IWC66 Thursday - Part 2

Many small cakes fly by and we go toward 7.1 – no it is left open, so instead it is ‘IWC in the Future’ and the Chair calls on Japan

Japan says that there are ways to continue discussion on division in this body. There were some questions about more specifics on this idea. We were asked to put more on paper – see now paper 22.

We shall come back to this tomorrow says the Chair, for a short discussion he adds.

Under agenda item 17 we have other management issues.

The Chair of the Scientific Committee is again invoked. The summary of the discussions on the RMP (the Revised Management Procedure) is now presented. It is of broad relevance when examining status and all kinds of removals says Caterina. Here we look at MSY [Maximum Sustainable Yield] and the possibility of looking at the amendment of the CLA {Catch Limit Algorithm] (there is a procedure for this). She details ongoing work.

The USA notes that nationals of Iceland and Norway are whaling and calls on them to desist.

The Netherlands (for EU) says that the moratorium has given protection –including by helping critically depleted populations to recover, however commercial whaling has continued every single year – almost 15,000 whales have been taken in the NE Atlantic. He calls on those concerned to cease such activities and consider cumulative impacts that threaten them. In addition, he is concerned that self-allocated quotas are undermining the moratorium. He adds that he is concerned about exports of whale meat and says something about CITES.

India does not support the killing of cetaceans – there should be catch limits if necessary, any sharing should be on quota per capita entitlements and research should be non-lethal.

Iceland – says he has to respond to what has been said here and has some text that it has to read. It takes commitment. They only take from abundant stocks of fin whales and minke whale. The notion that takes are not sustainable has no foundation in science. Our takes are based on IWC and NAMMCO stock assessments – takes are sustainable and precautionary. They are lower than the basis used for the aboriginal hunts.  The fin whale population has increased from 21,000 to 41,000 fin whales. It is included on the IUCN red list but it is clear that this is purely about the population status in the southern hemisphere. The IWC’s own report says fin whales are in a healthy state. Many NGOs in this room today claim our takes are unsustainable but nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. We made a legal reservation when we re-joined and we are not bound by it [the moratorium]. Our whaling is entirely legal. Iceland has reservations at CITES. I am not protesting the right of citizens to argue for a ban; what is not acceptable is for their cause to be fought on false grounds. 

He concludes: Whaling is not only about whales but about the meaning of agreements signed by sovereign governments.

Monaco has just heard the commitment of Iceland to sustainably manage whales and adds, we believe Iceland will resume its hunt on endangered fin whales soon, 19 countries objected to Iceland’s whaling. Our delegation deplores the escalation of whaling

Norway associates with Iceland. Here there is a lack of respect for our convention. This creates mistrust. Our whaling is legal, sustainable and transparent.

Argentina invites the governments of Iceland and Norway to join the moratorium.

Mexico – we would like to thank Caterina for her report. Mexico is among those opposed the 

Icelandic reservation at CITES. These reservations leads to trade. Catch limits are higher than would be allowed under the RMP. See 63/15 doc. This shows catch limits for the North Atlantic fin whales – the tuning should be the one used in tuning trials; variation six should be acceptable.

IUCN comes to the microphone in the form of Justin Cooke – there was mention of the classification of fin whales, as Iceland said they are endangered – this is due to extent of decline over three generations; he also mentioned another status in another publication – this is an assessment process conducted with the support of the EU – this does not include the Central North Atlantic and so is not relevant to the stocks there.

In addition, add Dr Cooke, when we are told that catches are in accord with the RMP – that depends what you mean by the RMP! There is a version approved by the IWC. The alternative choice of tuning used by Norway and Iceland is not approved. Options found to be safe are not the same as those used by the ministries in Iceland – and the SC has rejected them. When speaking about whether catch limits are in accord with the RMP –we have to look at which versions and other [stock] boundaries were being applied.

NAMMCO again comes forward and repeats they believe in sustainable use and management. If the stocks were endangered and the takes endangered them, they would not be carried out and in addition they have the highest animal welfare standards.

We move to the infractions reports. Several countries presented reports. They looked at one unresolved infraction and some other matters. Catches taken in Greenland during the years when they did not have a quota were raised. Some members thought that these should be infractions, but not all. We refer this to you for your consideration.

Niki Entrup

Nicolas Entrup takes the floor speaking on the behalf of a dozen NGOs. Contracting governments are required to submit details of all infractions. We have heard differences of view on who decides what is an infraction. Is failing to report an infraction an infraction in itself – a bell rings loudly [is someone trying to report an infraction?]… This problem is resolvable and there should be focus on this. We commend the governments who report infractions. We need a credible mechanism for this.

Argentina refers specifically to Greenland in 2013 and 2014 – in the plenary of the Commission in Panama when we discussed Greenland’s request, we did not reach an agreement, there was no quota, still Greenland took whales. At our last meeting the BAG [Buenos Aires Group] took the position that takes without a quota should be infractions. This was referred to the working group on ‘operational effectiveness’. They have reported that this was not within their purview. The BAG believes catches without a quota must be infractions and this should not create an infraction.

Dominican Republic: we do not want to create a precedent of whales being hunted without a quota, this would harm the IWC.

Denmark: We have listened carefully. We regularly record data on infractions. After IWC64 we were in an exceptional situation. Subsistence needs had to be met. Two years ago this was corrected. We need to take a forward-looking approach. We are committed to the IWC and its schedule.

The USA fully believes that a discussion around this topic will not be fruitful here. It is more important to ensure that what happened [in Panama] does not happen again.

The Russian Federation thanks the chairman of the infractions subcommittee. Our intervention in the subcommittee is recorded in the report. There was no infraction. That is why we do not agree with Argentina’s position. We support the USA that we should try to avoid this in the future.

Bruno (Chair) says this is a difficult situation and probably not possible to resolve. The working group on effectiveness has some suggestions and we will come back to them.

Next: catches by non-member nations

Mrs Allison of the IWC Secretariat is pleased to report that for the past several years she has had catches of whales reported to the IWC from Canada.

India says this is a very serious issue. Actions by non-IWC member nations could jeopardise things. We need to develop ways to check such actions. Other nations should also report to them through the mechanisms available.

Next work with other IGOs is introduced by Sarah Smith – she carefully points to observer reports 

from the scientific committee and there is also a comprehensive report on interactions with other organisations. Future actions are also identified here.

Netherlands for the (EU) fully supports such interactions and these help to cement our reputation as the responsible body for cetaceans large and small.

Monaco likes such cooperation, too, and she notes a resolution that speaks to this. She would like an update on interactions with UN agencies.

India says we must not lose focus on the IWC’s primary mandate and mentions UNFCCC and CBD and Ramsar and those who are in management of ICATT.

The USA agrees with previous speakers about cooperation and encourages more interactions with those working on indigenous rights.

Lorenzo of Mexico notes various good interactions including on marine debris.

The Dominican Republic stresses the importance of interacting with the UN system other parties follow and then the redoubtable Heidrun Frisch-Nwakanma speaking for CMS and ASCOBANS makes one of the longest observer interventions on record and – she notes lots of overlap in interests and that CMS has started to integrate cetacean culture into its work. She also mentions the Baltic harbour porpoise and that a new recovery plan was adopted in September. The full text can be found HERE.

Sandra Altherr makes a statement for 11 NGOs. She speaks about the relationship with CITES and then details exports from Iceland and Norway. Some shipments have gone through EU ports.  We are highly alarmed about this trade.

Caro Cassini from WDC speaking also for others identified a website offering sales of whale meat around the world (a phone rings loudly again). The UK authorities have seized a can. …

Bruno: please come to the end or the point

Caro – this relates to the CITES…

But Bruno stops her again  I asked you to keep it short. The last ones were quite long. Tomorrow we will start with F&A and then on to the agenda items still open. There are no other notices.

We are sent away!

At the end of the session the blinds are opened and here the Commissioner for Australia is enjoying the setting sun.