Meery s now believed to be in Slovenia but no one – especially the UK Commissioner – knows quite where he is.

The matter is so serious that it is causing some international concern and the new US Commissioner, Russell Smith was heard first thing this morning enquiring of his UK counterpart where Meery was.

Any sightings of Meery should be reported to the UK delegation. It is possible of course that he is just enjoying the soft seats, small tables and ample electricity sockets at the back of the room. 

A bilateral between the UK and US on Meercat location
UK Commissioner Nigel Gooding to the left and US Commissioner Russell Smith

Interetsing article here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/17/whaling-opponents-japan-new-zealand-iwc