 |
| Mark and Hermano the Brazilian Commissioner |
It is still grey and somewhat wet outside; but here in the great hall we shall go into a great debate!
As promised we start with the Florianopolis Declaration (the resolution left over from yesterday).
Brazil quickly moves to indicate that they would like a vote, They say they have had extensive consultation and now is the time to vote.
The resolution - which rededicates the IWC to its conservation agenda passes.
Forty member states supported, 27 opposed, and four abstained.
 |
| Florianopolis Declaration Vote |
Some strong statements follow (and here I just try to capture the gist of what was said and I would be pleased to amend if I have made any mistakes).
The Commissioner for Antigua and Barbuda expressed his great sadness at the passing of the resolution and refers to lies and misleading actions. He feels that the proponents have no intention of seeking consensus or negotiating ; they showed sympathy to the way in which some of us felt about this non-binding... deceptive resolution. He sees the resolution as a slap in the face.
Nonetheless many Brazilians (and many others around the world) are celebrating.
Then the temperature in the hall starts to rise as Japan introduces its package to reform how the IWC works. The introduction from Japan is brief but the response from Australia is detailed and diplomatic.
 |
| Nick Gales, Australia's Commissioner to the IWC in full flow |
Nick Gales notes the dependency of commercial whaling on national subsidies. He stresses that this issue is not about human rights or state security; he fully respects the rights of any country to make a proposal for the resumption of commercial whaling - he does not question their right to hold those views. But he adds, I ask you respect my rights to hold my views.
Some have suggested our support for aboriginal subsistence whaling is at odds with opposing whaling for commerce. It is not. Each party has a legitimate right; debates can be robust; the IWC is resilient.
Then he reflects on how the matter was brought to the Commission - at IWC 66 an informal process was initiated by Japan and a range of questions were posed. Then, a little over 3 months ago - a proposal unmatched in its ambition was delivered; that it can move so fast in this raises questions on intent. The proposal includes many procedural and legal ambiguities - this seems to be a largely all or nothing approach. It is hard to avoid the very difficult conclusion that this has been brought forward to fail. I will not speculate on the reasons for this.The IWC is functional. It is reviewing its governance procedures. Its sub-committees are of the highest international standard.
When he finishes (and I have only sampled what he said above, as with reporting of all speakers here) - there is persistent applause. The full statement can be found
HERE.
The EU speaks next and expresses its sincere gratitude to Japan for an open and constructive dialogue. We speak for 24 parties to the convention - parties who remain undivided - you hear one voice but we all agree. We have made great progress in managing stocks; to maintain this we cannot introduce new committees that will undermine the moratorium - we urge restrain in modifying the RMP - and oppose establishing steps that wold end the moratorium. The proposed sustainable whaling committee would establish further division and undermine the moratorium.
They also do not support the move to the 50% plus one quota-setting mechanism [75% currently required] and are concerned about asking the Scientific Committee to establish quotas - resources should not be allocated away from other work. He concludes by noting that he appreciates that this
is incredibly serious but the EU cannot support.
Argentina speaking for the Buenos Aires Group says we thank Japan. The IWC is functional... no reform is necessary.
Brazil: also thanks Japan and goes on record for an open-minded discussion. He fully supports Argentina and will not repeat points but points at at the Florianopolis Declaration agreed yesterday.
Togo - find merit.
Nicaragua - agrees with the draft reform and notes the the best scientific advice available from the Scientific Committee shows that some whale species are abundance - and supports the sustainable whaling committee.
Guinea supports
Monaco says the proposal will take us backwards to the times when whale stocks were decimated.
Senegal finds the proposal highly relevant. We are not in conformity with the convention.
Costa Rica - thanks Japan from the heart; whales are large and slow breeding - affected by bycatch and... she notes the benefits of whale watching. She stresses that the organisation is functional.
Norway - Japan puts the finger on the problem that we have at the IWC - we are dysfunctional. We are at a cross-road - need to think carefully about how to achieve. Norway limits his dimension.
Uruguay and Mexico oppose. Mexico notes there is no cause to call people liars.
Chile - does not support.
Ecuador - our work has been highlighted by other bodies [her list includes CMS]. Our constitution protects all marine species; whaling is considered a violation to the rights of nature. She does not support.
Chair - we need to have a coffee time for the group working on the 'food security' resolution to meet.
But first some more speakers.
New Zealand - we have studied the proposal and it is a request to resume commercial whaling and this is the basis on which this package needs to be discussed. The paper does not present a policy that my government can support. The paper puts forward a narrative that this commission is dysfunctional because it has not set limits for commercial take - in fact we have set catch limits and they are zero. She continues to illustrate the functionality of the commission.
Antigua and Barbuda then interupts on the issue of the 'food security' working rgoup. This body, he says, does not deserve the privilege of discussion food security anymore! He thanks all who took part - but giving the atmosphere [here]; he withdraws the request for discussion.
Chair I will ask you later how you would like to proceed.
The USA suggests that some elements of what Japan proposes can be discussed via the governance reform process.
.
Iceland sees Japan as environmentalists; ignoring science is not environmentalist... need to base ourselves on science.Whales should not be treated unlike other animals. If we were getting reports that all whale stocks were in an endangered situation, the situation here would be different.
He is applauded
New IWC member nation, Liberia reminds this body that the core reason for this body is to regulate whaling and mentions the 'blue economy'.
Colombia - says that in his 43-year diplomatic career he had never witnessed the level of the aggressiveness and lack of diplomatic tone as that after the adoption of the Florianopolis Declaration - this is what will make us dysfunctional, he adds.
Let me go back to the proposal - we should maintain the moratorium
Solomon Islands - the current situation is bringing this organisation to its knees and calls for the various elements in Japan's proposals to be implemented
Panama supports the moratorium - japan's proposal does not reflect their view of the convention.
Peru thanks Japan for its hard work. Scene underpins sound decisions but cannot support the proposal - in Peru whale-hunting is legally prohibited and they are opposed to commercial whaling.
Cambodia - if the IWC was working well, Japan would not make such a radical proposal.
Kenya - speaks to a conference Kenya is hosting in November and then speaks n support of Japan - the proposal, he says, includes the glue that will keep this commission moving forward.
St Kitts and Nevis - we need to negotiate for the good of all, not some.
Ghana - please do not split the body - let the scientific committee support us.
Grenada - the moratorium countries should accept the available science.
St Lucia - we have identified stocks that have recovered
St Kitts and Nevis identifies with others of sustainable-use inclination
India - we speak on two aspects - with respect to lifting the moratorium and establishing catch limits - we do not agree to the furst; for the second part - for amending paragraph 2 etc for 3/4 to become 50% + - there is some merit - we would ask for 2/3 - this would make things easier - noting that we cannot get the SAWS through!
many
We move to several NGO interventions - a few support Japan but many do not - especially interesting about these are the comments from Nanami Kurasawa representing one of the pro-whale groups who sees no news ideas in Japan's proposals. Chris Wold of Lewis and Clark University gives some input on the legality of the proposal he notes that it calls for amendment to the convention, a decision that is usually by consensus or 'super-majority' - the reason for this is that we are managing global resources - we want the international community to act with common purpose. He also suggests that Japan's proposal would violate rule E3b . Perhaps the effectiveness committee should do its work before this matter proceeds.
A consortium of Latin NGOs calls for defense of the moratorium.
Chair - we probably do not need to move item by item now, thank you for views - this is an important issue for this organisation and so I allowed all interventions. The view of the proponent please.
Japan - before providing answer I would like to respond to all points.
Chair - please be concise.
 |
| The spokesman for Japan |
Japan - I will try but there are many points. We have discussed for 30 years; in the late 90 we had the Irish proposal - this failed; then Danish proposal - failed; then 12 years of RMS - failed; then last attempt future of IWC - failed. Human beings can make something from failure; so we made something from failure - this is the proposal - it is no out of rules.We have never adopted whaling....
Chairman [interrupting] - you mean moratorium
Japan - sorry, we never adopted a moratorium, there was agreement that the situation would be kept under review and by 1990, at the latest, this commission will consider again [catch limits]. This was a 'catch limit' not a moratorium. We have to commit to what we agreed in 1982. The USA touched on the reason for this provision - inadequate scientific information - much science has accumulated.
We are all members of the ICRW. We should sincerely follow the provisions of the convention; what I was a student I was a bad boy and I tried to breach rules; now I have grown up I realize this is wrong. If some countries want a conservation organisation they can make this and withdraw from this organisation.
With respect to NZ points - we have only one landing point - therefore Japan proposes multiple landing points; Brazil suggested fundamental differences - yes, through the 'way forwaard process; we detected this - we could achieve co-existence with our proposal. India pointed our opposition to removal of moratorium - but we propose addition - catch limit for some species that Scientific Committee confirms are abundant. Legal experts confirm we can proceed - this is something like 'super-majority'
We wish to keep agenda item open. We would like to speak to our government. It is midnight in Tokyo. But I am optimistic and I have lucky whale tie.
Applause.
Chair - we will keep this item open. We will discuss tomorrow morning.
Mexico - as you know many delegates will be leaving tomorrow - we would like items discussed before 4pm.
Chair - definitely.
Welfare concerns then breaks out and among other things Austria praises the whale welfare assessment tool - we have the highest whale and dolphin standings globally says NZ, we welcome this. This work can improve whale welfare outcomes worldwide.
Japan - concerning data provision - Japan has put the highest commitment on improving whale killing but data presented here are sued to accuse Japan; so we submit those precious data to other organisation.
NGO comments follow. The high price of harpoons is noted by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission
The report of the welfare group is endorsed.
Special Permits pops up after lunch.
[This relates to 'Scientific Whaling' - the category of whaling allowed under the convention's article VIII - and which allows IWC member nations to award themselves a quota of whales for scientific research. It is the controversial way on which Japan pursues its whaling.]
The Australian Commissioner next talks about the results of the Special Permit Standing Working Group. This looked at Japan's whaling in the North Pacific and Southern Ocean. Many recommendations need to be addressed.
Chair states we cannot change reports but we can put comments in the report from this Commission - the Chairs report.
Japan has a statement that he wants to add. The USA supports the reports and the recommendations - Article VIII allows special permits but he asks Japan to heed the recommendations.
NZ supports the report and talks about thickness of the blubber and stomach contents - these are claimed to be needed for diet studies - the expert panel concluded that it could not determine that lethal research wads necessary or would lead to improved information She concludes that that sampling has not been deemed necessary and yet it continues.
Some NGO interventions follow. One on commercial whaling from multiple organisations refers to Japan's whaling as 'commercial' and Japan demands an apology for this.
The Chair announces that Resolution 2030 and the Resolution on Food Security have been withdrawn.
Discussion about cooperation with other organisations follows. Australia highlights work with IORA among others. Austria. Japan emphasizes cooperation with FAO. Ghana notes that FAO has many more members than IWC.
We conclude with the report of the Finance and Administration Committee.During this, the UK proposes an amendment that will allow the Conservation Committee to meet annually. Antigua and Barbuda opposes. This blocks a consensus.
Then offers for the 2020 scientific committee meeting are requested and Antigua and Barbuda offers to host..
The day closes and Japan's package of proposals will return tomorrow.
 |
| Jose and Paul enjoy a coffee break |
As with all of my reporting from meetings here I strive for accuracy but only sample what was said. I would be pleased to amend and correct any inaccuracies.
All view expressed here as elsewhere on this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any entity I am or have been associated with.
