ACCOBAMS COP 6 Day 2

High on the prominatory above the main marina in Monaco - with its remarkable array of huge yachts - the royal palace shines.  

A view of the ACCOBAMS reception at the Royal Yacht Club
last night.

A sperm whale made by local children high over the reception
it is a new species as the teeth are in the upper jaw!

Tuesday is another grey day in Monaco.

We start with a little more administration and then soon we are in the company of Dr Simone Panigada, the distinguished chair of the ACCOBAMS Scientific Committee, who eloquently describes the work of his committee. It is a comprehensive list, including work on strandings networks, surveys and trainings and threats-related work (e.g. climate change and marine debris), with a strong emphasis on noise.

Among the questions that follow, HSI asks about the threat of pollutants (in particular PCBs) to small cetaceans, especially – for example - orcas in the Western end of the Mediterranean and he points to a briefing available about this at the back of the room from Wildlife and Countryside Link.

Simone replies that not all work could be detailed in his presentation and notes work on pollution conducted via the University of Sienna and encourages some addition to the triennium work plan on this matter. He also notes that the Scientific Committee is devoting a lot of work to killer whales and the new evidence of the threat from PCBs will strengthen this.

Spain speaks up to say that they are ready to assess the impact of whale watching in the Straits of Gibraltar. [This be another pressure on the local orca population which is believed to be especially vulnerable to pollution.]

The Chair thanks the Committee for its wonderful work and notes that Dr Panigada’s input will be important going forward during the meeting.

The Black Sea Commission tells us about the MOU with ACCOBAMS and lists joint activities including meetings between secretariats. Next we hear from the various regional coordination units across the agreement area.

We look at draft resolution 6.5, which covers the work programme.

WWF commends the scientific committee and highlights collaboration.

A number of issues are raised with the work programme by parties including concern about the large number of actions identified and the costs involved but, more positively, the opportunity for collaboration with various work programmes in other bodies highlighted, for example the IWC initiative on bycatch.

HSI suggests that prioritisation should be around concrete conservation action, noting that the many actions reflect the reality for the animals in the agreement area.

Oceancare reminds us forcefully that the common dolphin species is slipping away ‘on our watch', we need to address this.

Sigi Luber of Oceancare speaks up for the common dolphin

The Chair asks if the Scientific Committee chair would like to reply. He does and he will make sure that all suggestions made will be brought before the scientific committee and he will bring forward more information on funding. Regarding the prioritisation of actions, this - he urges - should be task of the Scientific Committee and he will provide a document to the ACCOBAMS bureau with prioritisation and some funding information. And Dr Panigada adds that not all actions need funding.

We all need to swim in our own corridors says the Chair and sends us off to lunch noting that we have not even started to look at the budget.

Over lunch (which features buns dangerously loaded with alcohol) the secretariat has developed a list of actions and links to resolutions that underpin them. Italy speaks to say that marine debris and other pollution should be added to the priorities. France finds the listing a good start.

After some more too-ing and fro-ing we move to the budget report and Florence reports on available funds and presents a proposed budget for the coming three years. Some concerns are raised including lack of documentation of other options and the previous budget. In effect the discussion stalls. [This could be serious.]

We move through other administrative matters, including the membership of the Scientific Committee. A long discussion follows and eventually stalls and it is concluded that there has to be an election. 

The chair calls for a ten minute coffee break and once again many more minutes than this pass…. In the corridors many delegates are concerned that ACCOBAMS is in an impossible position to conclude its work. The budget is flapping open still and many other issues, including many resolutions.

Ambassadeur e.r. Patrick Van Klaveren
of Monaco, adviser to the agreement 

We move to a vote – rare in ACCOBAMS – on the membership of the Scientific Committee.

The legal expert – Tulio Scovatzi - refers us to rule 18 and each delegation entitled to vote shall cast its vote by encircling the name of the candidates. Interestingly the NGO partners are also allowed to vote for their NGO delegate to the Scientific Committee.

The vote is conducted by ballot. Votes are tallied and people are appointed – two from countries and one NGO  (The NGO delegate is Tilen Genov).

Draft Resolution 6.9 wonders in. This concerns the Format for National Implementation Reports. Concerns are raised and the Chair pushes back noting that there is still much to do, please only bring forward essential matters he encourages. 

Soon we are talking about educating young people on cetacean conservation and Cami from the Secretariat nicely thanks the NGO partner organisations for their help. 

The Chair notes we are four hours behind schedule. We move to the extension of the agreement area. Seven parties have ratified the extension (Monaco says France has ratified too - so that is 8). There is a resolution. It is reviewed. [By the way all resolutions are online at the ACCOBAMS website.]

We move to a discussion about whether ACCOBAMS should extend to the Red Sea. Egypt speaks up strongly in support of this. The Chair thanks him for his passion. However, he is not supported and....

.... the resolution is withdrawn, 

We move to a resolution with a remarkably long name: "Strategical Alliance concerning management and conservation measures for the Mediterranean environment between GFCM, RAC/SPA, and IUCN-Med in collaboration with MedPAN" - it is revised and adopted. 

Resolution 6.13 on the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the relevant Ecosystem Approach Processes arrives next. Some ammendment allows approval.

Next we come to Resolution 6.14 which concerns the big survey project.The Secretariat notes that Parties have established this as a priority, identifies some funding sources and notes that work is progressing to extend survey work to the Black Sea. A project manager is being recruited and will start work next year.

Simone Panigada is returned to the microphone to explain the need for this resolution, including that without such work we cannot deterimine if the populations are increasing or declining.

Various issues are raised with the text which amongst other things calls on countries to issue appropriate permits to allow the survey to take place. One small battle concerns whether or not a scientific coordinator should be specified in the text. .... it is adopted!

And we close.

The first couple of ACCOBAMS -
Margheruta Zanardelli and Simone Panigada