 |
| A vote in progress - countries and their votes are shown on the big screens are the front of the hall. |
Stand by the Commission is going to take some votes!
Thursday dawns clear and sunny. Croatia is shining in the
distance across the water. Gulls are flying by going on about their business.
Somewhere deep in the Hotel Grand Bernardunti, the EU countries that have affiliated
to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling are in
coordination, many words are being intensively studied and perhaps the
Netherlands is rehearsing his interventions. Others, elsewhere, are having a
light breakfast and considering their own positions. Many key issues remain
open – mainly in the form of resolutions (the primary decision making mechanism
of the IWC). Open resolutions include the one on ‘governments of limited means’
and the one on ‘special permits’ (scientific whaling).
Eventually we come into the great meeting hall. Many go in and then we go out again because
we have again forgotten our headsets.
The Chairman and the Executive Secretary are at their seats
in good time for the nine am start. The Chairman encourages everyone to their
seats and notes that we have all resolutions open, plus the issues concerning
the aboriginal subsistence working group and the future of the IWC.
The Chair makes his opening comments noting that in due
course proponents will be asked if they would like a vote. It will be up to
them to decide how to proceed. We shall work through the following –
Scientific Permits
Safety at Sea
Resolutions
The Chair of the Scientific Committee makes her report,
noting that the SC talked about NEWREP A and then JARPN II [Respectively
Japan’s programmes for scientific whaling or special permit whaling in the
Southern Ocean and the North Pacific]
Re: NEWREPA – she notes a thorough and detailed review was
made and points at some complicated tables and the report of an expert panel.
[This is a complex report and I cannot do it justice here.
Indeed the SC Chair notes as one point that her verbal overview does not
replace the written report of her Committee. So I only sample a few elements
here to give a flavour of what is presented and discussed.]
The Committee agreed that the objectives were directed to
improvements in the management and conservation of whales. She notes they have
tried to simplify things but it is complicated. The committee agreed with the
panel that it the reasons for lethal take had not been justified.
She continues through the SC review and that not all the
recommended parameters had been covered by the proponents in their review.
Prey studies…. Ecosystems modelling …. despite lack of
consensus… progress should be reviewed again …..summary table ….item 18.1.1….
focused on two of the more complex recommendations recommendation 1 (evaluate
the level of improvement )…. RMP…. Simulation Studies…. Agreed process...recommendation
26….Antarctic minke whales…. The committee agreed on the need for proponents ….
data set…. The conclusions of 2015 remain valid table 23 (page 91-99).
She pauses. Any questions asks the Chair.
Australia and New Zealand have introduced a resolution to
facilitate the review of special permits. The Australian Commissioner
introduces it and says that this means we need to consider the review of NEWREP
A. He thanks Caterina and the SC. It is clear, he suggests, that behind the ‘some
and others statements’ that the NEWREP A proposal does not meet the requirements.
This is evident in the report from the expert panel. They were selected for
their scientific expertise and they also held balanced views. The proposal does
not demonstrate the need for lethal sampling. Setting and achieving adequate
sample sizes was a key element in the ICJ judgement. A pause of 2-3 years would
not have been detrimental. At the 2015 meeting Japanese scientists presented
calculation that they said provides the answers. A sub-group of the SC
concluded by consensus that the panel’s recommendation has not been met. In
2015 many members of the SC upheld this view. Australian scientists requested
data from Japan to allow an independent assessment. Japan refused. A letter
from Japan later said they has completed analyses. In 2015 whaling went ahead.
The Commission was not given the chance to review this – as requested in
resolution 2015-5.
In 2016, many members of the Scientific Committee reiterated
the case for lethal research had not been made. The Commission itself must
conclude the same.
Japan says that we all know there are differences of opinion.
As the SC report shows there are very intensive scientific discussion and there
are differences of view in the SC. It is not black and white. He thanks Madam
Chair, the SC and the Panel. He adds
that it is only natural in scientific exercise to have difference of opinion.
In the SC we have healthy situation. Paragraph 3 of the schedule states that
the SC shall review and comment on plans and ongoing activities and they did.
In the 2016 SC report we see 29 different recommendations p
93-100 – clearly ongoing review and process. Our scientists and those from other
countries have been diligently following the process. This should be understood
by all Parties. This is not black and white. In the northern hemisphere winter
of 2015 we believe we have responded in a satisfactory manner. Another black
and white issue spreading about the ICJ – is that Japan is in violation of judgement.
That’s not true either. The ICJ has almost 300 paragraphs and it is to be
expected that Japan will take account of judgement when granting any future judgements’
– the new research in our view responds to this and is in accordance with the
ICJ. The ICJ said the use of lethal sampling is ‘not unreasonable’ in pursuit
of Japan’s objectives.
Thank you Japan.
New Zealand thanks the chair of the SC. She notes the
complexity illustrates the need for the
resolution in order to synthesise
information for us [the Commission]. New Zealand has made its deep
disappointment known. Today is our opportunity to assess NEWREP A – in
accordance with resolution 2015-5. We should consider the advice of the SC.
This is what we are doing today. We have two reports of the SC and the panel.
There are three steps: an initial review by panel; review by
SC; review by Commission
We accept that the SC was consulted but Japan did not wait
on the full review by the SC and the review by the Commission.
The ICJ made clear this is not a unilateral matter. It is
not up to the proponent party alone. Special Permit whaling is squarely this
Commission’s business. She is deeply disappointed that Japan did not wait on
consideration by the panel and went ahead and took 333 minke whales. She too goes on to review what the panel
said. There was no consensus that Japan had made the case for lethal whaling.
Simply put there is no scientific justification for lethal take.
NEWREP A is not for scientific research. There is no need to
use Article 8 to obtain the data that Japan wants. We call on Japan to desist.
We ask that the repot of today’s meeting incudes a recommendation that i. Japan
issued permits before review was compete; ii.it is not for scientific research
and iii. Recommended that Japan cease NEWREP A.
The Netherlands [for the EU] thanks the SC and opens by
reiterating that there is not a need for lethal research; we think it is important
to have an open dialogue and we are disappointed that Japan did not wait to consider
reviews. He too refers to resolution 2014-5 and considers it appropriate that
this Commission should be given the opportunity to consider proposals before
whaling commences. We are of the opinion that Japan has not demonstrated the
need for lethal take; a few years would not have been detrimental …. He urges
Japan to ensure full involvement of the SC in the future and with respect to
the North Pacific hunt.
Argentina has similar sentiments and refers to the statement
from the Groupo [The Buenos Aires Group of Countries] and calls for no permits
under NEWREP A – also noting respecting the integrity of sanctuaries.
Iceland says the review is in Annex P. Iceland sees no need
for revisions of the process. The proposed resolution seems to be intended to
prolong the process, and they do not support it.
New Zealand, says the Chair, has asked to include some text
in our report. It has now been provided to him and he reads it out … it includes
that Japan should cease the lethal component of NEWREP A. There are a range of
views here – so if this is the text I am sure we can include as an expressed
view from New Zealand.
Japan – this is new language – is this a new proposal; what
procedure are we doing now? Is this a new procedure. I need a clarification.
This is outside of our procedure.
A good point says the Chair. We have resolution 6.2 which we
will come to later today. There we have this point included. I see some
problems in including this kind of text as it includes some elements of the
resolution. I suggest we discuss then.
Japan supports. Do we also discuss this afternoon the
resolution?
The Chair says shall we move on. New Zealand do I have your
understanding. She agrees this is not the place. My intervention was about NEWREP
A. This Commission in Resolution 2014-5 agreed to review, I am requesting that
this language is included in the report.
The Chair starts to ask if this just reflects the view of
NZ, when Antigua and Barbuda interrupts.
[Technically this is probably a point
of order but anyway the distinguished Commissioner from Antigua and B stops the
proceedings.]
He would have liked the chair to pay attention to state
parties. He finds it unhelpful for controversial text to be included. A text
like this can be associated with the member state. We would also like a long
and extended text included. We should move along – NZ and Australia have a resolution.
In the interests of time we should ask NZ to reconsider. Include it in the
resolution.
The Chair says I have a long list now [of would be speakers]
Chair -The proposed text indicates ‘the Commission’ –
clearly it is not the view of the whole Commission. NZ may have comments
included but the text cannot represent whole and come forward later. Is this
acceptable?
NZ – thank you for your patience. This is important for us
and we will work with others. This is not a unilateral matters and it is a job
that the Commission gave itself two years ago and we are trying to carry out
this duty. We would be happy to work with delegations.
A+B – ‘point of order’. If NZ intends to provide a text in
association with others, we shall provide text also.
Chair – this is a point of order. No more discussion. I will
propose something and you can challenge me. It is the right of all members to
add text. You indicated earlier you might want to provide text. You have the
possibility. Speak to NZ to see it you can find a text agreed by all. I would
like to move on.
A+B that is acceptable. If one text is not acceptable, we
shall have two.
Chair - thank you – please use the time to go over the text.
Now I give the floor to the Chair of the SC to report on JARPN II (Japan’s
North Pacific Hunt)
The SC Chair points at relevant pages in her report (section
18.2).Again this is dense and complex and I don’t want to do it a disservice by
misquoting here.
– a final review of
the programme is due and data need to be available. The SC agreed with the
expert panel on a number of points including issues with the timing of the
closing of the programme and the Committee also noted that much greater focus
should have been made on analyses.
The USA takes the microphone – he continues to believe that
lethal research is unnecessary for whale conservation and management … data can
be collected from non-lethal means. Hence we voted for a resolution at IUCN on
this.
We note that Japan plans to start its whaling programme
before the Commission can review it.
Japan says that he will present information to the
Scientific Committee. He talks about the stomach contents of the minke whales
and that stomach and ‘pre-faeces’ DNA did not match. Picking up faeces will not
give you information on stomach contents.
India thinks that countries should issue permits for whaling
based on comprehensive assessments. Re NEWREP A this does not appear to be
based on strict scientific methods. Biopsy is a standard process.
Australia thanks Caterina and the SC. This is a final review
for a large programme. The expert panel identified issues with sample size and
design. JARPN II was terminated prematurely for political reasons and the
expert panel concluded that two of the three objectives were not met. He
provides further concerns.
Guinea – notes that small scale pelagic fishing is providing
for 65% of protein needs in his country – so all related research programmes
are of interest.
Several small cakes and a fight for the last paper towel in
the toilet later, Chairman Bruno notes that over coffee New Zealand and Antigua
and Barbuda met and text will be coming back. He leaves that agenda item open.
Once more the chair of the SC is encouraged to come to the microphone –
this time to comment on something but unexpectedly there is a moment of high
drama when she waves a Motorola USB cable in the air to bring it to the
attention of whoever here has lost it. She then moves on to the review process
for special permit whaling and notes that Annex P [in which the review process
is enshrined] has been revised twice, first in 2015. There are two separate
sections in annex P now and a check list is meant to be used. A new
confidentiality annex has also been added.
Australia comes to the floor – or tries but the middle
section of microphones where the Australia commissioner is sitting has been knocked
out. A technician moves around the floor.
The Chair says that - From Australia to Chile and then over
towards India and Panama it is not functioning on his screen. It seems a cable
was disconnected and it appears to be suspiciously close to the UK delegation.
Australia says information was presented in dozens of paper
and appreciates the efforts made to revise annex P. We note the Scientific Committee
drawing attention to aligning the review with the Commission meeting. Australia
believes that review should occur at the regular annual meetings of the
Scientific Committee. A webcast of the next meeting of a review panel is
supported by them.
The NGO thanks for being allowed to express her views on
this lethal matter. She speaks for those involved in non-lethal research in
Latin America. She draws attention to a letter from 500 scientists on this
matter – many do not take part in the SC – and they also drew attention to the
ICJ. No other study on large mammals has requires so many animals to be killed.
Killing so many bears or chimpanzees would not be allowed. They urged the IWC
to reject the NEWREP A. The letter was discussed at the SC meeting in San Diego
in 2015. However, we do not understand why it was not accepted for publication
on the IWC website. We invite you to read this document. We urge the SC to
consult with the wider scientific community.
The Chair says that we try to publish as much as possible
and we may try to get clear criteria for this.
Are there any other items to bring forward? No.
We come to Safety at Sea.
Japan has a power point: “Sea Shepherd Violence against the
Japanese Research Vessels”. The speaker shows pictures of ‘sabotage vessels’ –
mentions skull and crossbones logo and acting like pirates; notes the
deployment of ropes and wires to try to entangle propellers. The research
vessel crew reacted quickly to prevent attacks. The launching of bottles and
other projectiles, including incendiary devices onto the mother vessel that was
full of fuel. He does not know how many ropes and other material was lost into
the sea and forms ghost gear.
A preliminary injunction was issued by the 9th
circuit court of appeals in the USA against the organisation – in the judgement
was the statement ‘you are without doubt a pirate’. The court order was
ignored. Settlement was agreed in August 2016 and a permanent injunction order
granted.
Other concerns are described including the fact that the
organisation concerned has indicated that it will continue actions.
The Russian Federation recognises the democratic right to
protest but with respect to NGOs that have a terroristic nature: Two years ago
Greenpeace employees climbed a platform in the Barents Sea endangering the
operation and lives. The entire team was put under arrest and taken to trial.
When we deal with the organisation mentioned by Japan it is a totally different
situation. Those of you that work on the sea – especially in Antarctic waters –
know what kind of threat it can pose for the crews – we believe a member of the
Japanese crew has resulting health problems. … he would like to hear comments
from the countries whose flags are used.
Norway also states its concerns. There is a right to
research and he supported the questions from Russia.
The Netherlands says safety at sea should not be discussed
at the IWC but at the IMO. In line with its position at the IMO the Netherlands
has always called on all vessels to avoid collisions and has joined in
statements of others and activities should be dealt with by the relevant law.
The Netherlands upholds the right to protest but is deeply concerned about the
escalation of violence in the last couple of years. It has met with Japanese
representatives on this matter and will continue these discussions.
India opposes violent protests but upholds the right to
peaceful protest.
New Zealand has responsibility for a vast area of the Southern
Ocean – which is treacherous and remote – search and rescue capability is very limited
and has called on masters of all vessels to use constraint. We are disappointed
that Japan has returned to the Southern Ocean and condemn violent and dangerous
activities.
Australia agreed that IMO is the relevant body but notes
that it has joined with others in previous statements and adds that this is a
treacherous and remote environment. Full compliance with domestic and
international law is required. He too is disappointed at Japan’s decision to
return to the Southern Ocean.
Switzerland recognises the right to peaceful protest but
cannot tolerate violent protest.
The USA makes a similar statement to others.
Denmark speaks for the Faroe Island – they recognise the
interest in its small whale drive and have no basis for dialogue with the
organisation that has put life and property at risk.
We now return to the report from the Conservation Committee
and some outstanding Conservation Management Plans.
Miguel Iniguez is thanked for his work.
Chairman Bruno congratulates Korea on joining the Western
Pacific Grey Whale Conservation Plan.
Argentina thanks Australia for working on the CMPs group with
respect to the southern right whale.
Japan is committed the protection of the right whales. A
number of measures have been taken domestically for the Pacific Grey. Professor
Kato will be acting at the coordinator going forward.
We move to ‘additional CMP’ proposals –
Mexico thanks Japan for their contribution and notes the endorsement
from the SC of a CMP for the Franciscana (La Plata River dolphin). [This would
be the first CMP for a small cetacean if agreed]. The draft CMP focuses on monitoring
abundance and trends; mitigating bycatch; looking at fisheries’ interactions;
raining awareness of the species and involving the franciscana in international
agreements. In the CC countries congratulated those involved in developing the
proposal and endorsed it.
Deb Callister the chair of the CMP Standing Committee makes
her report, noting support for the franciscana CMP and ongoing work towards
threats-based CMPs.
Argentina noted the franciscana is the most threated small
cetacean in the south Pacific. He hope soon to report progress under this CMP.
He thanks Mexico and Australia for their work and lots of others.
Brazil offers thanks too and echoes the words of the
Argentinian delegation. They hope to better understand the biology of this
species.
Chair Bruno closes the item and congratulated Mexico and Deb
for their hard work on some of the most threatened species. But he is not yet
breaking.
Lorenzo as Chair of the Conservation Committee notes the
report of the Standing Group on Whale
Watching is next considered including the
report of the IORA workshop held in Sri Lanka earlier this year. Some (but not
quite all) are thanked for their help with this workshop. He notes the
relevance of the WW handbook. The online handbook is progressing well. CMS
is encouraged to join in the handbook development. He calls for voluntary contributions
to help with the handbook.
India takes the floor – they have been supporting whale
watching. This should be safe for the whale and the whale watchers.
Australia – Deb Callister comes back to the floor to update
on the IORA council of ministers meeting No final result yet but she is very
hopeful that they will commit to what was agreed – leading to better practice
sharing in the ‘Rim Region’.
Monaco signals enormous returns from the non-lethal use of
whales.
New Zealand congratulates the standing working groups and especially
appreciates the handbook.
Belgium
makes a statement as follows:
“The issue of whale
watching has been on the agenda of both the Scientific and the Conservation
Committee since quite some time. Scientific research on the effects of whale
watching on cetaceans has increased over the years. While whale watching
provides incomes and economic benefits for many coastal communities all over
the world, there is also a downside of too many humans wanting to watch
dolphins and whales, with a range of well documented effects on the cetaceans.
Hence, to be sustainable
in the long term, whale watching has to be managed wisely. As an example, it
was reported at the Scientific Committee this year that IWC recommendations
from previous years have influenced the vigilance of managers towards the
critical situation in Bocas del Toro (Panama), where dolphins are under
increasing pressure from little regulated whale watching tourism. This tells us
that the messages coming out of the SC are being heard and acted upon!
Increasingly, the
Scientific and Conservation Committee sit together over different issues and
give guidance to each other – with whale watching being one of the primary
focuses. This is actually a very good example of the two Committees creating
synergies with the aim of bringing up solutions for the development of
sustainable whale watching operations.
The WW Online Handbook
takes all this to a new level. With this new tool, the IWC will give advice and
guidance on all important aspects of whale watching, from scientific research,
data collection, codes of conduct to management, to name just a few.
The IWC has proven that
we are able to deal with complex issues in a comprehensive way and finally come
up with science-based knowledge that can be spread and be used in capacity
building efforts. This can be called another IWC success story for cetacean
conservation. “
The USA thanks delegates for their kind words. Resources
will be needed.
Heidi of the Convention for Migratory Species decides to
keep us from our lunch with an intervention about looking forward to CMS and
IWC moving forward jointly. They can help with costs by funding translations
into French and Spanish (so we can forgive her).
Chair Bruno attended the meeting in Sri Lanka and he thanks
Australia for all their efforts and the Sri Lankan government and also Ryan for
his great work (and no one else).
After lunch he promised that we will return to resolutions.
But after lunch, we actually come first to national progress
reports. The CC Chair noted that progress reports might be revised to make them
helpful to the CC. Bruno encourages that more reports should be submitted.
On to Regional partnerships – Southern Ocean Research Partnership =
SORP
Caterina is brought again to the microphone and she
describes SORP: It is a multinational non-lethal programme. 12 contracting
governments are taking part and Belgium has just joined the group. Some ten
projects are in play.
Australia thanks Caterina and draws attention to what his
1.5 million dollars of new funding will be added to this. He notes other
sponsors including two NGOs. He also welcomes Belgium to the initiative.
Belgium says that she finds it effective and notes the many peer-reviewed
publications it has produced. She concludes that it is wonderful initiative.
Mexico notes that it is important to understand how the
stocks are recovering since whaling ended and also how they are responding to
climate change. SORP is now a critical piece of this work.
Brazil also welcomes Belgium to the group and notes that they
have been part of SORP since its inception in 2009. There is 820,000 British pounds
in the fund.
We now go right back the beginning – agenda 6 and the
resolutions
First the Resolution on ‘Enhancing the Effectiveness of the
International Whaling Commission’ Resolution 1..
Ryan Wolff USA Alternate Commissioner explains some changes
The full text is HERE
The operative part reads as follows:
Now, therefore the Commission:
- Agrees to a comprehensive, independent review of the Commission’s institutional and governance arrangements, based on Terms of Reference contained in the annex to this resolution;
- Calls upon Contracting Governments to make voluntary contributions to support this review;
- Agrees to establish, during the 66th meeting of the Commission, a Steering Group of Contracting Governments representing a range of views and interests to select a panel to conduct the review in the intersessional period;
- Agrees that the review will be conducted by a panel of three independent reviewers selected by the Steering Group, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission, following a limited tender application process
- Agrees that the review panel submit a report to the Executive Secretary, in accordance with the Terms of Reference contained in the annex to this resolution, for discussion at the 67th meeting of the Commission;
Agrees that the Secretariat circulates the report to Contracting
Governments and Accredited Observers, and to the Working Group on Operational
Effectiveness; and
Requests that the Working Group on Operational Effectiveness
consider the report and submit a proposal to guide the Commission in responding
to the recommendations of the review at least 60 days in advance of the 67th
meeting of the Commission.
It is passed by consensus.
Australia now returns to its resolution on review of the
Special Permits. He hopes he can do as well as Ryan just did.
He explains some changes but says he believes we are unable
to reach consensus.
Japan says the process has been positive and constructive
and he thanks the proponents for trying to reach consensus. However… his
interpretation is not the same as the proponents. It is a resolution and
legally non-binding; and not consistent with the schedule. The wording would
constrict the contracting government’s ability. In practice it would change the
schedule and the convention’s intention. You cannot change these by a
resolution. It is like trying to change national constitution by municipal
ordinance.
We already have a very good report from the scientific
committee. The working group might include policy aspect in their process and
his could impinge on article VIII.
Antigua and Barbuda is quite concerned about the nature of
the resolution brought before us. He listened carefully. Our commission is being
driven by resolutions that are not binding and do not allow consensus. Resolution
2015-5 has been cited as guiding this resolution but no member has to be guided
by this. Some wording is misleading and incorrect and it should not be brought
before us in this form. Japan does not have to answer to this. It is illegal
and I urge proponents to withdraw it. It can only bring disrepute to this
organisation. It would be better to have
a working group or ask the bureau to review resolutions to see if they are legal.
The Netherlands for the EU supports the work done. It will
help to ensure an appropriate calendar for the review and that is why we
support.
The Chair asks Australia how to proceed and he says that he
and NZ are comfortable to go to a vote.
The Executive Secretary, Simon Brockington,
explains again how this will be done.
Simon explain this is 66-11-REV 26th October 2016
date stamp. This is a resolution and so requires a simple majority. We will
start with Argentina
I will just sample a few votes Benin abstains as does Cote
D’Ivoire, Eritrea, Grenada, India, Kenya, Korea, Laos, Mauretania, Switzerland
Brazil, France, Luxembourg, Monaco – Vote Yes
Cambodia , Ghana, Russian Federation, Antigua and Barbuda –
Vote No
Croatia is absent
Iceland says ‘yes… er
no’. [There is much laughter.]
St Kitts and Nevis is absent as is San Marino
The resolution passes 34 for/17against/10 abstentions
Switzerland gives an explanation of its vote and does not
see the necessity or the chance of improvement by this process. The SC is
already following Annex P. This is already unambiguous.
Colombia has decided to support because is in line with her
position on conservation.
We move to the resolution on food security. No revision has
been submitted.
Ghana says they are grateful for comments received but no
consensus can be reached and they are deeply disappointed that the IWC again
cannot reach consensus. He speaks at some length about the fight against poverty
and hunger and noting that whales are a source of nutrition. He also comments
that nutrition cannot be the responsibility of FAO only. We seem to be interested
in discussing food safety but not security. We hope that we can reach an agreement on this
for IWC67 and we would like to hold the text open.
The Chair thanks them for bringing the resolution forward.
We move to the ground-breaking resolution on ‘ecosystems
services’ Doc 15 REV3.
The Chair asks Chile who is leading this resolution to report.
This draft says Chile has been growing better and better and we have a number
of new co-proponents. The version in front of you reflects this. We would like
to proceed in accordance with the rules of procedure. Any comments?
Japan we appreciate the efforts of the proponents about ecosystems
functioning but we have basic difficulties. This is the denial of sustainable
use of whale based on so called provision of services.
The Chair says so no consensus right now. Can we try to
develop a new draft? Chile how would you
like to proceed?
Chile says that in view of the situation, we would like to
go to a vote. Please remain concentrating during the vote says the Chair
perhaps frowning towards Iceland.
Simon identified the resolution – if you vote yes you are in
favour of adopting and if you vote no you
are not in favour, he emphasises.
Again this is just a sample of the votes cast:
Yes – Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic , Estonia, Finland,
France, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico,
Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
UK, USA, Uruguay
Abstain – Benin, Cambodia, Cote d’Ivoire, Eritrea,
Mauretania, Morocco
Iceland – NO, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Mongolia, Nauru,
Norway, Russian Federation, Tanzania, Antigua and Barbuda
Croatia is absent as is St Kitts and Nevis and San Marino
The next Resolution is the ‘Minamata Convention Resolution’
– several very positive changes have been made, says Uruguay.
Japan again appreciates the efforts of the proponents, but
it does not meet the objective of the convention. We cannot support.
The Chair notes there is no consensus. We move to another
vote. The resolution passes 38 yes /23 no/0 abstentions
We move to the resolution about the critically endangered
vaquita.
The USA notes some changes, some being editorial
The operative part of the resolution says
NOW THEREFORE the Commission:
EXPRESSES DEEP CONCERN that the vaquita numbers less than 59
animals and is facing imminent extinction;
AFFIRMS that only a permanent, complete, and effective
gillnet ban in all fisheries operating in the Upper Gulf of California will
prevent the imminent extinction of the vaquita;
COMMENDS the Mexican Government for the Strategy on the
Comprehensive Care of the Upper Gulf of California that includes an interagency
enforcement programme, a two-year gillnet ban (from May 2015), compensation for
fishermen and those who work in fishery-related activities and the development
of alternative fishing gear;
COMMENDS the Mexican Government on the announcement of a
permanent ban on gillnets in the Upper Gulf of California gillnet exclusion
zone from April 2017 and the programme to remove derelict fishing gear in the
Upper Gulf of California.
URGES the Mexican Government to eliminate any exemptions to
the ban, which can facilitate illegal fishing for totoaba, and to prohibit the
use of any gillnets within the range of the vaquita;
ENDORSES the recommendations of the IWC Scientific
Committee, in particular the urgent need
to strengthen enforcement efforts against illegal fishing in Mexico and totoaba smuggling out of Mexico and into
transit and destination countries; the urgent need to remove active and ghost gillnets from the
range of the vaquita; and the need to maintain the acoustic monitoring programme as a key action
in support of any recovery strategy;
URGES all Contracting Governments to follow the
recommendations in CITES Decision 17. X and strengthen enforcement actions to
eliminate the illegal international trade in totoaba swim bladders, in
particular those countries where totoaba products are consumed or in transit,
including the United States and China;
URGES Contracting Governments to support Mexico's efforts to
prevent the extinction of the vaquita by assisting in providing financial
resources as well as technical and socio-economic expertise;
REQUESTS the IWC Secretary to forward a copy of this
Resolution to the CITES, FAO and IUCN Secretariats.
The USA believed we can go by consensus but Antigua and Barbuda
intervenes. He does not want anything to go extinct. But our voting gives no consideration
to the views of minorities. We must work hard for the vaquita and he continues
at some length.
Stay tuned for the result.
No comments:
Post a Comment