 |
| Many small slovenian cakes |
The Chair opens the day by thanking the NGOs for a nice reception. He notes we have various resolutions open and that he hopes for progress.
Japan reports in from the drafting group [for the
resolution on governments of limited means] that all participants agreed
amendments unanimously. However, he noted with great regret that out of the
blue the representative of the EU said they had a fundamental objection to the
whole draft – and it had to be consistent with Article 3.5. No alternative
proposal was made. Due to this very negative intervention, he adds, I had to
adjourn. You instructed me to work on the draft resolution; a drafting group is
not the place to raise fundamental issues. These should be raised in the
plenary. Does the EU have draft text? He re-states his disappointment; he
thought all were united to address the issue of the governments of limited
means. He apologises for the failure to complete his job and apologises to all
who sincerely engaged. He is very, very sorry.
The Chair gives the floor to the Netherlands, who speaks for the EU. We have some problems with the text as it stands and remain willing to work with others.
Chair: we shall keep this item open for as long as possible. We must decide tomorrow. Can you deliver text today?
The Netherlands says yes.
Japan thanks the EU for the opportunity to go forward. The EU representative yesterday said ‘fundamental objections to the text’ – this might mean considerable amendment which we will need some time to digest. He would appreciate a draft text well before lunch time. He would like to know what the fundamental objection is.
The Chairman notes that we have a couple of hours more.
We move to document 66-16. The Japanese Commissioner introduces this document which concerns Small Type Coastal Whaling. He says some countries are against whaling under any circumstances and he again points to the some words in the Scientific Committee report. Next he refers to a survey made of all contracting governments. He thanks in particular those that replied frankly. He notes that in the case of SAWS he had no option but to oppose. This is a fundamental position. The same is true for STCW. This makes it difficult for this organisation to make positive progress…. Some may remember the Irish proposal of 1997; he also mentions the RMS negotiations that failed. He asks if we can do anything different. His paper asks that these fundamental issues are looked at seriously so we do not repeat the same statements year after year… He is not asking those that do not want to to eat whales. Let us think about this situation – this is not black and white, we have to look at it face to face
Iceland sincerely thanks Japan. The organisation is at stalemate. This questionnaire has exposed the extreme polarisation of this organisation and poses the question or whether it should go forward.
The Russian Federation’s Alternate Commissioner notes that he has worked here for a long time and in other conventions, including CITES. IWC is one of the most unfriendly conventions and he mentions the context of aboriginal rights. We celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Convention. This is also a landmark for Japan because they have been asking for STCW [Small Type Coastal Whaling] for thirty years…. Of course we need this organisation. We should not be concerned only about poor communities in Japan but also in Iceland and elsewhere. I have not seen all members of delegations going to McDonalds and eating only burgers – everyone wants to eat national food and national wine.
He encourages all to take a closer look at what Japan has said.
The Netherlands for the EU are strongly committed to the protection of whales; our objective is a regulatory framework for the conservation and management of whales, brining all whaling operations under IWC control. Japan’s proposal is for a catch quota for commercial whaling. He is concerned about the potential impact of STCW.
Norway associates with the description given by Japan of the position in this organisation. A large proportion of our members show disrespect. We would like to have a change to this situation but we see this as a very difficult situation.
Guinea feels that the organisation has move away from its goals with science to the back. He is also concerned about pressure groups. Our decisions can impact the lives of millions of people.
Denmark aligns with the EU but speaking for Greenland she associates with Japan and that the IWC should be true to its dual mandate.
Australia thanks Japan for its paper and its intervention:
·
Australia responded to
Japan’s questionnaire and clearly stated our opposition to commercial whaling
·
In its intervention Japan
established a narrative of the current state of the IWC
·
That view has been
supported by other parties
·
But there is another
narrative that is equally valid
·
We have heard many times
this meeting that we are celebrating the 70th Anniversary of the
Convention
·
The world of 1946 is
simply unrecognisable from today
·
Our understanding of our
natural world, through our advances in science, has developed at a rate no one
could have predicted
·
Our laws, our
international governance arrangements, our ways of life have all changed and
developed at a pace that is hard for any of us to keep up with.
·
Back in 1946 the only
manner in which we interacted with whales was to hunt and kill them.
·
Today whales are still
hunted by some people – and this is supported by this organisation in the form
of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, but whales are also valued in their own
right, people pay for the privilege of watching them, and they are regarded as
a key component of healthy ecosystems
·
The IWC has had to evolve
to keep pace with these changes.
·
It has moved through
phases from an entire focus on regulating whale hunting, to an urgent need to
protect those same whales from unsustainable whaling practices.
·
It now focuses on the
many non-whaling threats facing whales, from bycatch and entanglement to ocean
noise, disease and, perhaps most pressing of all, climate change.
·
Today the notion of
commercial whaling, and indeed the argument that it is still necessary to kill
whales for science, is an anathema to much of the world’s population
·
Rapid and challenging
changes such as these put particular pressure on multilateral international
treaty bodies
·
The IWC is of course no
exception.
·
There are Parties who
wish to see a resumption of commercial whaling – a move that would require the
lifting of the moratorium, and potentially the removal of sanctuaries.
·
Others press for whale
conservation and a focus on managing the many looming threats that humans pose
to whales
·
It is the right of each Party
to hold and represent their views, just as it is a requirement of the IWC’s
governance and decision-making rules to enable decisions to be made that
represent the relative balance of these disparate views
·
While it is undoubtedly
frustrating for Parties to be thwarted in achieving their own desired outcomes,
be it the resumption of commercial whaling, or the implementation of a new
sanctuary, so long as the process allows for the expression of proposals,
proper debate and fair and transparent rules for decisions, then the
organisation is functioning well.
·
Indeed, in Australia’s
view, the IWC can claim to be functioning well in the face of its many
challenges.
·
While not perfect – and
we believe in an improving trajectory – the IWC still manages progress on
critically important issues such as the management and support of Aboriginal
Subsistence Whaling, through to developing and implementing conservation
management plans.
·
Our Scientific Committee
is a global leader in cetacean science, and our conservation committee is
rapidly evolving to be the equivalent in global cetacean conservation.
·
We agree with Japan that
science and international law are a fundamental basis of our considerations.
·
We have much to be proud
of in the manner that we have navigated this organisation from a time just a
few decades ago when many whale populations were in such a parlous state
·
The IWC is not
dysfunctional. It has many challenges and the desires of all Parties will not
be met in our future trajectory.
·
But the desires of many,
if not most, Parties will be met, and this is a reflection of a modern,
multilateral treaty body that continues to evolve with changing times and
pressures.
·
Australia remains keen to
engage in discussions on how best to continue to improve the IWC and meet the
needs and desires of its Parties
·
This cannot be achieved
in discussions that seek to view the Convention through the prism of the 1940s,
and can only be achieved in a forward-looking manner that aligns the IWC with
other contemporary and effective treaty bodies – a body that respects the
rights of indigenous hunters on the one hand, while addressing climate change
with the other.
·
Thank you chair.
Antigua and Barbuda congratulates Japan. He speaks at length and refers to the needs of four communities in Japan. We have been cast back into the colonial era. He does not understand why we cannot have whale-watching and consumptive use.
St Vincent is also concerned. His family was dependent on the sea and he feels the organisation can do better.
St Lucia comes to the floor for the first time and congratulates all. He feels that the Commission is at risk if it cannot deal with the issues raised by Japan.
Monaco believes the needs for whale meat in Japan are well met by commercial whaling and takes of small cetaceans (which can be ‘quite brutal’). He agrees with the Japanese Commissioner that we cannot stay fixed in one position. When Japan stops killing with distant fleets Monaco would be willing to consider the broadening of the definition of commercial whaling.
New Zealand finds this an important debate. They have responded to the questionnaire but as they have made clear in the past they do not support an exception to the moratorium. We have expressed at the highest level concern at Japan’s decision to return to the Southern Ocean despite the decision of the ICJ and on the other hand we are being asked by Japan to go beyond our stated position.
The USA speaks about the depletion of the J-stock in Japanese water and the USA’s ongoing commitment to Article 10e [the moratorium]. He associates with Australia and New Zealand and regrets that we cannot move issues forward.
Argentina thanks Japan for the paper and also associates with Australia and New Zealand. They support the moratorium and cannot support a new type of whaling.
Brazil refers to the opening statement from the Buenos Aires Group to the Commission.
Japan’s Small Type Whaling Association takes the floor so loudly that there are gasps. He notes that 29 years have already passed since the moratorium. It is difficult to follow what he says but he is clearly concerned.
Another Japanese NGO speaks up (more quietly) – IKAN thanks the Commission for the right to speak and has a joint statement from 15 Japanese NGOs and this calls on Japan to respect the ruling of the ICJ; revoke the budget for industrial whaling – companies have already abandoned this as a viable industry, she adds. The budget for coastal whaling will be doubled next year she adds and she thinks it would be better to negotiate than take this approach.
Japan next thanks all for providing statements and he is pleased that he has been able to initiate this discussion. This matter is critical for this organisation. He thanks those that supported STCW and points to resolutions in support. His comments include an agreement that we should not go back to 1946 – this is a future issue not one of the past. He is not asking for a new category of whaling but to re-open STCW and commercial whaling. This is in accord with 10e. He would like to make a proposal under item 12 for a way forward.
In the break of many cakes – soft music is pumped into the meeting chamber and a singer is whispering ‘I know what you want. I know what you need!”
Next, the Chair of the Scientific Committee is called to give status reports on a number of whale stocks and she works through a number of parts of the SC report.
At its conclusion Nick Gales thanks the SC for all its work and especially for the effort on Southern Hemisphere fin whales.
We move on to abundance estimates and Caterina notes that a new group has been established on this.
The Chair thanks her for the SC’s work.
We move to Small Cetaceans starting with the work of the SC on them. This year the SC made a very strong statement on critically endangered species – vaquita, Mauis dophins and the extinct baiji [or Yangtze river dolphin]. There have often been insufficient responses. Efforts have often focused on more research rather than conservation action. The SC has been clear that bycatch must be stopped for a number of cases – she lists them again and includes the Baltic harbour porpoise. The Committee does not take such a strong position lightly. Only immediate action will be effective and we should try to avoid such a situation arising for other species.
She repeats that the vaquita resolution is in line with the SC advice. Every effort should also be made for the Yangtze River finless porpoise; she comments on Mauis dolphin – the SC recommended the update but noted that no new management action has been taken – the existing bycatch measures fall short of what is required – the loss of even one individual will increase the probability of extinction – the highest priority should be given to actions and fishing methods changes; with respect to Amazon river dolphins – this will be a high priority for the SC agenda; Sousa genus is a priority and IUCN has recently reviewed its status – the SC has identified knowledge gaps and has called for more protection – more samples for genetic work are need.
She next looks to the harbour porpoise and in the Baltic urgent action is needed. All range states need to assess and mitigate bycatch. The committee recognises the importance of SAMBAH [not the dance but static acoustic monitoring of porpoises]
The SC has also discussed takes and has a number of recommendations here. The Committee requests the Commission to submit information – it reiterated that there should be no removals until a complete and up to date assessment of sustainability has been made.
One hundred and eleven rivers are to be converted to waterways in India and this is a major threat to the Asiatic river dolphin. The SC expressed its concerns – especially about the national waterways act 2016 – and called on India to address this and work with the SC.
In 2015 we agreed to trial a response where time is short and no mitigations are in place – we established a small cetacean task team – this assists the Committee in providing timely advice where there may be significant decline; the aim being to ensure extinction does not occur – we now establish one task team on Franciscana and one on Asiatic River dolphin.
Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho as Conservation Committee (CC) chair notes the work of the Task Team. He notes the situation of the river dolphins as a cause of concern. The CC endorsed the report of the SC.
Please note that the precise words for all these recommendations are in the full SC report which is available on line. As in other reporting here I am sampling what is said and trying to report the gist. Corrections welcomed.
Brazil comments on the Amazon River dolphin. There is a five year moratorium on the piracatinga fish [river dolphins are used as bait to catch it] and established a programme to monitor it.
Argentina thanks all concerned and especially the
Small Cetaceans Subcommittee for its wonderful work. He comments on the Franciscana
and work between the three relevant countries which is ongoing.
Mexico notes some domestic developments for the vaquita – including that seven vessels have been detained by the Mexican authorities.
Switzerland notes the IWC is competent for small cetaceans.
New Zealand notes that it has reported its various actions on Mauis dolphin to the SC and will not detail them here. A join press release was issued last Thursday there are now about 63 individuals over one year of age – slightly more than previously. This is robust data. It is difficult to infer population trends. The initial results ‘are encouraging’. More details are in their opening statement. There is no dispute that Maui’s are at a very low level.
Belgium takes the floor and congratulates the SC on its work. She notes the work on critically endangered species and populations and notes that in many cases bycatch is the priority issue. There are very high number of bycaught animals all over the world and she is pleased with the new focus.
She welcomes task teams. She is aware of the plight of
harbour porpoises that drown in nets. She is committed to work with others on
this.
Aimee Leslie of WWF now speaks up for many.
“Thank you Chair. My name is Aimee Leslie from WWF, but today I speak in the name of Australian Marine Conservation Society, Animal Welfare Institute, Centro de Conservación Cetacea, Cetacean Society International, Environmental Investigation Agency, Fundación Cethus, Fundación Conservaré from Colombia, Instituto Conservación de Ballenas, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Humane Society International, OceanCare, ProWildlife, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Whaleman Foundation, World Animal Protection, and WWF.
Please allow me,
before I go into more detail within our intervention to thank the government of
the Republic of Korea for sharing the documentary about the successful release
and reintegration of former captive bottlenose dolphins back into their natural
habitat.
Small cetaceans
are among the most endangered and yet least assessed marine species of the
world. Therefore we welcome the approval of resolution 2014-4 at IWC65 that
consolidates the mandate of the Small Cetaceans Standing Sub-Committee and
directs the Scientific Committee to continue to improve its work towards
conservation-related matters. This includes an increased allocation of funding
for conservation-oriented research, which needs to include small cetaceans,
such as the task teams for intersessional action on particularly threatened
species. To that end, we would like to emphasize the following:
We support the endorsement of a conservation
management plan for Franciscana, the first for a small cetacean, as well as the
recommendation to monitor and mitigate bycatch, as well as assess the extent and
other characteristics of fisheries in franciscana range countries as high
priorities.
The Scientific Committee has expressed concern about
the use of Amazon river dolphins as bait for the piracatinga fishery in the
Amazon Basin. Despite the establishment of the five-year moratorium on the
fishing and marketing of piracatinga by Brasil, according to the IUCN cetacean
specialist group the trade in piracatinga continues and therefore dolphins are
still greatly threatened. Therefore we welcome Brazil’s commitment to
strengthen enforcement efforts in collaboration with other range countries,
particularly Colombia, as the main import market for piracatinga. And we
recommend the Conservation Committee to consider Amazon river dolphins as
candidates for a conservation management plan.
South Asian river dolphins face serious threats across their range. These include fishery impacts and altered and declining river flows. Just this week WWF announced that the population of critically endangered Mekong River Dolphins in the Cheuteal trans-boundary pool between southern Laos and northern Cambodia has shrunk by 50% this year alone, and with only 3 remaining individuals, the population is now considered functionally extinct.
In order to save the critically endangered Baltic harbour porpoise, we support the Scientific Committee recommendation that all countries adjoining the Baltic Proper assess and mitigate bycatch and support the efforts of ASCOBANS in this direction.
Based on the fact that fisheries pose the greatest direct threat to cetaceans of all sizes, we strongly believe that the bycatch initiative recently endorsed by the Conservation Committee should prioritise efforts to address the incidental catch of critically endangered small cetaceans as well as that of great whales. To that end, in addition to the contributions to the voluntary small cetaceans fund announced by three NGOs this week, and additional 4000 USD is being contributed to the fund by 5 other organizations, the list of which will be shared with the Secretariat shortly.
We’ve already lost the baiji, let’s not let history repeat itself.”
WDC next comes to the microphone and also speaks for a large number of organisations. She too stresses bycatch problems and mentions Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins. Only a small proportion is protected. If we are truly committed we must act. Gill netting and other activities are not consistent with the conservation of Maui’s. Additional research is not the answer. We call on the government of NZ to stop these activities; where appropriate alternative livelihoods need to be identified.
We move to the small cetacean voluntary fund. The SC Chair lists the donors.
The CC chair mentions the nice presentation by Meike Scheidat on the Small cetaceans fund and thanks all who made contributions and encourages donations to this very important fund.
 |
| Meike Scheidat making her presentation on the small cetaceans fund in the Conservation Committee last week |
The Netherlands (speaking only for himself) – they support the research on small cetaceans and will make a donation to the voluntary fund.
The UK thanks the SC Chair for her very informative presentation and notes the contributions to the voluntary fund. We have heard many interventions about conservation status of small cetaceans and expressions of grave concern and he notes the concerning situation of the vaquita and others. He commends efforts by governments to reverse trends.
The UK will donate £10, 000 to the small cetacean fund and thanks civil society for its donations.
The USA welcomes the work of the SC on small cetaceans. He notes the role of developing nations in helping with this.
The Chair notes other donations were made last week and mentions Italy, Oceancare and others
We move to cetacean disease.
The SC Chair points to her report where the summary is on IWC 66 item 13,4 page 10. The cetacean diseases of concern are highlighted. The cetacean disease initiative has a new website.
We close for the morning – some go to make interviews,
some go to lunch.
 |
| Delegates mill in a break |
No comments:
Post a Comment