IWC 66 Wednesday - Part Two

Bring in the flutes!

After lunch we move to ‘Cetacean Habitat and ‘swim around’ there briefly.

The chair of the Scientific Committee (SC), Caterina Fortuna, is returned to the microphone and she highlights the collapse of a mine releasing wastes in Brazil. This was into important franciscana habitat. The committee expressed deep concern about this.

She notes the recent focuses of the SC’s States of the Cetacean Environment report and notes that it will look at the Indian Ocean next year.  There are no comments and she then reports on Ecosystem Modelling. Again no comments and the chair thanks the SC.

On to the next agenda item: Arctic Ocean. The SC Chair gives the microphone to the Head of Science. He was privileged and delighted to go to the recent Arctic Council meeting and he lists the various working groups and work streams.

The SC Chair next comments on climate change and notes that there are other IGOs working on this issue. The SC has agreed to focus on vulnerable habitats – in the Arctic and in riverine environments. This issue is also discussed in the CC strategic plan.

The USA notes that 2015 was the warmest year on record and the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. This is causing great problems and there will be effects on cetaceans and the Arctic communities. The SC, he suggests, may wish to focus its work in this region.

India reminds us that all cetaceans are fully protected in India.

We move to the review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS). A steering group is in place and a draft of the report was circulated in December. A positive review of the SOS is provided, including that it is consistent with protection from a variety of environmental threats. A sanctuary management plan is being looked at.

Australia notes that both the SC and CC have contributed for the first time to the SOS review and is pleased with the sanctuary management plan. New Zealand agrees.

Japan appreciates the reports received and encourages that the SC report itself should be looked at – he lists certain pages. Some points are raised – including that some things could be done without the sanctuary. He would like to see progress on the recommendations made. Not much progress has been made.

Chair - Can we adopt the recommendations? We can.

Brazil would like to comment on the dam disaster in Brazil when timely. The Chair permits this. 

Brazil acknowledges the seriousness of this and is acting to do everything possible to remedy this. Brazil will bring more information to the SC next year.

We move to agenda 11 – ‘Anthropogenic Impacts’. The SC Chair tells us about pollution work and then Lorenzo R-B [the Chair of the Conservation Committee] speaks to the marine debris issue, noting a report from the Secretariat to the relevant UN programme. He also notes the GGGI [Global Ghost Gear Initiative].

The Chair sees the US – but it disappears and returns to his screen.

The USA endorses working with the GGGI.

Austria comments that nearly 1 million tonnes of fishing gear is lost each year. Many marine mammals are entangled.

Mexico working with the USA and WWF Mexico is removing derelict gear from the Gulf of Mexico.

World Animal Protection thanks Slovenia and speaks on discarded gear. She commends the IWC for taking a hands on approach to this. WAP founded GGGI.

We move to bycatch: the CC Chair notes that ‘Mark Seemonds’ was tasked with reporting back to us on how to take this forward. Paper CC05 was duly produced. The paper urges that this is the time to take this forward. Various options were considered. This is a primary threat. WWF also provided a paper, he adds, which analyses threats and they noted the need to collaborate with other IGOs including ICES. We agreed to a standing working group on bycatch to work on a bycatch initiative and the aforementioned ‘Mark Seemonds’ offered to act as in interim coordinator on a voluntary basis.

The UK notes that bycatch is one of the most significant threats and he is pleased to see a coordinator and panel established and we understand the urgency. In order to speed things along – Mister Simmonds, in his delegation, will act as interim coordinator and he will be pleased to receive materials, etc.

The USA thinks bycatch is very important notes that NOAA has issued a new rule under the MMPA intended to bring standards around the world up to those of the USA.

Argentina associates with the UK and US and notes that many animals die as a result of bycatch. Argentina has a national mitigation plan.

Mexico: the red list of the IUCN for endangered species includes many cetaceans. They all have bycatch in common. There may be other factors involved, including prey loss, but these factors are often difficult to identify. Some are chronic and insidious but bycatch is totally lethal – it is the top threat. We thank the UK and associate with previous speakers.

New Zealand thanks the CC for its work and supports the establishment of the bycatch work. This should be based on the disentanglement model.

WWF (Leigh Henry) speaks for many on bycatch and notes that between them they donate $7,800 to the fund.

We now move towards Ship Strikes

Belgium speaks later to support the bycatch initiative and provides a long list of threats that act synergistically. She is pleased to see cooperation with other IGOs. Ship strikes are important for Belgium. Cetaceans get hit by vessels all over the world.

We move to the 'IWC in the future' agenda item.

The Chair notes that Japan has already indicated they wanted to say something here.

Japan proposes intersessional work to look at STCW.

[This seems to revolve around exchanging views via a website – Now I have to apologise here as what was said was important but it was not clear to me because I was urgently assisting on another matter. I will try to come back to this.]

South Africa welcomes such a conversation and says that Special Permit whaling should be included. He is concerned about bycatch and small cetaceans.

Japan replies to South Africa – this highlights the fundamental problem – it might be small cetaceans or bycatch – the discussion are always influenced by the difference in opinion about the purpose of this body.

We move on to the report of the Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues Working Group.

This is presented by Michael Stachowitsch, the Chair of the Working Group. The report is available online. He notes the reports on whales killed received from various countries. For example, the report on euthanasia from the UK.

Nick Gales, the Australian Commissioner, notes that the group is now receiving lots of good information and stresses that Parties should receive information directly from the countries [and not via another organisation].

Russia thanks the chair and affirms that it submits information voluntarily. The modern technology of whale hunting is quite expensive. He thanks the Russian Eskimo Whaling Commission for assistance and darting guns. The number of coastal villages increases as does the number of villagers. Seminars are being conducted to train hunters. The Netherlands is thanked for funding a training workshop several years ago. We need to pay attention to economic feasibility and safety of hunters. Chukotka hunters use traditional methods. The grey whale is an aggressive animal, the Yankee whalers called it a devil fish. There are limits to time between first strike and death.

An IGO comes forward. It is NAMMCO. She thanks the chair for his good report and wants to make two points. The overall positive development of animal welfare in hunting is the first. There are considerable efforts being channelled into this. It has been very successful. The second point is the possibility for cooperation between the two organisations. There are many man-made threats with implications for conservation and management. We have the same overall goal but the rationale is quite different. The majority here pursue healthy populations as a goal in its own right. [We see them also as a source of food.] NAMMCO members and others do not submit data to IWC.

The Eskimo Whalers Organisation takes the microphone to describe how its members are improving their efficiency, despite challenges from ecosystem change and increasing vessels. They are improving techniques for recovering lost whales. He provides further detail and tells us that it is Egil Ole Øen’s birthday, a nod to the developer of the modern penthrite grenade and an expert in whale issues. The Chair wishes him a happy birthday.

Michael ploughs on through his report. This now moves to non-hunting issues and includes the Welfare Action Plan and a report from the welfare workshops held in Krueger National Park in South Africa. The microphone is passed to Commissioner Gooding  (UK) to say more. He thanks all concerned. He notes there were two parts to the workshop. The first concerned welfare issues, the second strandings. There was considerable contribution from civil society. The five domains model of animal welfare was a focus of the first part. This tool has now been adapted for use in livestock. Its use for wild cetaceans is yet another step in the development of this tool. Further work was recommended to develop this. The UK is pleased to continue as the Chair of this group and would welcome other members. The UK will seek to bring together external experts to look at some of the questions posed. The Kruger workshop benefitted from the attendance of external experts. We hope to produce a welfare tool for the assessment of non-hunting threats. The UK will donate $15,000 to help support the work stream.

The Netherlands for the EU welcomes this work. The welfare of cetaceans is an important issue globally – noting ship strikes and stranded cetaceans – he notes the positive outcomes from the workshop. These were important steps forward. He likes the tool.    

New Zealand reiterates the call made by others to submit whale killing data. On the issue of strandings. They have over 5000 strandings and recognise the importance. They are actively engaged. She congratulates the UK’s work. They supported the UK’s work on standings and contributed an expert and funding. There is good work ongoing on this. New Zealand supports the recommendation of a coordinator and panel.

The USA thanks the UK and South Africa and supports the recommendations coming out.

Argentina thanks the same Parties. He supports the recommendations and will work on welfare.

An NGOs takes the microphone

Thank you Mr Chair. My name is Claire Bass and I am the UK Director of Humane Society International. I speak today on behalf of fourteen observer organisations and will provide the list to the rapporteurs.

We wish to congratulate the United Kingdom, and all members of the intersessional welfare working group, for the progress made since the IWC’s Welfare Action Plan was agreed in 2014. This is an ambitious programme of work and we believe it to be the first time that an intergovernmental body has committed to systematically assess and articulate welfare problems caused incidentally by human activities in wild animals’ habitats. The Cetacean Welfare Assessment Tool under development provides a holistic approach, taking into account cetaceans’ behavioural and social needs in addition to their physical well-being. This enhanced understanding will enable the IWC to create effective mitigation responses to human-induced threats, protecting individual animals as well as their populations and species. I am pleased to announce that several NGOs wish to make financial contributions of at least $3,000 towards the delivery of workstreams 1 and 2 in IWC’s Animal Welfare Action Plan, including the strandings and disentanglement response programmes.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express the long-held position of many NGOs, representing many millions of people around the world, that the use of exploding missiles on fully conscious animals should not be sanctioned by the international community as an acceptable means of acquiring meat for commercial sale and consumption. Despite the best efforts of Norway and some other countries to improve killing methods, there will always remain large margins for error which result in extreme, prolonged and unacceptable animal suffering.

In this the 30th anniversary of the whaling moratorium we celebrate that many tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of whales have been spared this suffering. We urge Parties to recognise the ongoing value of the moratorium not just in saving species, but in protecting individual animals from harm.

Animal Welfare Institute, Cetacean Society International, Danish Society for the Conservation of Marine Mammals, Dolphin Connection, Environmental Investigation Agency, Humane Society International, Iruka and Kujira (Dolphin and Whale) Action Network, Fundación Cethus, International Fund for Animal Welfare, OceanCare, Pro Wildlife, Whaleman Foundation, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, World Animal Protection.”

Sue Fisher of AWI (left)  and Claire Bass of HSI-UK

Michael reports further: In the two year intersessional period ahead the welfare working group will pursue further development of an innovative Cetacean Welfare Assessment Tool, as well as developing and building action plans to provide rescue responses to both stranded and entangled whales.

Michael moves to 13.4, the welfare issues associated with the entanglement of large whales. The results of a workshop in Massachusetts are noted and also the GGGI initiative. Michael notes that the primary conclusion is that the priority is to avoid entanglement.

Several countries speak up in support.

Michael moves to the report of the Strandings workshop held in Krueger. He notes the recommendations from the workshops and SC summarised in document 10 – no need to call on the SC to confirm this – they call on the response to strandings and the establishment of an expert panel and a coordinator. This was passed on to the Finance and Admin committee.

Argentina thanks Michael for his report. We are all aware of how complex strandings can be; this can lead to great suffering and great public interest – as said during the workshop – strandings are a challenge for all of us especially where there is not enough expertise and funding; we are pleased to see the IWC deal with this; we endorse the work by the Scientific Committee and the workshops on this and he thanks all concerned. Enabling best practice is key. We agree there should be a coordinator and panel.

The UK: as I mentioned under 13.31 – the recent workshop looked at strandings – especially practical measures and he decribes the different themes explored by the workshop, including human safety and dealing with the media.

In the UK we have had significant experience of this. He welcome that the SC has called for a coordinator and a panel. We associate with Argentina and New Zealand.

ASCOBANS speaks up in support and expresses its interest in joining the expert panel.

India suggests that the IWC should develop a plan of action for depleted species.

IFAW speaking for others notes there are outstanding responses from countries – she notes the recommendation from the SC and endorses them.

We move towards the end of the day (and a reception for Commissioners only).

Working groups report in – there will be vaquita resolution text probably tomorrow.

The Special permits resolution will be with the Secretariat shortly and we will talk about this tomorrow, it included parties who are unlikely to support. Tomorrow, says the chair, we will start with special permits.

The chair wants to wind things down.  The Swiss Ambassador in Slovenia is now given the microphone. He explains that the huge paintings outside were produced by the artist sitting next to him and invites us all to take a drink.  We dutifully follow him out to collect our flutes. Some collect more flutes that others. 

The distinguished commissioner for Mexico
Lorenzo Rocjas-Bracho