IWC 66 Some More Images

The UK delegation to IWC 66. From the left (front row), Donna MacKay, Jamie Rendell, Nigel Gooding (Commissioner), Mark Simmonds, (back from the left), Cat Bell , Emma Rundell, Jenny Lonsdale

Presentation of the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary Proposal

Michael Stachowitsch (third from left) chairing the 'welfare subcommittee'

One of the long tables of IWC66

Bruno Mainini (Chair of IWC 66) and Simon Brockington (IWC Executive Secretary)

Part of the presentation of the Scientific Committee report

The Commissioner for Monaco, Frederic Briand

Aimee Leslie of WWF and Kate O'Connell of AWI

The Argentinian delegation - Miguel Iniguez (left) and Juan Pablo Paniego

The Belguan Delegation: Els Vermulen, Stephanie Langerrockand Fabian Ritter 

All delegates were given water bottles with the IWC seventy anniversary logo
- here the water bottles of Australia.

Caro Cassani (left) of Foundation  Cethus and Astrid Fuchs of WDS
 in the NGO seats

View from the back

Intervention on interactions with other IGOs by Sarah Smith of the IWC Secretariat (on the big screen)

Hedrun Frisch Nwakanma of the
Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species and ASCOBANS
(on the big screen)

Sidney Holt one of the original 'Gang of Three' -
the members of the first Scientific Committee of the IWC (Sidney is now 90)

The Commissioner of St Vincent with Kitty Block and
Claire Bass of HSI behind him.

Sharon Livermore of IFAW and DJ Shubert from the USA delegatino

Display for the South Atlantic Sanctuary.

A note on a wall for all Eurpeans (still including the UK)

DJ Shubert again and Jose Truda Palazzo of Uruguay

Mrs Jennifer Lonsdale OBE of the
UK delegation.

Bernard Unto and Kitty Block of HSI take tea.

IWC 66 Questions answered

Protest banners outside IWC66

Before the opening of IWC 66 I asked some questions about what was going to happen.

Here they are again – this time with the answers:

·  Will the commission accept the importance of whale poo to its deliberations and move to celebrate faecal plumes as the best thing ever:

• Yes...pretty much... by a revised and majority resolution the Commission has acknowledged the links between whales and ocean productivity and the roles that whale stocks play in climate change (stay tuned for more about this).

· What will we decide about special permit/scientific whaling;

• We heard that many did not like it and many others thought it was just fine but, by majority resolution, a new review structure was put in place (congratulations to Australia and New Zealand).

· Will the wifi hold up in the meeting halls to facilitate a paper-less meeting or will delegates be unable to update their Facebook status;

• The wifi was totally excellent – the sessions went too fast at times to find the damned papers but that was not the fault of the wifi – and Facebook pages were updated, along with blogs (thank you Secretariat).

· Will the Whatsapp app cause further devaluation  of the pound

• Whilst the Whatsapp app is much loved by some teams at the IWC to keep in touch, it is not responsible for the falling British pound (which was mentioned several times during the IWC meetings, as the IWC bank account is in the UK) – the reason for the falling pound is something known as Brexit;

· Will the lifts [in the meeting hotel] prove capable to the job and how many times will delegates with widely differing views be squashed together in a confined space and will this help build consensus;

• It is possible that the lifts might explain the disappearance of some delegations during the meeting. For example at one point one was out of action and maybe that is where the disappeared Croatian Commissioner still is. I am not aware of any consensus building achieved in the lifts but I am confident that the many small Slovenia cakes were helpful in this regard;

· Will there be anywhere sensible to find a quick lunch (actually as we have been here before, I am fairly certain – unless the IWC secretariat has set up a new catering venture – that the answer is no);

• Actually folks seemed to do OK – they even left a few small cake and some fruit on tables over lunch for the needy – which was kind;

· How will the proposal for a South Atlantic Sanctuary fare this time;

• Not well.

· Will anyone mention the ongoing whaling by Norway and Iceland;

• Yes – this was mentioned several times not only by the countries concerned with pride but in interventions by other countries and NGOs.

· Will the imperiled nature of the vaquita and the mauis dolphin get air time;

• Yes. mauis were mentioned and New Zealand gave a reply. More spectacular was the resolution which came in late and was still accepted, and then passed concerning the vaquita (well done Clare/EIA and all concerned).

· Will any nation walk out (we have not had a good walk-out for a few years and they always helped to provide some drama to the proceedings);

• There was a vague threat of something similar hanging in the breeze but no physical movement as such.

· Will any NGOs walk out and would anyone care if they did, or even miss them

• No one walked out but there was something close to a fight over the microphone between two NGO speakers. (This was just before one of them shouted at us all.) And I think that especially now that NGOs can speak to issues during the actual debate and made comments that were helpful and to the point in almost all cases – we would be missed;

· Will remaining NGOs successfully make relevant interventions on specific topics as they come up on the agenda;

• See above.

· Does anyone care about the hundreds of thousands of cetaceans being cruelly killed in fishing nets;

• Yes they do – a new work-steam was agreed on this and a coordinator appointed. (I will come back to this too}

· Does anyone care about all the stranded cetaceans;

• Yes they do – a new work-stream agreed and a coordinator is being sought.

· Does anyone care what the IWC Scientific Committee did over the last couple of years;

• Yes several of us do!

·  Has the UK Commissioner brought his meerkat;

• Yes, Nigel Gooding brought his growing family of little mascot meerkats and baby meerkat was briefly 'kidnapped' before being found in a bar in Piran early on Saturday morning.

· How many mentions of faecal plumes will there be

• Too many – stop going on about it – the resolution passed!

Questions that I should have asked but did not – with answers:

·        After its long absence from the IWC will Kenya – African champion of terrestrial conservation – return as a member of the like-minded or the pro-commercial whaling camp?

Kenya appeared to vote consistently with the pro-commercial whaling nations

·        Will the distinguished Commissioner from Luxembourg, Pierre Gallego, get the biggest laugh of the whole meeting?

·        Yes he will – see report from the last day.

Pierre of Luxembourg and his coffee

·        Will the distinguished alternate Commissioner for Austria – my buddy Michael Stachowitsch  – win the prestigious Hans and Lotte Hass Conservation award this year:

·        Yes he will – congratulations Michael.

·        Will the Executive Secretary of the IWC look tired but happy at the end of the meeting?

·        Yes.

And finally can I recommend any reading about some of the issues dealt with at IWC 66?

           

Yes I can see HERE.

More pictures and analysis later!

            

IWC 66 - The End. REV

The way forward is not coming forward.

This is the second half of the Friday report - the closing session of IWC 66.

On NEWREPA – it transpires we will have text from both New Zealand and Antigua and Barbuda

Any Laurensen, the Commissioner of New Zealand. says that they would like to add some words – the following like the rest of my reporting is not a quote -

In accordance with resolution 2014-5 – the commission considered {and she lists countries, including all the EU, the BAG and others -  majority of members noted with concern that Japan issued special permits before the Commission – considered that NEWREPA [the New Japanese scientific whaling programem in the Southern Ocean] is not for Scientific Research and requested that Japan ceased the programme.

Antigua and Barbuda said he was waiting for sweet music – I was waiting to be called in [we think he refers to some chimes that have been used to summon commissioners] – he thanks New Zealand and their side for understanding the need for balance. Antigua and Barbuda and Japan and others that opposed resolution 2014-5 state that it was non-legally binding and cannot be taken to alter the rights and obligations of contracting governments.  NEWREPA is entirely within the provisions of the ICRW and Article VIII. Japan has made sincere efforts to consult with the SC and contracting governments…. He has the full text and will submit it

We next review the summary statement made of the Commission’s work which will be issued on the website. [This is a table which identifies the main decisions and issues which the IWC issues at the closing of the meeting 

You can find the summary HERE with the other plenary documents.

Some words are added by the USA relating to the section on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling. The Dominican Republic is not happy with this - but then is reassured -  and we move  reviewing the summary, passing through the reports of the Conservation and Scientific Committees and that text is Ok. [The donation from the Netherlands will be added.] We pass through "unintended anthropogenic impacts based on the reports from the SS and the CC. Bruno pauses for a moment. It is OK.

The IWC in the future is ….. no… Australia is seeking clarification. His understanding was that the ‘way forward’ paper was not coming forward at this time. Did I misunderstand?

Bruno says his understanding was to start the discussion. The current wording sounds like we adopted the proposal – there is some debate around what this language should say and it is concluded that this language will be worked on and added later.

Caterina Fortuna Chair of the Scientific Committee ,who has not said anything for a while, asks for the endorsement of Annex P to feature in this summary.

New Zealand would like to add some words to do with the 'Safety at Sea' issue and will come up with a proposal. This would not change what is there.

Japane says it has to see what would be proposed.

NZ says ‘Several member states reaffirmed the strength of existing legal frameworks for addressing safety at sea’. This is agreed.

Now - somewhat randomly - Belgium [in the form of the alternate Commissioner Fabian Ritter] now welcomes all to the 2015 IWC whale tie contest. [Is this still the report from IWC 66? Yes it is. Stay tuned!]

Then his partner-in-crime in this amusing interlude, the distinguished Commissioner of Luxembourg, 

Pierre Gallego, is given the microphone… he says,  as it is the first time that Luxembourg says something I would like to thank the hosts  – there is laughter and applause.

He explains that only ladies can vote in the tie contest and they will show us some pictures that they have gathered. He asks Simon if he can check that their credentials are correct and I believe that the Executive Secretary blushes.

Simon says please go ahead. The ties are shown on the screen. Then is voting and applause and Moronuki of Japan wins with his stunning tie which shows one whale swimming in the opposite direction to the others!

Two whale-themed ties shown on the big screen

The Commissioner for Luxembourg (left) waves the tie-prize in the air
watched by his legal adviser, Professor Chris Wold

We move to the issue of the new Chair of the Commission. Russel Smith, IWC Commissioner of the USA eloquently proposes Joji Morishita, the Commissioner of Japan.  

Chair Bruno asks is he is willing and he is.

Jogi  Morshita says thank you. It will be difficult to follow you. I will expect Commissioners to be in the meeting room on time.

[Applause.]

Bruno – we also need a new Vice Chair.

The Slovenian Commissioner is nominated by Japan

He is willing and there is more applause.

Australia congratulates Commissioner Morishita and Andrej of Slovenia. He says that he appreciates Joji’s long association with the Commission. To Bruno he says, we would also like to thank you for your excellent chairing – we are very grateful to you.

Dr Nick Gales, Commissioner for Asutralia

Mexico says he would like to echo Australia’s words.

NZ thanks the Chair for his capable work and he has been expressed by his chaiinr activities and congratulates Commissioner Morishita. We have always an open and honest dialogue with 

Commissioner Morishita. We extend congratulations to Andrej too.

Similar sentiments follow.  India in his compliments adds he would like to see an end to the killing fo whales.

Argentina says it is not easy to lead a plenary such as this and that Bruno has done wonderfully.

Other posts need to be filled – a new chair for the Whale Killing methods and welfare issues has to be found. Austria reports that Herman Osterhusen of South Africa  is willing to take this on. There is applause.

UK welcome’s Herman ‘he will do a fantastic job!’

A new chair for the Aborignal Subsistence Whaling subcommittee needs to be found and Jogi now nominates Bruno.

Denmark thanks Bruno for his work – and for traveling to the workshop in Greenland.

The USA congratulates him too and notes Bruno has also visited the whalers in Barrow Alaska.  

Bureau members are discussed. [The IWC Bureau is the body that makes decisions intersessionally - i.e. between the biannual meetings of the Commission.]

Australia – it has been a privilege to have served on the Bureau and would be pleased to remain in the Bureau. [Perhaps in the top draw..... sorry.]

Guinea says that we should integrate some women into the work of the Bureau

Mexico – says that one of the most active delegations in the IWC Committees is Argentina and I would like to nominate them to replace Uruguay.

Bruno concludes we have a balanced bureau and it is good to go.

But Japan says we only spoke of three countries.

St Vincent would like to nominate St Lucia. He is willing.

Time and Place of next Meeting.

.....No Japan wants a clear list of members of Bureau, is Africa represented?

The Bureu currently consists of Chair, Vice Chair, Chair of F+A, Host (Brazil), Australia, Guinea, Argentina, St Lucia

Guinea says no – he just spoke up for a woman. Ghana is still willing to serve he says and he is added.

The next meeting of the Scientific Committee will be in Bled in May 2017.

Kenya is happy to be back at the IWC and announces that they have a new law on fisheries management. This law anchors work on marine mammals very well. He has enjoyed the proceedings here and will make every effort to continue as an active member. The work of IWC is important and offer to host the 2018 Scientific Committee. They will work closely with the Secretariat and other to ensure that the SC will be enjoyable and productive. The venue will be in Nairobi or Mombasa. 

A video follows featuring lovely beach scenes and whales in the water - is this Kenya. No it is Brazil - as mentioned earlier Brazil has offered to host IWC 67! 

A Slovenian delegate comes to the stage and they thank the Slovenian Commissioner for all his work and they have a little thank you for him. Andre comes to the stage and is given a plaque. Simon is given similar and so is Mark Tandy the Secretariat lead on arrangements for the conference.

Plaque for the Slovenian Commissioner/new Vice Chair of the IWC

The nice Slovenia lady invites us to 'a toast' [this turns out to be drinks and nibbles; no small cakes]. There is again applause

The Chair thanks the Secretariat for all their hard work. Loud applause.

Bruno says he will miss the Bureau and thanks the Secretariat – there is applause.

We close the meeting. There is more applause followed by toast. 

More photos and a final analysis to follow!!

Delegates bid each other good bye

An alternative review of the last day and interpretation by Paul Spong can be found HERE.

IWC 66 Friday Part one

Early morning in the Great Hall of IWC 66

In which many things are agreed.

Welcome to the last day of IWC 66, 

It is sunny again come the dawn but, even before the sun has risen, EU delegates and others have moved to their various coordinations.

We open in plenary with the report of the Finance and Administration Committee (F&A) chaired by Ryan Wulff.

He comes to the microphone to speak about IWC Communications – its future work plan is endorsed.  and then we hear that more IWC materials from the extensive archive are to be put on line.

Simon Brockington, the IWC Executive Secretary, tells us there will be a feedback-form from this meeting which he will take very seriously.

Guidelines for the use of voluntary funds during the intersessional periods are discussed. These funds average £300,000-500,000 annually. There was discussion about the value of the British Pound. Contingency plans are being put in place (regrettably for the IWC and not the UK).

Changes to the Commission’s rules of procedure are approved. This includes the proposal that responses to proposed resolutions should be circulated.

Argentina notes that Greenland’s takes when they did not have a quota were regarded as an infraction by the BAG [Buenos Aires Group of countries]. This must not set a precedent.

Commission Chair Bruno says we are all agreed that we must do everything to ensure that this does not happen in the future. Can we eliminate the square brackets? There is silence and we can….

But Argentina asks for clarification on the matter of Greenland’s whaling. Would there be a statement in the record?

Denmark: In relation to the remarks just made – she points to the report of the Working Group on Operational Effectiveness to which this matter had been referred. They replied that they did not have the expertise to look at the matter.

The USA Commissioner says that these concerns have already been recorded in the record. Do we need to repeat this here.

The Chair says there is no simple way out – this has been discussed in other parts of our meeting and we need to ensure that this shall not happen again. The remarks were included in the report. Can we move on?

Argentina nods.

Anything more under agenda 19.2.2?  The report is endorsed and he thanks Belgium.

We move to the report of the group set up during this Commission meeting to work on options for governments of limited means. Moronuki of Japan is thanked for his work in guiding the group.

Guidance on the management of the IWC website is presented.

We move on through the report. The financial statement for the year will be affected by the decision of the Commission to buy its HQ in Cambridge, UK. The general fund has a balance of £1.1 million. There is mention here of accrued dilapidations. [I think I may have a touch of this.]

We move to the consideration of the SC budget.

There are square brackets around the costs of the review of special permits [scientific whaling] meetings. Japan would like these brackets removed. New Zealand says that she and Australia in the spirit of cooperation shown around the special permits review process are happy to have these removed. [The issue here was a debate about whether the proponents of special permits should pay the costs of review meetings.]

Two initiatives – strandings and bycatch are noted – no funding is allocated. These items will have to be met by voluntary funding. There is a pause. No one volunteers any money…. We move on.

A vice chair for F&A is sought. No volunteers rush to the microphone.

The last agenda item here is the Scientific Committee working methods…. Does the Chair of the Scientific Committee have anything to add. No she does not and there are no comments.

Two new intersessional working groups are struck – one on special permits and the other to appoint the review team that will deal with the IWC governance review agreed yesterday.

New Zealand, Australia, Costa Rica and the USA join the second working group.

We move back to the resolution on governments of limited means … or do we. Apparently this matter is not ready to be voted on and Japan asks if we can return to this after coffee break. There is a new version online Doc 66/13 REV.

We return to the vaquita resolution [passed yesterday]. Chair Bruno asks if  the list of the countries that did not block consensus but wanted to make a statement is ready. Yes says Japan.

The Chair says others may wish to comment on this, so we shall keep it open.

We return to the next steps of the ASW working group. The Chair asks if a way have been found go forward.  The USA says the four ASW countries and others have discussed this. The way forward with the goal of improving process – the commission endorsed the process as described in table two of the report; the pilot use of the table is welcomed with the following the changes – and he lists these and these include encouragement of additions to the voluntary fund.

Bruno says there have been extensive discussions on this, are there any comments? Can we endorse?

Japan speaks to the vaquita issue again. He offers to save time by reading out the short statement.

Bruno says please go ahead but not to confuse the issue just presented – we have closed the issue presented by the USA on ASW.

Japan offers to read the statement from countries and he does at speed. He lists the countries that have signed on which include Antigua and Barbuda and Kenya and many others. The Statement says something like  - all countries listed are deeply concerned and associate with the concerns raised by other countries and hope that this species will recover. The ICRW has authority over 13 species of great whale and no authority over small cetaceans. The resolution is only of limited and symbolic significance to the vaquita and provides no further protection. [This will presumably appear on the 

IWC website in due course.]

Japan says that he hopes this makes things clear.

Several small cakes and much intense negotiation around tables with small cakes on follows.... also there is some fruit.

We return to the issue of Japan’s request for a discussion around STCW [Small Type Coastal Whaling] – this seems to revolve around putting comments from countries on a website. [Perhaps an app could be developed?]

Japan says that he would like a virtual exchange in a more structured manner with some limitations of intervention – no sudden posting of documents – we need some more time and he will continue to talk to interested people about how we might do this.

We move on/back to agenda 14.1 – no we don't, New Zealand needs more time.

Mr Moronuki’s drafting group had finished Doc 13 REV 2: Resolution on the Creation of a Fund to “Strengthen the Capacity of Governments of Limited Means to Participate in the Work of the IWC”.

However, he says, with a smile, others may have other view and we may like to hear from them.

Togo tells us this is important.

St Vincent and the Grenadines says it is unfortunate that we have to have a debate …. Small countries should not be treated in this matter…. He also mentions colonialism and neo-colonialism  and that we are the drums of Africa, and asks for support in good faith.

Colombia speaks for the BAG and thanks all for the hard work on this. They still have some concerns and would like to continue work on this intersessionally.

Chair Bruno says he hears the request to work on, but how would Japan like to continue. He says he hopes or consensus at this meeting but he hears different views, he would like to know how to proceed from this point from some of the members. He repeats – he hopes for consensus at this meeting.

 Bruno says so there are some slight differences  but based on the huge progress made this week can we adopt by consensus. If no one takes the floor can it be adopted –REV2 would be adopted … 

Argentina?

Argentina – as Colombia said a few moments ago, we still have questions and I reiterate that this commission should continue work intersessionally so we can clear up some of the items and achieve consensus.

Bruno – thank you it is quite clear that the version presented will not get to consensus. Japan a vote or more intersessional work.

Japan: It is unfortunate, but we will go to the vote.

Netherlands (for the EU) asks for the floor. He requests ten minutes for coordination.

Bruno says We have had a week to look at this, we prefer to proceed. 

Simon is returned to the microphone and reminds us how to vote – Panama has had its voting rights returned.

The first country called will be Belgium.

Votes are sampled here:

Belgium – abstains –as do all EU nations, including the UK, and likewise Mexico, Monaco, Switzerland, USA and the members of the Buenos Aires Group.

South Africa, Kenya and many other developing nations support as does New Zealand and Australia.

With 30 in favour; 0 opposed and 31 abstentions, it is passed.

Explanation of vote follows:

Japan says this is important for all of us. We do recognise there are questions and clarifications required.

The Netherlands for the EU says that they wanted this resolution adopted by consensus and since no time was given for coordination they had to abstain.

New Zealand voted in favour because they believe in the full participation of all. They would like to see the fund used to build participation in the SC and CC and to facilitate [sponsored individuals] taking on chair and vice chair roles of working groups. 

Australia says - we voted yes on the merits of the resolution. We note that it allows further review when implemented.

USA associates with Australia and NZ and supports implementation – we did think it was important to adopt by consensus. We are fully supportive of the idea of this fund and that it provides assistance to these countries.

Argentina does not oppose taking the necessary steps to help here – our abstention was because there are still some doubts that exist. There seems to be conflict with 3.5 of the convention. We would have preferred intersessional work. So we abstained.Adoption of Committee Reports.

Bruno says we have to adopt reports, so I will go one by one.

First the report of the Scientific Committee...

Denmark offers a 'small comment of a general nature', we note some inconsistencies in the ways in which interventions are reported. This does not stop adoption – we wish to see government interventions reflected before observer interventions.

Bruno this is probably something that can be done.

The SC report [which contains no interventions by observers] is adopted.

Whale Killing Methods etc. Report and all its recommendations – adopted.

Infractions Sub- Committee Report and all its recommendations  - adopted

Budgetary Sub-Committee Report and all its recommendations– adopted

Conservation Committee Report – including recommendations on new workstreams on strandings and bycatch workstreams - adopted

Aboriginal SW Sub-Committee report and all its recommendations– adopted

Finance and Administration sub-committee Report and all its recommendations– adopted

[This little process is important because it means all those recommendations that have been worked on so hard are now safely in the bag unless, of course, they have been modified or deleted.]

We take an early break for lunch and will return for elections.  

But first we have some information from Simon Brockington, Executive Secretary of the IWC – there is a document being produced that will give an overview of the results of the Commission meeting and this will be available soon for approval. 

[Well if they had told me earlier I might not have had to bother with this blogging malarkey!] 

The British Commissioner's meerkat mascots (this is mum and dad meerkat)

IWC 66 Urgent Update - Meerkats

Anxious parents

For some days now it has been apparent that important members of the UK delegation have been kept out of sight.

Meery the Meerkat - the UK Commissioner's companion and his partner Meerette have not been seen.

Meery featured greatly at IWC 65 and is believed to be the Commissioner's most valued adviser and since the last Commission meeting he has been joined by a wife and at least one child.

The reason for their absence is that baby meerkat has been missing for several days. At first it was thought that he might just have wondered off but a ransom note has now been received. See below.

The two senior meerkats have bravely returned to the UK delegation to play their part in the final day's work and urgent requests are now being made for the return of their offspring.

IWC66 Thursday - Part 2

Many small cakes fly by and we go toward 7.1 – no it is left open, so instead it is ‘IWC in the Future’ and the Chair calls on Japan

Japan says that there are ways to continue discussion on division in this body. There were some questions about more specifics on this idea. We were asked to put more on paper – see now paper 22.

We shall come back to this tomorrow says the Chair, for a short discussion he adds.

Under agenda item 17 we have other management issues.

The Chair of the Scientific Committee is again invoked. The summary of the discussions on the RMP (the Revised Management Procedure) is now presented. It is of broad relevance when examining status and all kinds of removals says Caterina. Here we look at MSY [Maximum Sustainable Yield] and the possibility of looking at the amendment of the CLA {Catch Limit Algorithm] (there is a procedure for this). She details ongoing work.

The USA notes that nationals of Iceland and Norway are whaling and calls on them to desist.

The Netherlands (for EU) says that the moratorium has given protection –including by helping critically depleted populations to recover, however commercial whaling has continued every single year – almost 15,000 whales have been taken in the NE Atlantic. He calls on those concerned to cease such activities and consider cumulative impacts that threaten them. In addition, he is concerned that self-allocated quotas are undermining the moratorium. He adds that he is concerned about exports of whale meat and says something about CITES.

India does not support the killing of cetaceans – there should be catch limits if necessary, any sharing should be on quota per capita entitlements and research should be non-lethal.

Iceland – says he has to respond to what has been said here and has some text that it has to read. It takes commitment. They only take from abundant stocks of fin whales and minke whale. The notion that takes are not sustainable has no foundation in science. Our takes are based on IWC and NAMMCO stock assessments – takes are sustainable and precautionary. They are lower than the basis used for the aboriginal hunts.  The fin whale population has increased from 21,000 to 41,000 fin whales. It is included on the IUCN red list but it is clear that this is purely about the population status in the southern hemisphere. The IWC’s own report says fin whales are in a healthy state. Many NGOs in this room today claim our takes are unsustainable but nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. We made a legal reservation when we re-joined and we are not bound by it [the moratorium]. Our whaling is entirely legal. Iceland has reservations at CITES. I am not protesting the right of citizens to argue for a ban; what is not acceptable is for their cause to be fought on false grounds. 

He concludes: Whaling is not only about whales but about the meaning of agreements signed by sovereign governments.

Monaco has just heard the commitment of Iceland to sustainably manage whales and adds, we believe Iceland will resume its hunt on endangered fin whales soon, 19 countries objected to Iceland’s whaling. Our delegation deplores the escalation of whaling

Norway associates with Iceland. Here there is a lack of respect for our convention. This creates mistrust. Our whaling is legal, sustainable and transparent.

Argentina invites the governments of Iceland and Norway to join the moratorium.

Mexico – we would like to thank Caterina for her report. Mexico is among those opposed the 

Icelandic reservation at CITES. These reservations leads to trade. Catch limits are higher than would be allowed under the RMP. See 63/15 doc. This shows catch limits for the North Atlantic fin whales – the tuning should be the one used in tuning trials; variation six should be acceptable.

IUCN comes to the microphone in the form of Justin Cooke – there was mention of the classification of fin whales, as Iceland said they are endangered – this is due to extent of decline over three generations; he also mentioned another status in another publication – this is an assessment process conducted with the support of the EU – this does not include the Central North Atlantic and so is not relevant to the stocks there.

In addition, add Dr Cooke, when we are told that catches are in accord with the RMP – that depends what you mean by the RMP! There is a version approved by the IWC. The alternative choice of tuning used by Norway and Iceland is not approved. Options found to be safe are not the same as those used by the ministries in Iceland – and the SC has rejected them. When speaking about whether catch limits are in accord with the RMP –we have to look at which versions and other [stock] boundaries were being applied.

NAMMCO again comes forward and repeats they believe in sustainable use and management. If the stocks were endangered and the takes endangered them, they would not be carried out and in addition they have the highest animal welfare standards.

We move to the infractions reports. Several countries presented reports. They looked at one unresolved infraction and some other matters. Catches taken in Greenland during the years when they did not have a quota were raised. Some members thought that these should be infractions, but not all. We refer this to you for your consideration.

Niki Entrup

Nicolas Entrup takes the floor speaking on the behalf of a dozen NGOs. Contracting governments are required to submit details of all infractions. We have heard differences of view on who decides what is an infraction. Is failing to report an infraction an infraction in itself – a bell rings loudly [is someone trying to report an infraction?]… This problem is resolvable and there should be focus on this. We commend the governments who report infractions. We need a credible mechanism for this.

Argentina refers specifically to Greenland in 2013 and 2014 – in the plenary of the Commission in Panama when we discussed Greenland’s request, we did not reach an agreement, there was no quota, still Greenland took whales. At our last meeting the BAG [Buenos Aires Group] took the position that takes without a quota should be infractions. This was referred to the working group on ‘operational effectiveness’. They have reported that this was not within their purview. The BAG believes catches without a quota must be infractions and this should not create an infraction.

Dominican Republic: we do not want to create a precedent of whales being hunted without a quota, this would harm the IWC.

Denmark: We have listened carefully. We regularly record data on infractions. After IWC64 we were in an exceptional situation. Subsistence needs had to be met. Two years ago this was corrected. We need to take a forward-looking approach. We are committed to the IWC and its schedule.

The USA fully believes that a discussion around this topic will not be fruitful here. It is more important to ensure that what happened [in Panama] does not happen again.

The Russian Federation thanks the chairman of the infractions subcommittee. Our intervention in the subcommittee is recorded in the report. There was no infraction. That is why we do not agree with Argentina’s position. We support the USA that we should try to avoid this in the future.

Bruno (Chair) says this is a difficult situation and probably not possible to resolve. The working group on effectiveness has some suggestions and we will come back to them.

Next: catches by non-member nations

Mrs Allison of the IWC Secretariat is pleased to report that for the past several years she has had catches of whales reported to the IWC from Canada.

India says this is a very serious issue. Actions by non-IWC member nations could jeopardise things. We need to develop ways to check such actions. Other nations should also report to them through the mechanisms available.

Next work with other IGOs is introduced by Sarah Smith – she carefully points to observer reports 

from the scientific committee and there is also a comprehensive report on interactions with other organisations. Future actions are also identified here.

Netherlands for the (EU) fully supports such interactions and these help to cement our reputation as the responsible body for cetaceans large and small.

Monaco likes such cooperation, too, and she notes a resolution that speaks to this. She would like an update on interactions with UN agencies.

India says we must not lose focus on the IWC’s primary mandate and mentions UNFCCC and CBD and Ramsar and those who are in management of ICATT.

The USA agrees with previous speakers about cooperation and encourages more interactions with those working on indigenous rights.

Lorenzo of Mexico notes various good interactions including on marine debris.

The Dominican Republic stresses the importance of interacting with the UN system other parties follow and then the redoubtable Heidrun Frisch-Nwakanma speaking for CMS and ASCOBANS makes one of the longest observer interventions on record and – she notes lots of overlap in interests and that CMS has started to integrate cetacean culture into its work. She also mentions the Baltic harbour porpoise and that a new recovery plan was adopted in September. The full text can be found HERE.

Sandra Altherr makes a statement for 11 NGOs. She speaks about the relationship with CITES and then details exports from Iceland and Norway. Some shipments have gone through EU ports.  We are highly alarmed about this trade.

Caro Cassini from WDC speaking also for others identified a website offering sales of whale meat around the world (a phone rings loudly again). The UK authorities have seized a can. …

Bruno: please come to the end or the point

Caro – this relates to the CITES…

But Bruno stops her again  I asked you to keep it short. The last ones were quite long. Tomorrow we will start with F&A and then on to the agenda items still open. There are no other notices.

We are sent away!

At the end of the session the blinds are opened and here the Commissioner for Australia is enjoying the setting sun.