IWC66 Tuesday Part Two

NGO briefings on a table outside the meeting hall

The vaquita arrives and we venture into aboriginal subsistence whaling.

A hurried lunchbreak breaks out. Many delegates head for a buffet, some for a coordination and some other back to their rooms to apply a cold towel to overheated brows or a fresh coating of conditioner or whatever is required.

Post-lunch the ‘unexpected resolution’ pops up. This concerns the critically endangered vaquita or Gulf of California Porpoise. 

The USA Commissioner introduces the resolution, noting that only 59 vaquita remain. The primary threat is bycatch and Mexico [the country which hosts the species] has commendably put several measures in place. The IWC SC has reviewed the situation of the vaquita and he points to page 77 of the Scientific Committee’s latest report. The choice is “simple and stark”, he adds. Either gill-netting ends or the vaquita will be gone. He notes that the IUCN and CITES have also recently called for urgent action and that the IWC has expressed concern about this species before – in 2007 – and we hope the Commission can again approve the resolution by consensus.

Chairman Bruno – asks if the Scientific Committee has anything to add and its Chair says that the resolution is fully in line with all her recommendations. 

Mexico thanks the USA for all the support for so many years: Three cruises plus the last one – now revealing the population to be under 60.

Netherlands for the EU has supported the IUCN and CITES resolutions and notes the urgency of the situation. He supported the use of the emergency rule – [resolutions are meant to be submitted 60 days ahead of the meeting] – and he believes IWC is the competent body and that we cannot afford to wait for two more years. He regrets we are in this situation now. This has been a matter of concern to the IWC for many years. He supports and would be pleased to cosponsor the resolution subject to some minor amendments.

Japan also has strong concerns about the vaquita. He himself saw the last live Yangtse river dolphin and does not want to see the same thing happen to the vaquita. But we have different views on competency and hopefully this will not damage shared concerns. He appreciates US effort to try to address these differences and that we are making progress.

Austria (in the form of the redoubtable Michael Stachovitch) speaks with great force. He says that the absolute bottom line here is to avoid extinction. It is unconscionable  to fight against the extinction of one cetaceans species and ignore another. If we sit in a room like this again and hear the bad news,  I would have trouble sitting. I would not want to hear the regrets. Do we want to tell our children and grandchildren that we did not support something that might have made a difference? Friends, vote for this resolution.

Argentina thanks Mexico for their efforts to date and recognises the outstanding work of the Scientific Committee. Less than sixty individuals is alarming. We must act and by consensus, he concludes.

Iceland believes that small cetaceans do not fall within the competency on the commission but everything must be done to save a stock. He has two questions. Why is this resolution coming in so late? The state of this stock has been known for a long time. This resolution seems to be an enforcement issue for Mexico.

The USA replies, noting he did not quite get the second issue but adds that we have indeed been working on this quite a while and we made a statement at IWC65 with Mexico. What makes this more compelling at this stage is that IUCN and CITES have made statements about this. It would be remiss if this organisation which in the past has stated its concern did not do so now. We are trying to find language now that will not compromise the positions of any countries on competencies.

However, St Vincent also thinks this is outside of IWC competency and the IWC is ‘extending’ its ‘tentacles’ too far.

Russia does not think small cetaceans are within the competency of the IWC either, but share the concerns of the USA. They are also wondering why Mexico is not co-sponsoring. Perhaps this is some intervention in its national affairs. With respect to Austria which said we should think about conserving other species than whales, so do we need to think about the feeding objects of whales. Rare species of whales consume rare species of fish. In any case we will not destroy consensus; we will not participate he concludes.

Mexico do you wish to answer, asks the Commission Chair. Its Commissioner does and he says that he believed that it is irrelevant at this time whether Mexico is a co-proponent. What is relevant is that we thank all countries supporting and it is clearer if it comes from an independent group of countries.

Korea is concerned about the vaquita and supports.

The Dominican Republic thinks the same. It may be that when this convention was concluded it was not envisaged that small cetaceans would also be threatened by extinction. Chile agrees with those supporting the resolution. So does Costa Rica. She adds that we are not overreaching the range of our convention. Colombia associates.

Iceland – can I clarify my second point?

The Chair interrupts and suggests that this does not need to be looked at in plenary. Iceland – OK.

Brazil supports the initiative.

Australia says the IWC is the premier cetacean conservation body and thanks Japan and Russia for agreeing to explore how this resolution may go forward.

Switzerland associates with Australia.

IUCN’s Justin Cooke reminds the meeting that illegal use of netting is continuing. The ban needs to be fully implemented from now.  We strongly encourage other parties to help, in particular to provide funding that extends to compensating fisher folk and develop gear. This imminent extinction is preventable. If we do not prevent it we are culpable.

NGOs – Claire Perry of EIA now speaks on the behalf of 56 NGOs. Here is that forceful intervention in full:

“The Environmental Investigation Agency is making this statement on behalf of 56 NGOs from around the world, including most of the conservation organisations present at this meeting. I will not read out the names, but we will provide copies of our full statement outside this room.

As we all know, the vaquita is the world’s most imperiled cetacean species. When the IWC was established we were not even aware of its existence - we are now faced with its imminent extinction.

Between 2011 and 2015, the vaquita population decreased by an estimated 80 percent as a result of bycatch in gillnets, many of them set illegally to capture the endangered totoaba fish.

The persistent illegal fishing and trade in totoaba swim bladders to supply markets in southern China and Hong Kong is driving the vaquita to extinction. A surge in swim bladder trade has been driven by speculators and criminal groups attracted to rapidly rising totoaba swim bladder prices. Although that value has now dropped due to an oversupply to the market, large totoaba swim bladders can still fetch more than $50,000 and illegal trade continues. Some limited enforcement actions have occurred in the main totoaba markets, however much more must be done to crack down on the illegal trade and to stop the demand which is driving illegal fishing. 

We commend the Government of Mexico for its efforts and substantial investment of resources to conserve the vaquita. Most recently, the government announced a permanent ban on gillnets that affect the vaquita, a ban on night fishing to be implemented before the end of 2016, and a restriction on the ports that fishermen can use in order to further aid enforcement.

However it is unclear whether the Gulf of California corvina fishery, which uses gillnets, will continue to be permitted, under the premise that these gillnets do not directly impact vaquita when used to encircle corvina. Since it is clear that the corvina fishery acts as a cover for illegal totoaba fishing, we urge Mexico to ensure that the ban includes all fishing with gillnets.

The IWC has played an important role in the conservation of the vaquita, with the Scientific Committee expressing multiple and increasingly urgent recommendations on actions needed to avert extinction.

2016 has witnessed unprecedented international attention to the plight of the vaquita, with action being initiated by the World Heritage Committee, IUCN and CITES. The IWC must join these international efforts. Indeed, as the world’s leading authority on cetacean conservation, it should lead international efforts to prevent the extinction of vaquita.

Chairman, fewer than 60 vaquitas remain. We thank the sponsors of this Resolution IWC/66/20, call on all Contracting Governments to support it, and to take all possible steps to prevent the extinction of the vaquita.

Clare Perry of the Environmental Investigation Agency

The microphone is returned to the USA. He thanks all for support including those working to try to find a way to express concerns. He asks to keep it open for a short while, so that a consensus resolution can be reached.

Bruno now asks all working groups on resolutions to report back when they have made some progress. We move to agenda 7 – Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) – a complex and somewhat contentious issue.

In two years’ time – ‘somewhere in Brazil’ – the IWC will decide on quotas for the indigenous people.

Joji Morishita the Japanese Commissioner who chaired the relevant subcommittee last week carefully explains what it concluded. The report is available on the IWC website. Among other things he refers to a workshop in Greenland. Mr Morishita encourages everyone to read this report.

An expert on indigenous rights, Dr Dalee Sambo Dorough, now addressed the Commission. She previously spoke in the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Subcommittee last week (and at the workshop in Maniitsoo). She draws from various pieces of international law, focusing on the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This confirms their rights to self-determination and other matters. She looks at various legal regimes. There is also, for example, the Convention of Indigenous and Tribal Rights and this must, she says, be read together with the UN Declaration.

She concludes that this body of law has seen a progressive development and that in the IWC context – noting all the pressures now faced by indigenous peoples and ongoing human rights violations - the IWC has an opportunity to establish  ‘good practice’, by recognising, promoting and protecting the human rights of indigenous peoples within its mandate’.

She adds, based on her observations here this week and last, that as some countries have spoken of being progressive, the human rights of indigenous peoples should be included in such progressive consideration.

Coffee follows (with small cakes) and then NAMMCO is given the microphone. She speaks of food and job security and they do not distinguish between aboriginal or other types of hunt. For them it is only the sustainability that is an issue and she goes on to speak about rights.

The discussion next focuses around the report of the workshop held at Hotel Maniitsoq, Maniitsoq, Greenland, from  14-18 September 2015 and it was apparent from earlier discussions that some wish all its conclusions to be adopted and some do not.

The Netherlands, speaking for EU, is committed to indigenous peoples and rights and livelihoods and proper management of aboriginal subsistence whaling is part of IWC’s duty. This must ensure conservation and take into account the view of Scientific Committee. ASW must be regulated and he welcomes the Maniitsog workshop. Under item 27 we are asked to adopt the workshop report; we will as a record of that meeting. However we need more time to consider the recommendation to change the terminology. This would be premature.

Greenland speaking through Denmark says that the Commission should adopt the report as presented. More constructive cooperation is advocated. Greenland is a country of contrasts – from modern to ancient but highly dependent on modern resources. The increasing numbers of marine mammals in our waters are the biggest competitors for fisheries in our waters.

Russia would like Dr Dorough’s presentation to be hosted on the website. The Chair says that will be OK if she is willing. She is and will also supply a more fulsome version.

Argentina recognises the rights of indigenous peoples and thanks Dr Dorough. He is willing to work with other parties and emphasises the work done by Dr Tillman on ASW through all the years. Under article 46 of the rights of indigenous peoples – the rights and needs of all native peoples should be considered. He thanks Greenland for the organising of the workshop but he cannot adopt the report of the full workshop. The recommendations need to be considered in greater depth. He accepts the work programme and the voluntary fund. From now until 2018 we need to continue working on the issues that need to be determined before 2018 – including the period of quotas.

Switzerland agrees fully with the workshop. The so called ‘needs statements’ [that indigenous peoples are required to make for quotas] requires a change of semantics and a change in attitude. I have never been asked by an international body about my diet and whether it is right to eat chocolate or cheese. It is urgent to change our approach.

The USA thanks Dr Dorough. He had found conversations with her very helpful. He associated broadly with Greenland, Russia and Switzerland and thanks Greenland for hosting this workshop.

Mexico recognises the needs of indigenous people and has some 65 different language groups in its own territory. As to Dr Dorough’s presentation he has some doubts.

St Lucia commends Dr Dorough’s presentation. It gave a clear view of what was subsistence whaling. Why should anyone have to justify food?

Dominican Republic: we agree with putting Dr Dorough’s presentation on the web as long as we also see pictures of the hunts. We do not see a drop of blood on the website and we are covering up the different sorts of whaling.

Norway says something quietly and I cannot catch it.

Chile associates with other Latin countries; it is too early to conclude some matters. We have not had answers to our questions, especially what we do if a quota is not agreed.

A spokesman for the aboriginal whaling caucus thanks Slovenia for hospitality and stresses that subsistence and cultural security is underpinned by access to the whales.  He comments that the stocks are large enough to support removals and that he has learnt much from Dr Dorough. He strongly supports the results of the workshop and that the working group should continue. He lists a range of other threats to the whales that he is committed to address and that his people have lived in harmony with their resources since ‘time immemorial’.

IWCMC adds something lawyerly.

Then Sue Fisher for AWI says that she agrees that IWC members should follow legal norms that have attained the status of customary international law but notes that the rights of indigenous peoples ate not  absolute. The IWC may not violate these rights but it can take reasonable and objectively justified measures that affect them. For example, it can and should consider quantitative and qualitative information in support of requests for ASW quotas to satisfy subsistence needs because it has a responsibility under the schedule to ensure that ASW quotas reflect need and because it must meet its mandate under the treaty to both manage and conserve whales on a global basis. This does not mean that our process cannot be improved. To ensure greater understanding and trust the IWC should use clear criteria, for example in defining what needs to be included in a needs statement and how the commission should review these statements. The IWC’s mandate is to manage whaling and conserve whales and this is not in conflict with its obligations to indigenous people. Over the last seventy years the IWC has [actually] developed a regime that allows it to achieve both goals.

The chair says that the workshop report is an excellent basis for ongoing discussion but there is not consensus on all its conclusions. It may be worth asking a small group to find a consensus on table 2 of the workshop report. A few members should participate – US, Greenland, Argentina and a few more. Please report back tomorrow afternoon.

Joji Morishita next works through the rest of his report.

We come to the grey whales killed by the Russian Chukotka people of which some exude a strange smell – the so-called stinky whales.

The Netherlands intervenes at this point. He hopes that the reducing number of stinky whales means the problem is temporary. He suggests that the Scientific Committee should look at this and decide what might be done.

Russia comments on this item. He thanks the chair of ASW subcommittee for the attention paid to his concern. The Chukotka situation was discussed in Bled. Two main items were raised. The limits are not adequate to meet the needs of the situation in Chukotka. This is becoming more severe and we need to increase the hunt. Therefore we will be reconsidering our request. 

Stinky whales Russia continues are a few each year (in 2008 as many as 10) and this is a problem for subsistence needs. We do not really understand the reason for stinkies but that does not remove the problem. We do not mean to increase the landing quota for the next three years but the stinkies should not be included in the quota. The quota may be exceeded if stinkies are included.  The great whale SLA [Strike Limit Algorithm] should be used to explore the implications of removing the stinkies from the quota.

In answer to Netherlands, Russia adds that the delegation should study the reports from the Russian Federation to the Scientific Committee. You will find the answers to your questions. Each year the experienced whalers can differentiate stinkies during the hunt in the sea and some of the stinkies are excluded when the wind blows from the fountain. The numbers are not decreasing, they constitute about ten per cent. We don’t want to harvest the stinky whales because they are not eaten even by dogs. However sometimes the smell only appears when the meat is boiled. So stinky landed whales cannot be counted against the quota. For the delegation of Netherlands – the numbers did not decrease, only the hunters became better at detecting them.

Mexico: I support what the EU through the NL said about investigating.

The NGO, LEGASEAS, speaks up for the domestic efforts of the Russian hunters to identify stinky whales before they are struck to be supported by this body. No progress has been made to identify the source and extent of the problem. Is it for example a temporary matter. The commitment to subsistence needs requires this matter to be better investigated. She also notes that because the ASW for Russia is expressed as a landing, rather than a strike-limit, Russia can strike an unlimited number of whales for conservation and welfare remains this is not an appropriate approach and the schedule should be amended to express the Russian quota as a strike limit.

Mr Morishita works on through the stocks that are affected by aboriginal takes.

Some questions are next raised by Panama and Costa Rica about the St Vincent and Grenadines hunt for humpback whales.

The Chair of the Scientific Committee notes that she had received no information in 2016. 

The Chair concludes the day by firstly reminding those involved in working groups to report back tomorrow and noting that an NGO reception is being held tonight in the hotel.

This turns out to be a nice buffet with drinks and no speeches. Many delegates attend and many do not. 

Delegates in discussion in the foyer - orange neck bands=NGOs