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