IWC 66 Monday part 2

In which the first donation is made and three big issues are opened up.

Please note that in what I am reporting here I am ‘sampling’ what is said and usually paraphrasing but am trying to relay the gist of comments. If I get anything wrong please let me know.

The recently returned Mexican Commissioner and Chair of the Conservation Committee (CC), the 

redoubtable Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho [Dear Lorenzo please note I am trying very hard this meeting t spell your name correctly], opens the afternoon by reporting on the Conservation Committee which met a few days ago. He notes that the first time there were interventions from observers and he kindly characterises them as ‘very good and constructive’. He notes that the CC’s strategic planning and work programme were discussed along with working with other committees and partnerships. A number of thematic work areas have been identified along the lines of key threats, including bycatch. 

He lists intersessional activities including one to develop a Conservation  Management Plan for the endangered Franciscana  [an endangered species of small cetacean found in Latin America].

He goes into each aspect in some detail and you can find the full report online, so I will just focus here on reactions.

Netherlands – which is speaking here for the members of the European Union which have adhered to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (still including the UK ….just) – very much appreciates the new strategic plan for the CC, which Australia has been leading on.

The UK then makes an intervention in its own right and thanks Slovenia for hosting; thanks the Chair of the Commission and the Chair of the CC. The Conservation Committee continues to mature into something that we can be proud of, says Commissioner Gooding. Its scope is wide and it covers many issues including marine debris. He adds that he is pleased to announce today a donation of £15,000 to the CC from the UK. We will hear more later about a bycatch coordinator and I would like to encourage that these funds are used for bycatch and the whale watching handbook that is being developed.

He would also like to encourage everyone to look at the ambitious programme for the CC and note that by working together we can do more – and he mentions the Global Ghost Gear Initiative as an example of joined-up thinking.

Argentina: extends compliments including to Lorenzo and Jamie Rendell – chair and vice chair of the Conservation Committee and supports the CC

Monaco refers to the work of the CC as ‘increasingly solid’ and that at the 65^th meeting the resolution 65.11 called for increased collaboration with a range of bodies. He notes the growing problems presented by plastics.

Further to a few more interventions we move to one of the big issues of the meeting.

The Brazilian Minister - from the big screen

Brazil presents the Southern Atlantic Whale Sanctuary via its Minister. And during his passionate statement he notes that Brazil would be pleased to host the next meeting of the IWC (so we almost certainly know where IWC 67 is going – or at least which country.) [Rumour has it this will be Bahia complete with whales (in the water not on the plates).]

Uruguay is a co-sponsor and speaks up in support including a three minute video which shows the whale sanctuary that they created in their waters. We see whales jumping and children enthused.

South Africa is also a co-sponsor and thanks the Scientific Committee for its work and he notes the importance of the sanctuary and its relationship to ‘ocean opportunities’ to local communities that have lost other sources of income. He stresses this is important for coastal communities in the developing world.

Gabon eloquently extends its salutations and as a co-proponent is aligned with the others. He celebrates the opportunity to see forest elephants on the shore with humpbacks also in view. [I am briefly transported]. He notes that the notion that the whales are eating all the fish in the Gulf of 

Guinea had been promulgated by non-specialists. The whales feed almost exclusively at the poles. It is uncontrolled fishing that explains crashing fish stocks. A healthy whale population contributes to productivity…. He strongly believes that the management options in the SAWS management plan will help whale recovery. He adds that Gabon’s’ President supports SAWs and the sustainable non-lethal use of whales.

Argentina says it will be an effective tool and even allow the increase of whale populations –promoting long term conservation of whales. He thanks all who have supported the sanctuary previously and says that the 30^th year anniversary of the moratorium is a good time to accept the sanctuary.

The Chair of the Scientific Committee is called on to contribute. She notes that she can add that the role of the Scientific Committee has been refined by the Commission and is to provide advice not to support or oppose. The advice from the Committee in this year’s report is by consensus and she points to the pages where it can be found.

Lorenzo is asked what the Conservation Committee thinks. He, too, points at some pages in his report. These show the view that the sanctuary would help protect whales from environmental threats and it is consistent with the precautionary approach.

Japan's Commissioner Joji Morishita on the big screen

Japan now come to the microphone for the first time with Commissioner Jogi Morshita speaking: he compliments the hosts and the Secretariat. It is well known, he says, that we support sustainable use. This means protecting biodiversity and the recovery of depleted whale stocks. He also supports the rights of people to support whale watching if this is their desire.

He now quotes from the Scientific Committee report – where it says that it recognises that there are different views on whales and that some believe whales should be used – others are opposed to extractive use whatever their stock status. Sanctuaries are based on total protection of whales. A schedule amendment can only address a ban in whaling – in cannot address other threats. So it is very clear from the Scientific Committee report – he adds with respect to the Santuary - that this is about total protection. The concept of charismatic megafauna is clouding the issues.

He continues by indicating that there are ways forward. Countries have established their own sanctuaries or they have regional cooperation through a MoU. You don’t need an IWC schedule amendment. We like to see whales forever – we need rules for recovering and recovered stocks. We do not ask for a quota for humpbacks or killer whales This is about a principle. I hope we can have some constructive discussion about this.

India extends his compliments to Slovenia, the Chairman, the Secretariat and adds that India congratulates the IWC on its 70^th anniversary. It considers the IWC as a key tool in the conservation of whales and to enforce the moratorium. He believes that whale watching is helpful. He appreciates the work of the Conservation and Scientific Committee and concludes that India believes in protection and in India all cetaceans have the highest level of protection, so he extends his strong support to the SAWS, including the support of the 1.25 billion people in his country.

Mexico noted that one previous reason not to accept the SAWS was lack of a Scientific Committee review. Now it has one and a management plan – and the proponents have dealt with all the Scientific Committee points. There are no arguments to reject this.

The USA is supportive, as is the Netherlands/EU.

Iceland extends compliments and then says he supports sustainable use and therefore opposed the SAWS – on the grounds: it is contrary to international law and not based on scientific findings. We already have a scientifically based management system – the RMP – which is extremely conservative. This has been on our agenda for an enormous amount of time already. Will it be forever?

Others follow. Spain notes that many more countries have joined the proposal and it has Scientific Committee support. Russia is concerned that some influential NGOs want a global sanctuary after which we won’t need a moratorium. 

Australia associates via its minister with those that support the sanctuary and compliments all involved. The reason why they support is three-fold: firstly, all IWC range states support it; secondly, the proponents have gone through the proper process via the Scientific Committee; and it has the unanimous support of the Scientific Committee and, thirdly, it facilitates non-lethal research and whale watching.

Finally we come to Antigua and Barbuda: he has listened carefully to proponents and those that oppose. His conclusion is that there is no new evidence. Some have spoken to support from the Scientific Committee but they have never said that this has been supported by the Scientific Committee as a valuable management tool. The question is, has the Scientific Committee said that this is critical or necessary?

An IGO comes to the microphone in the form of the highly respected Dr Justin Cooke, speaking for IUCN – he notes that IUCN strongly supports the sanctuary and has passed a resolution on the matter at its recent world congress. The IUCN stands ready to help put the management plan in place.

Brazil concludes that we should vote on this matter tomorrow…. and we move on.

We come to the two resolutions from what look from a distances almost like administrative matters. The first is to have a review of the operation of the IWC – as apparently many MEAs have at some point – a sort of compulsory health check now at seventy years – and Australia has already put a huge sum of money into a pot to pay for this operational review. The other resolution is to help the commission review special permit (scientific whaling) proposals.

The Australian minister introduces the first resolution and notes that on the 70^th anniversary milestone it is time to reflect on how much has changed. He lists threats including climate change, marine debris and bycatch. The IWC needs to be a contemporary body… and hence the resolution submitted jointly with New Zealand and the USA. Australia has donated 200.000 dollars to this review.

There is a swift coffee break – with many small cakes!

The other proponents of the resolution speak in support. There is dissent from Iceland – who say that the scope is too narrow and they would be pleased to join the drafting group; so does Japan. So this resolution is taken away for revision.

Australia also introduces the second resolution on improving the review process, noting that they regret Japan’s decision to resume whaling. There is rather predictable support and opposition. Among the interventions, Japan’s stands out: their Commissioner notes that special permit whaling has been controversial or even emotional and that there are very different views in this organisation about whales and whaling. Japan has responded in its work on its latest Southern ocean whaling programme to all of the 29 recommendations made by the Scientific Committee.

The discussion ends with two interventions from NGOs.

Veteran whale campaigner Paul Spong makes an intervention on the behalf of a long list of groups. It is so good that I am going to post it separately. IWMC presents an opposing view and I must apologise here because I was not listening.

We are then invited to a reception by the Slovenian hosts…. And off we go. 

Views of the reception below: