IWC 65 Day Three

This is going to be fast and furious and ramble all over the agenda today - fasten your seat belts and secure your headsets - look out for mentions of marine debris and sightings of meerkats.

The day starts with Commissioners locked in one of the many private meetings that break out like an undemocratic rash around IWC meetings these days – and mostly belonging to the European Union.

When the rest of us are allowed into the great hall, there are few clues about what was happening in the Commissioner’s only meeting. No blood on the carpet, no black eyes – has someone complained about the NGOs being in the soft seats, has the infestation of meerkats been objected to? We shall never know.

The day starts with Madam Chair going through the long agenda noting that we have little time.

Japan then poses his main question for the meeting: if we complete the RMP process [this is the process that calculates quotas] will his STCW [small type coastal whaling] request be granted?

We move to ‘Cooperation with other organisations’ (agenda 21)

Simon Brockington sitting at the front of the Great Hall next to the Chair notes the mainly scientific exchanges with other organisations based on an exchange of observers. Delegates are invited to read them through themselves and raise questions. There is a long pause. Simon looks at Jeannine (the Chair), Jeannine looks at Simon. A few headsets tumble and …

Italy (for the EU) speaks of cooperation and notes MoUs and RFMOs and recalls the Monaco resolution agreed yesterday. He mentions specifically the importance of collaborative work on Marine Debris.

Costa Rica notes CBD and its work on marine protected areas.

Back to agenda item 14: the EU the now speaks around the issue of the demarche that it delivered in Reykjavik on Monday – but without actually mentioning it.

The EU nations supports the moratorium and he says he has formally approached Iceland on this issue and also asked Iceland to withdraw its reservation on international trade at CITES. Argentina likewise speaks to defend the moratorium and although he too recognises the conservation efforts made by Iceland in other fora he adds his voice to that of the EU and calls on Iceland to not issue further quotas for minke and fin whales. The United States comes to the microphone next and associates with Italy and Argentina and encourages Iceland to abide by the moratorium. He lists the numbers of whales killed in recent years which are a significant increase from the 7 taken in the preceding years. This is reducing the effectiveness of CITES and the IWC and President Obama has authorised US agencies to take certain actions. Iceland’s whaling damages its reputation. Whale watching is an alternative to commercial whaling. He also strongly encourages Norway to cease commercial whaling.

Australia associates with the previous speakers

Iceland asks why is it only focused on us? It is no news to us [gentle laughter]. Iceland attaches great importance to sustainable use. It is essential for long tern prosperity and is only addressed to abundant whale stocks; it is sustainable and strictly managed. It is practiced on the same basis as whaling in US waters. We are dependent on sustainable trade in marine products; all international relations should be based on the rule of law and not on emotions as seems to the case here. We were one of the first countries to take a conservationist approach to whaling –and he provides some further history here…. The moratorium has no scientific basis. The abundance of minke whales has been confirmed by the IWC and NAMMCO and can be seen on their websites. Our takes are within the limits of sustainable catches…. The stated aim of the IWC is the orderly development of whaling, we should keep this in mind. Lastly I want to say to you that there is a mention of whale-watching in this paper [the demarche], we see no reason why they cannot be operated together. Usually when we have critics of whaling we feel they are hiding something in their own back garden.

Incidentally you can find the demarche here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-529_en.htm

Japan is called to the microphone next and says that whilst listening to the interventions, he keeps asking the same question to himself, do they oppose all whaling and they base their argument on the so-called whaling moratorium. This is based on 10e which sets up the steps for the resumption of commercial whaling as long as assessments are completed. For this purpose RMP has been developed. How do you interpret 10e as the basis of elimination for all whaling? This is my first and standing question, and my question is becoming stronger. I understand that many countries support RMP – this is inconsistent with opposing commercial whaling. RMP was adopted by consensus in 1994; we should be calculating quota for commercial whaling. Many scientists are working on implementation reviews. This is a management system accepted by many of us. To me there are many clear inconsistencies in support for RMP and opposition to moratorium… inconsistent. The RMP is only applied when stocks are at MSY (many fisheries stocks are harvested below this) this is very conservative. The IWC has already conducted implementation review and NS Pacific minke, southern minke and others including North Atlantic minke are at MSY, that is why RMP gave us catch quota. Both Norway and Iceland used RMP for their quota. The guiding principle should be that it is sustainable.

New Zealand associates with US, Australia and others and they joined the demarche. New Zealand also objected to the Iceland reservation [to the moratorium] – Iceland left and rejoined with a reservation – the ICJ says if it is not aboriginal or article VIII, you breach the provision.

Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia and, Peru associate with the EU and others.

Norway associates with the explanation of principles from Japan and Iceland.

Russia reminds us that reservation on the moratorium extends to Russia… and Iceland. He is not involved in commercial take because of technical issues but still has the right for commercial whaling; with regards to Iceland he will not repeat the extensive comments from Japan and the response from Iceland was complete.

At the Shimonoseki IWC meeting there were six votes on Iceland rejoining and several countries pointed out that they did not accept membership. The secretariat later sent out the document telling this. So I am a little bit astonished that those countries that do not accept Iceland as a member are taking part in this discussion. Same countries do not want to discuss the problems of Indonesia or Canada but want to discuss this country. As Japan explained Iceland meetings all the requirements of CITES and UNCLOS. There is no concern about sustainability.

I apologise for taking the floor again – I love to have discussion with my colleague from New Zealand – he cites part of the ICJ ruling but notes that Iceland has reservations and legal effect is clear. 10e is a process to provide zero catch quota on a temporary basis.

Mexico objected to Iceland’s reservation when it rejoined and associates with Argentina.

Panama associates with the EU and others, as does Uruguay. He adds that he emphatically opposes any commercial whaling. Costa Rica says that sometimes we are not speaking within the framework of the convention when we say there is no moratorium, but we are not willing to accept any other interpretation. Dominican Republic feels likewise.

Iceland thanks some for the support and reiterates that Iceland’s whaling is based on the rule of law; criticism is based on something else that I cannot comprehend. Thank you.

Special Permits

The Chair explains how this agenda item will be dealt with – the government of Japan wants to give a short presentation and Australia and Japan reserve the right to reply. Before I open the floor I note there has been ample time to review the judgement. Therefore I wish to reiterate that I expect a factual debate on this judgement. Countries may want to make statements on scientific whaling but if you are making judgements on the ICJ you need to be factual – be factual and cordial.

Japan points at a paper, noting that there are no factual statements or misunderstandings.

I will try here just to pick up Japan’s main points as he slowly and carefully proceeds:

1.       The ICJ binds [only] Australia New Zealand and Japan – it does not bind the IWC;

2.       It is natural for another international body [IWC] to consider this;  ICJ decided that any extant programme should be stopped and no further permits should be issued – it only relates to JARPAII [the research programme that was the focus of the court case];

4.       The ‘orderly development of the whaling industry’ means the sustainable conduct of the industry;

5.       It does not ban lethal methods – but notes that other methods should be used when available;

6.       The ICJ does not ban sales of whale meat (as allowed under the ICJ) – the sale of whale meat does not make the activity fall outside of article VIII;

7.       The ICJ decided JARPAII was not reasonable – we regret this finding;

8.       Objectives were defined as broadly scientific [he adds that the does not understand how it can be scientific and not-scientific – but he will not dispute it]; and

9.       The Court expects Japan to take reasoning into account in further permits.

The Australia legal expert thanks Japan for his clear presentation. He made comments in a private commissioners hearing this morning and he will not repeat them. [So we will not hear them]

He says the ICJ judgement should be read in full. It is a very clear document. It does only bind the parties and pronouncements are reliable interpretations of international law. The summary of Australia’s position is as follows

1.       The court found that article VIII applied;

2.       Moratorium, Factory ship moratorium and Southern Ocean Sanctuary all contravened;

3.       Scientific whaling was not outlawed but the ICJ outlined the criteria that should be applied and these should be used by the IWC in future; and criteria included

a.       It must be for purposes of scientific research – to which the court applied the test of reasonableness; and

b.      The scale of lethal sampling cannot be greater than required.

New Zealand reminds us that he was a third party at the ICJ. Scientific Whaling is allowed for under the convention but the court sent a strong signal on this. It can no longer be business as usual. It needs to be seen in the light of this. The Japanese programme of eight years breached various aspects of the convention and supported criticisms levelled by many scientists over the years.

Japan made an observation about science but not science. The court points to only two peer-reviewed papers that do not even relate to the aims of the research and are based on a small sample size.

Japan says he will respond to ‘my friend’ because he likes this paragraph very much. The court judgement must be read as a whole – but the court judgement has lengthy dissenting opinions. Everyone should read these. We have 666 papers submitted to the Scientific Committee and elsewhere.

A long coffee break follows. There is much concern around the floor on the ICJ resolution from New Zealand and how it is progressing and also how many small cakes it is wise to consume in one break.

The Chair resumes the session and calls on all parties to be respectful [not that anyone has been disrespectful so far]

Mexico says this is an issue of the highest importance to Mexico and we must adhere to the ICJ findings. Argentina agrees. The Commission is sovereign he adds. Changes need to be made to take into account the standards established. We don’t want changes that will not change anything.

Monaco says there is an opportunity to now act wisely. There is an issue about how much this body should be consulted and we wish to draw your attention to para 61 of the ICJ judgement which says that the perception of states alone is not enough to issue a special permit. We have the right to be consulted.

Uruguay emphasises that the moratorium is in place.

Iceland associates with Japan.

Japan comes to the microphone again and he says he senses a possible misunderstanding. JARPAII has been stopped and there will be no JARPAII in the coming austral summer and Japan will fully abide by the ICJ judgement and we will take into account all the reasoning and conclusions of the judgement.

Any other comments? Dum dum dum. No.

Back to comments on existing special permits (meaning the review of Scientific Whaling results)

There are few comments and the Chair is noted that there was dissent in the Scientific Committee about whether or not review should proceed.

Japan extends his heartfelt thanks to all involved in the review (initially a workshop) – he is confident that all those positive evaluations will be taken into account in the conservation and management of whales in the Antarctic Ocean.

Australia then reads from the Scientific Committee report and notes that some scientists did not take part in the review or agree necessarily with the review conclusions. She notes that the review workshop took part in Tokyo but that the ICJ case ‘intervened’ after this. ICJ says this is not article VIII permits. Therefore any item involved from JARPAII should not be in the preview of the committee. She mentions letters she sent to the Scientific Committee Chair and the Chair of the Commission but this matter remained on the SC agenda despite her letters. Australia expressed its view at the SC, and ten other countries did likewise. The findings of the SC on this are unrepresentative. In Australia’s view the Commission cannot endorse this part of the SC report.

Argentina agrees. Argentina did not participate in this matter. Chile agrees.

Japan knows the opposition of those opposed to JARPAII review and also at the same time when advice was sought from the Chair you – madam chair – made a clear ruling; the gist of your ruling was that the Scientific Committee should proceed in accordance of existing rules. This is quite reasonable. So the scientific committee did review JARPAII. … Position of Japan is that JARPAII was revoked as of that time. There was discussion in the Committee as to how data from the past should be handled.

The UK Commissioner stops hunting for his meerkat and comes to the microphone to note that his scientists did not take part in the review. We considered it important to take the ICJ into account

Monaco associates with Australia and others. Continuing our business as usual would be frivolous. We should not take much more time on this.

Mexico respectfully requests that all mention of JARPAII data should be removed.

Australia says that she takes the floor to respond to a few points – 17.1 is the agenda item – this is an error. Remedy in operative para 7 does not work retrospectively. The court stated that Japan has not acted in conformity with each of the years that it has a permit in place.

[Are you confused yet gentle reader? – the background is that many scientists in the Scientific Committee took the view that they should not review the outputs from Japan’s ‘scientific’ whaling without instruction from the Commission and despite the fact that the Chair of the Commission and the Chair of the Scientific Committee both instructed them to do so. Some other scientists did take part in the review. ]

Chile will not approve this matter in the SC report. France says that their scientist did not take part. Uruguay feels likewise and supports Mexico.

Chair – so am I correct that Australia would like text removed from Scientific Committee report and the other proposal from Mexico is to strike out all reference to JARPAII? Correct? Yes. Australia so you will consult with Japan and Mexico you will look at the feasibility of this. Yes?

Yes.

The agenda item remains open. We move to the agenda item 15.5.2 – review of existing [scientific whaling] permits.

Japan says that the second cycle of JARPNII finished in March and an expert workshop is expected to follow in accord with annex P. 

We move to 15.2 – after a pause with some sideways glances between Chair and Executive Secretary, she notes that everyone is waiting for NZ resolution

Japan says JARPAII is finished and ICJ expects Japan to take account of its reasoning. He adds that on April 18, 2014, Japanese ministers made a statement. He reads from the pertinent statement: Japan will follow open and transparent process and secure the help of reknown scientists from home and abroad [in the revision of its ‘scientific research’]. This statement is in English and Japanese on the relevant website.

We will submit a revised plan. This should be six months ahead of the Scientific Research meeting. That will be in November. We are following a highly transparent process. The new plan will fully comply with the elements of the ICJ findings.

No comments follow.

We move to 15.4 – procedures for reviewing special permit proposals.

We do need to come to a conclusion on this says the Chair and I think, Gerard, she says addressing New Zealand, that we are all waiting for you. I am not asking for you to say anything now but I urge dialogues on this matter. We are now rapidly running out of time. Thank you for being expedient in dealing with this and maintaining brevity. We will return at 13.40.

Lunch comes and goes. A few delegates wonder up into the cinema-style seats being enjoyed by the ranks of the observers and the press and try them out.

Post lunch the Chair notes that she missed some NGO interventions and Sue Fisher for the Animal Welfare Institute speaks [I have already posted her intervention].

Next we come to one of the regular items of the IWC: the presentation on Safety at Sea by Japan, although this meeting it comes with a new twist.

A familiar range of images of clashes on the highs seas between whaling vessels and Sea Shepherd protestors is shown. Moving images at one point threaten to drench the Chair and Executive Secretary who are sitting right in front of the screen.

Japan speaks of violence in these clashes and then, to the surprise of many, a representative of the Taiji fishermen’s organisation is called to the microphone – although Japan notes Japan does not agree to the competence of IWC for small cetaceans. He speaks of the activities of Sea Shepherd and others and says that unjustified and prejudiced sabotage has been practiced. The Taiji hunt is based on a long history of whaling – and he adds ‘we will never stop whaling whatever sabotage we are faced with’.

Japan concludes that their research work has been hindered.

The EU speaks to say that it does not support violent actions; Australia does not support Sea Shepherd and will comply with international law.

Denmark associates with general position of EU. The Faroe Islands is not an EU member and the Danish Commissioner wishes to emphasise that she recognises the interests of others in the Faroes drive fishery and the right to peaceful process but she says that there is no basis for dialogue with Sea Shepherd which puts human lives and property at risk.

New Zealand likes safety at sea and has repeatedly called for restraint. Actions have been reckless and unsafe.

The US notes that as Taiji has been raised, they have concerns about its sustainability.

Japan says that several countries have the points of peaceful protest but this does not apply to sea shepherd. SS captains do not have proper certificates and this should be rectified.

Japan says that flag states now need to act.

The Chair next gives the floor to the Japanese Whaling Association. He notes that the Seamen of the organisation face dangerous sabotage every year and calls on flag countries to act.

We suddenly leap back to the conservation committee because we have reached the agenda item on small cetaceans. We hear the report on this and Mexico then speaks on the highly endangered vaquita. He notes the species faced imminent extinction. Steps need to be taken to address this. This is linked to the fishery for the totoaba – both Mexico and the US are working to compact illegal capture and trade of this species which is also endangered. Work is ongoing on alternative fishing methods.

IUCN (Justin Cooke) notes that the species is predicted to become extinct in about 5 years unless action is taken. He is encouraged by joint action by Mexico and the USA. However actions to date have not addressed the decline – he calls on IWC members to provide whatever assistance is needed. Gillnet fishing needs to end now.  We recently lost the Chinese river dolphin, the baiji, which has been declared functionally extinct. We are now facing the loss of a second cetacean species.

The EU is deeply concerned about three species – the vaquita, the Maui’s dolphin and the Yangtse dolphin in China. He supports all recommendations of the small cetaceans report. He appeals to all contracting governments to share on voluntary basis information on small cetaceans. Italy will contribute 15,000 Euro to the small cetaceans fund.

The US notes again their work with Mexico and commends Mexico for its action to date. The USA is very concerned about the plight of the species and has long worked on it.

Austria adds an impassioned plea for the vaquita. The UK also speaks in support and lists other species in peril and the task team approach – the ability to react intersessionally is more important than ever now. They commit £10,000 to the small cetacean fund.

Monaco associates with others including the IUCN who is also sitting on his delegation. He says we are moving towards smaller and smaller populations, regional extinctions and then suddenly everything is dark in the room; what about the rest. He emphasises the plight of the Maui’s dolphin. The vaquita is not in ‘much better shape’ and he joins the call to see how we as a body can be more helpful.

Argentina adds his eloquent to the voice of others and thanks Italy and UK for their donations.

Denmark agrees that data can be provided on a voluntary basis.

South Africa associates with Austria and the steps proposed by the UK, Belgium congratulates the Scientific Committee and the Conservation Committee for their hard work.

Cambodia responds to the UK on the Irrawaddy dolphin in the Mekong River – the government has plans in place with Japan; Japan has assisted in this research and provided equipment. They are also working closely with WWF. There are 15 posts with river guards and he visits the place almost every month. In Cambodia we are sure this species will not go extinct. He adds a comment on the Khmer Rouge. I am pleased to hear of funds and you may like to assist us.

Luxembourg expresses his gratitude to the people of Slovenia – he also congratulates the chair on the excellent way that she is chairing the meeting. Of course he agrees with the EU and calls for action to protect these species.

Uruguay speaks up in support too

Brazil updates us on the use of the boto as bait. A five year moratorium is in place from January. The cat-fish fishery should then be cleaned of the use of the dolphin. The gap in time is to allow the fish processing plants s to adapt and for monitoring programmes to be brought forward. He received  50,000 signatures on a petition.

Clare Perry of EIA then speaks on the behalf of 48 NGOs and restates the problems facing the vaquita. A gill net exclusion zone should be established across the full range of the vaquita with appropriate enforcement.

In another NGO intervention, AWI’s Barabara Mass speaks on the behalf of182 NGOs on the Maui’s dolphin – the smallest and rarest of the cetaceans. The population can only withstand one human-induced removal per year.

New Zealand says that whilst it might not agree with all the content of what AWI said, they share the concerns and have provided updates to the IWC, which they will continue to do, on their efforts to save the dolphin.

We move to the issue of environmental concerns and various work streams are mentioned. The SOCER (State of the Cetacean Environment Report) gets praise from the EU. On Health Issues – New Zealand notes that cetaceans accumulate high levels of pollutants and they support appropriate workstreams.

Monaco also speaks up for studies in this field. He has long been interested in pollution. Uruguay is concerned about mercury and associates with New Zealand.

We move to 19.9 – other matters.

The NGO Orca speaks about the perils of noise. Pro-Life then speaks on positive and negative health effects.  She draws everyone’s attention to an online resource that looks at this: www.toxic-menu.org 

The USA reports on the IWC Antarctic Workshop that was held in Anchorage in March– noting concerns about the effects of climate change including new activities coming into the Arctic as the ice retreats (see Rep01). It also allowed a dialogue with the peoples of the Arctic and many other stakeholders. There were many recommendations and the US encourages others to welcome its recommendations – these included increased cooperation with the Arctic Council, IMO and increase cooperation with stakeholders.

We move to the report of the infractions committee. Argentina thinks that the takes of Greenland should be reported as such. There is also an issue of whether calves taken by Alaskan Inuit should be similarly treated. The Chair says they are not infractions as such.

In future the subcommittee on infraction should not include such information as infractions. The Chair of infractions works on through his report (on the web) any comments?

Iceland says that with respect to the Greenland quota, they have been in constant dialogue and fortunately the quotas have now been granted. In the interests of fairness the GL takes should not be seen as infractions.

Norway quietly associates with Iceland and adds that Greenland were in a ‘forced position’.

Australia has two points on GL subsistence takes, we associate with Argentina and we simply want to point out that the processes of the IWC arte followed; the 2013 and 2014 takes should have been treated as infractions. No quota was approved – takes were not authorised under the convention. It cannot be left to a government to unilaterally deicide on this – it would have consequences for international order.

Secondly, Australia says JARPA II catches in the IWC database should have footnotes – at the moment it says discussed by the ICJ – we would prefer more appropriate language.

Argentina agrees with the Australian legal expert.

The Chair [in a rather remarkable statement] says it is not that we agreed to set the quota to zero (we did not set to zero) but we just did not agree a quota.

Japan associates with Iceland and says with respect to a possible footnote for the JARPAII takes we could link to a reference to the full ICJ ruling.

Russian Federation would like to associate with the Chair’s explanation as agreed in Panama. [He goes into a long explanation of why the situation is special for Greenland.]

But Chile supports Argentina. Uruguay agrees. He does not understand how not allocating a quota does not mean not allocating a quota.

So, the Chair comes back to him and says that a counter schedule amendment was not put through – no quota was agreed.

The USA agrees.

Guinea supports Russia – there was no vote – not zero quota.

There is a meerkat in the USA delegation.

Mexico thanks her for an explanation – this is a very delicate matter and we need to examine it in great detail – it would be very easy for any state to present an amendment to the annex and have it not adopted and then carry on whaling; this cannot be what was intended. Ecuador supports this.

Argentina apologies for coming back to the floor: this is a new interpretation of the convention text. We have spent a lot of time looking at the Greenland quota. Now Greenland can continue. So I believe this interpretation is wrong. We cannot have this loop hole.

Jeanine said she raised this at the last meeting. [This would have been before she became Chair and was speaking as the Commissioner for St Lucia.]

Costa Rica says that she is speechless but then adds where does this interpretation come from. Why have we been spending time on this issue when a new interpretation pops up saying this is unnecessary.

Monaco says your interpretation is highly personal; why should we study quota requests in this way. This is not correct chair.

Chair - In Panama there was no counter proposal; in my opinion we made an error

Further interventions follow but no voice from Europe speaks.

The Chair concludes that we need to deal with this intersessionally.

The distinguished Austrian Delegation - Andrea and Michael

IWC 65 AWI comment

This meeting has been unusual (unique really), in that Non-governmental bodies have been able to comment under relevant agenda items; many of these interventions have been eloquent and to the point. here is one good example from today from Sue Fisher of the Animal Welfare Institute. 

I will show in the following post about the day's proceedings where this fits.

Thank you chair,

We note that the IWC has a long history of cooperating with CITES, the convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which maintains a prohibition on International commercial trade in whale products in species protected by the IWC’s commercial whaling moratorium.

We note with disappointment, therefore, that three contracting governments to the IWC and a territory of a fourth are trading in whale meat for commercial purposes on a significant scale under reservations to the CITES Appendix I listing of whales, or as a non-party to CITES. For instance, Iceland has exported more than 5,000 tonnes of whale products to Japan, as well as shipping whale meat and blubber to Norway on at least two occasions in 2013.  In addition, Norway has now resumed trade in whale products to Japan, and has exported whale meat to the Faroe islands on more than thirteen occasions since xx

We also note that this Commission has adopted numerous resolutions welcoming the continuing cooperation between CITES and the IWC while, in turn CITES Resolution Conference 11.4 (Rev. CoP12) on the Conservation of cetaceans, trade in cetacean specimens and the relationship with the International Whaling Commission expresses concern that international trade in meat and other products of whales is lacking adequate international monitoring or control.

On this point, we would note that at the 2013 meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, the United Nations Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) drew attention to the escalation in trade in whale products in recent years, and noted that trade under reservation can result in “sizeable levels of trade and may undermine the effectiveness of Appendix I listings.”

IWC 65 Tuesday

IWC Day Two

In which many processes start but do not end and Monaco scores a goal.

A view of the Great Hall in the Grand Hotel

Slovenia held a reception for the IWC delegates last night. There were speeches from the same ministers that opened the meeting; more information about the tourist sites of Slovenia (there is certainly much beauty in this country – we noted that when the scientific committee met in Bled earlier this year and there are some pictures here); and much food and drink.

There was also some dancing from a particularly lithe young couple and a singer who also played the trombone – a rare combination. (Some of course may not have felt much like celebrating further to the Greenland quota decision. But let us put this behind us for now and look forward to a new day.)

The suns is shining – somewhere not far the bottlenose dolphins of the northern Adriatic are going about their daily business – and here in the Grand and upside-down hotel delegates are settling down into their seats again. Up in the comfortable tiered seats observers are unpacking their bags, unfolding the neat little tables from the amble arms of their soft seats and getting out the pop-corn to enjoy the spectacle that will unfold.

Back in the bear-pit where the national teams are limbering up for the day’s sparring, delegates are practicing throwing their headsets on the floor and quietly unplugging each others lap-tops and ipads as they start to fight over the access to electricity sockets.

The Chair calls everyone to order and thanks Slovenia for the nice reception last night (many similar compliments follow from national delegates).

The Chair reminds us that we must not forget to hand our headsets in…. which is a little odd as we have only just started the day. Anyway, some outstanding aboriginal whaling matters are tidied up and then the Commission moves to dealing with the review of sanctuaries – a matter discussed in the IWC Conservation Committee last week. After a long and slightly embarrassing pause – the Commission agrees to this plan presented.

Some NGOs are allowed to speak but at this point my computer has decided that the best way to help matters is to go on a major go-slow. Shortly after this the internet disappears from the part of the room where I am sitting.

Anyway, we move to the Monaco resolution [just a reminder that all the documents are wonderfully available on the website if you wish to see what we are speaking about]. This, in essence, calls for greater international collaboration on cetacean conservation. Now who could object to that? [Would you like to start to write the list at this point?]

The Commissioner for Monaco, Frederic Briand, speaks at length and with eloquence of the threats to highly migratory cetacean species. This includes several mentions of marine debris [for which he gets extra merits from this observer].

Norway, however, says that these threats are not specific to cetaceans and that it is not a priority task for the IWC to instigate research on small cetaceans.

Japan had a nice reception but associates with Norway and states that small cetaceans are outside the competence of the Commission. This has been their long standing position.

Iceland thinks the Monaco resolution is unbalanced. Iceland is always keen to collaborate internationally.

The USA notes much cooperation is already ongoing but supports enhancing this.

New Zealand thanks Monaco for persevering with this and notes that Monaco previously provided a related resolution to the last meeting that he withdrew when it was clear it did not have good support. He cannot see for the life of him why there would be any opposition to encouraging cooperation.

Many countries speak to support, including Italy for all the EU nations.

However, Korea does not thing that research on cetaceans is the priority for IWC.

The Chair concludes that we do not have consensus and asks Monaco what he would like to do. He replies ‘with your tolerance’ I would like to express some remarks on technical issues raised’; he thanks those who expressed strong support and he hopes that many parties saw that he had removed the divisive material in the version he provided two years ago. There is now no reference to whaling and takes. Some have suggested that small cetaceans are outside of the mandate of the IWC. This text does not take a position on this. So it is independent of this. There were some remarks that most cetaceans are not highly migratory – this is false. I assert that they do not stay within certain EEZs or jurisdictions only. Marine mammals and whales in particular are long lived, they do not reproduce very fast… each Commissioner in this room cares deeply about the maintenance of biodiversity, irrespective of the positions of governments… we care because we all have families; we need a diverse biota. Some animals play a key role because they are high in the food chains. Before we let anthropogenic effects remove these things, we need to think.

He continues that it was commented that this body should not play a major role in efforts for other cetaceans, but the point of this body is to ensure that we are not outside of this. In order for IWC to be heard, for its scientific recommendations to be heard, we should not say we do not want to take part. To the contrary we should speak up. This text is about other organisations – we did not name some of these actors but we have obviously the Convention for Migratory Species (although he adds that this does not have broad geographic coverage).

He goes on to list others – CBD, RFMOs, IMO, UNCLOS.

And then almost as an afterthought he quietly says…I would like to see this resolution taken to the vote.

The member of the IWC Secretariat in charge of spread-sheets is sent to the stage and the voting sheet appears on the big middle screen for all to see. The Executive Secretary explains how the voting works and that we only need a simple majority for it to pass.

Tuvalu abstains, Uruguay supports, Antigua and Barbuda does not and so on. Spain is absent. She arrives running in but is just too late.

37 In favour 15 against 7 abstain It is passed, there is applause.

Monaco thanks everyone and Switzerland explains that he voted yes because the IWC does – in the view of Switzerland - have a responsibility for all cetaceans. Then he adds that in his view, most of the highly endangered species are not even migratory. Colombia said she very much agreed with the guiding principles but here is problem in that we are not a party to the Law of the Sea. 

The Chair next tries to move to the Food Security Resolution promoted by several African nations. The lead, Ghana, says negotiations are ongoing.

A coffee break beckons – delegates whizz around negotiating; non-governmental observers somewhat reluctantly leave their large soft seats at the back of the room in search of small cakes and  juice.

The voice of the European Union: Caterina Fortuna of Italy and a friend.

In the complex session that follows both of the proposals from Chile are presented. The first deals with the workings of the scientific committee and the second civil society participation in the IWC meetings. 

Australia would like to see a two year detailed work plan and suggests that there should be a single report over two years. They recommend that a working group should look at working practice.

Antigua and Barbuda has other ideas and is encouraged to have lunch with Australia to discuss.

The chair is looking down her agenda and notes that what has to be the big show for IWC 65, the resolution on whaling under special permit, needs to have substantial time for discussion tomorrow. But the Chair opens the floor to New Zealand to present.

New Zealand reminds us that the ICJ said that Japan’s whaling programme did not meet the requirements of the IWC (the famous article VIII). The court requires that its findings are taken into account in any future whaling. So the resolution calls on the Scientific Committee to take this into account in its review and he offers a ‘round table discussion’ at 6pm today.

Norway replies at length  referring to the IWC as seriously dysfunctional and he thinks future scientific work will be discredited….

Japan says that the ICJ judgement is about JARPAII and does not change the IWC framework… he does not see the need for any resolution. He will engage in discussion of the draft and makes two general comments. One, if it is to be based on ICJ it needs to be accurate; and in this context he has some doubts and secondly, as to the operative, this goes well beyond the judgement and article 8 (and 30) of the schedule. This cannot be influenced by the resolution – either we need to ammend the schedule or amend article VIII. He will join the round table at 6pm

Antigua and Barbuda does not like the resolution. Many Latin voices do and the EU (via Italy) will work constructively to reach an agreement he concludes.

New Zealand would like a dispassionate debate on this matter that needs to be respectful to the highest court in the world. We could add other preambular paragraphs; we could adjust language where appropriate and we are keen to have an amicable and respectful discussion.

The Chair asks where the round table is – 6pm in the Adria room for all interested parties. The room is small so please limit the number of persons. [It is a small round table.]

She then reminds us that most items remain open under agenda 7.

She moves to IWC in the future but Ghana says that we have a problem, the EU is meeting at lunch, so he doubts they can present anything today [on food security]

Whale Stocks

Chair says that you have had the report of the SC for a long time and she will now just go through whale stocks:

Antarctic minke whale stocks – no one comments and she commends the Scientific Committee.

Southern Hemisphere Blue whales – no one comments and she commends the SC.

Western North Pacific Gray whales - no one comments and she commends the SC.

Southern Hemisphere right whales - no one comments and she commends the SC.

North Pacific rights and Bowheads - no one comments and she commends the SC.

International Research Cruises; Other Stocks - no one comments and she commends the SC.

Back to the Conservation Committee and some smelly gray whales.

The redoubtable Chair of Conservation Committee makes his report and starts with comment about gray whales with a medicinal smell and which are inedible. The cause is unknown. Japan says that when this was discussed in the ASW sub committee that it was pointed out that just asking the scientific committee to do something was not enough. The specific question should be what is the significance of removing a certain proportion of whales.

Russia says we should not ask the Scientific Committee yet.

The UK attempts to clarify the issue by suggesting that we need to ask the scientific committee to consider the cause of the stinkiness and noting that data on encounter rates at sea will be needed.

Japan takes the floor again and calls for a solution to this issue. I am not pushing for any particular number he says mildly, just that the scientific committee should do something. In my mind the suggested way forward is that they should treat them as struck and loss. Can the scientific committee do some kind of analysis?

.

Australia supports both Japan and UK and thinks that the SC should come back on this – but the whales cannot be treated as struck and lost and dealt with. In the end in a confusing debate the US provides a way forward based on discussions in a working group last week. [Confused? Does this matter? Yes because it relates to how many whales can be taken in the Russian hunt.]

The work of the Conservation Committee on Ship Strikes is presented next and discussed at length. Please see the report of the Conservation Committee for details.

We move on to the report of the ‘whale killing methods’ workshop made by its chair the redoubtable Michael Stachowitch – this included a report from NAMMCO.

It also looked at welfare issues outside of whaling, including entanglement in nets and marine debris. Mention here is made of the ‘indefatigable’ David Mattila who has been leading whale disentanglement workshops around the world for the last two years under IWC auspices.

Ultimately says Michael, the group did not come to a conclusion on how to take welfare forward.

Italy speaks, noting the successful intercessional workshop on euthanasia. The UK now speaks and says in IWC 64 in Panama we endorsed an intercessional working group to try to develop a plan. The recommendations were received (document 05) – in the working group there was a great deal of support and some concerns from some countries; in light of these we produced a revised version – see 05 rev 1. It seems to accommodate concerns raised by parties. He describes the changes and that he has been working with other governments and he would like this agenda item to remain open to allow for further discussions. This is intended to be non-controversial, so work can be taken forward. Germany associates with EU and UK. We are disappointed that at the sub-committee meeting last week at the number of times the secondary killing method was used and we would like to see data from fin whale hunts – this is the largest species killed and data on the use of secondary methods would be useful.

The USA thanks the UK for taking the lead on this matter. He supports the recommendation to broaden the welfare concerns beyond direct harvest but reiterates the need to also consider harvests and include the relevant experts. Expertise differs between harvest and other issues.

Iceland on the question from Germany there is an ongoing [welfare] study in fin whaling and his is made by individual experts and we expect that the results will be sent to NAMMCO next year.

Argentina associates with those that support the ongoing welfare work.

Then comes Norway. He gives the floor to his expert. During the meeting of the whale killing methods group, Norway could not support the proposal for work going forward. We have had a  bilateral subsequent to this. We appreciate that the UK dealt with our main concerns. But the removal of these issues seems to be only temporary because they are referred to for future meetings. He will now repeat some of the points made in the previous meeting and he gives (again) some history. He notes that they have completed their work on their own hunt and Norway decided to move reporting to NAMMCO – this he says was successful.

He adds that a change in the terms of reference now means it will be seeking requests for data that cannot be accommodated. Animal welfare standards have been used that apply to livestock …. This is difficult and unrealistic. Given the different nations and cultures assembled at the IWC – we should have separate workshops on topics, this is how we work in NAMMCO and how we can help in the future.

Japan notes that they have been taking this issue seriously in the past. However, the discussion about this issue became emotional and acrimonious and they stopped providing their data [to the IWC] after it was used against them. As a result they have declared that they will refrain from providing data. But to indicate our willingness to help with welfare we provide the data and join the discussion at NAMMCO. … with this particular proposal from the UK, we recognise that efforts were made to be neutral with appreciation. However, our observation at this time is that before we consider changes we will observe the development in the IWC with keen interest but we will put ourselves on the side-line of this discussion so that we can make an objective decision in the future.

Iceland notes that his country  uses the same methods as Norway. And associates with them.

Australia associates with the EU and UK and in addition it does not believe that NAMMCO is the responsible body – its mandate is in the North Atlantic. The competency is here and all countries should provide information here.

The Russian federation submits all data voluntarily [to the IWC] and will continue to provide all the data. Welfare is a philosophical question. We do not have a definition of death or how we know if a whale is dead or not… it would be interesting to get a definition from the scientific committee on this.

[I am looking forward now to the Scientific Committee working group on death.]

Russia continues that he does not agree with Australia on NAMMCO – at NAMMCO they are considering the scientific approach on these issues and they are discussing the same species that are in the competence of our convention. It is important to take the safety whalers into account and different communities use different methods.

Ireland thanks the intercessional group and believes that welfare is integral to the work of the IWC and associates with others who think likewise.

Denmark acknowledges the importance of welfare work but expressed some concerns in the sub-committee and continues to have some concerns.

The Chair reverts to the UK.  He thanks those that supported and thanks Japan for agreeing to look at this in a sensible way. This work is not about interfering with welfare related to whaling – it is about an approach to other welfare issues. I would like to keep this agenda item open. We would like to try and address the concerns of Norway and others and consult on a further revision.

NAMMCO is called to the microphone. She insists that NAMMCO is fully competent… it is not a global organisation but it is regional and she describes the principles that underpin NAMMCO and its work.

Beluga Hunters International speaks next – she refers to climate change and speaks of efficiency in the bowhead hunt and related matters. Efficiency is at 80% or more.

Coffee follows with small cakes for those that have time. [Many NGO delegates do not bother to leave their comfortable chairs.]

Those of us that do wander out in search of caffeine return only to find that we are sent away again. The Chair has decided that the meeting should break so consultations can occur and she cites the New Zealand resolution in particular. New Zealand says that the room available – with the small round table - will take about 50 people. [So quite a big table really.]

The day tomorrow will start with a special Private commissioners’ meeting at 8.30. We adjourn at 16.20 and an NGO reception follows at the pool bar a little later. Here the retiring Australian Commissioner Donna is rightly celebrated and thanked for all her hard work. There is much applause.

A small aside: The British Commissioner’s Meerkat is missing

Apparently Nigel Gooding, the UK Commissioner, has a small mascot in the form of a meerkat known by his staff as Meery.  Some months ago Meery went missing and has been sending Mr Gooding cryptic messages from around the world. There was one reliable sighting from Honolulu some weeks ago. Meery s now believed to be in Slovenia but no one – especially the UK Commissioner – knows quite where he is.

The matter is so serious that it is causing some international concern and the new US Commissioner, Russell Smith was heard first thing this morning enquiring of his UK counterpart where Meery was.

Any sightings of Meery should be reported to the UK delegation. It is possible of course that he is just enjoying the soft seats, small tables and ample electricity sockets at the back of the room. 

A bilateral between the UK and US on Meercat location
UK Commissioner Nigel Gooding to the left and US Commissioner Russell Smith

Interetsing article here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/17/whaling-opponents-japan-new-zealand-iwc

IWC 65 - The scientific committee report

How do you present the report of the IWC Scientific Committees (2013 and 2014) in twenty minutes?

The Chair of the Scientific Committee achieved this with a power point presentation that I promised that I would post for those interested. If you are not interested please skip to the next blog.

Interestingly when the agenda item whale stocks came up today and each stock in turn was announced there was no comment from any member of the commission. At previous meetings the scientific committee report would have been heard and questions and comments would have been raised. I wonder if this new process of presentation is really the most apprpriate.

IWC 65 Monday Closing

We move to the very serious business of day one – the consideration of the proposal for an aboriginal quota for Greenland.

And here I will break from my usual style of reporting for there is little cause for levity in what follows. I will tell something of the story of how we get to the conclusion, but the conclusion – which has been pretty clear since the EU decided to support the quota request – was that the quota was agreed 19 fin whales, 176 minke whales, 2 bowhead whales, and 10 humpback whales each year for four years can now be legally taken. And I say that it has been pretty clear because once the EU and the pro-whaling nations were lined up there was enough of the vote to go ahead. (3/4 of those voting being required).

Please remember this is not verbatim and I am sampling what is said. Corrections welcome.

This proposal was rejected at the last IWC meeting and Greenland went on whaling anyway. It is also true that a few things have changed since then – Greenland has presented an updated ‘needs statement’ and a small change was also made to the numbers of whales being requested following advice from the IWC Scientific Committee; but it is difficult to see how the 2014 proposal is substantially different from the 2012 one.

This is approached in a somewhat roundabout way. First the report of the relevant subcommittee is presented by its Chair, in this case the Swiss Commissioner Bruno. Then at an appropriate point we find we are in a debate about the ‘bundled proposal from EU nations to give Greenland back its proposal. The EU nations have been in negotiation about this for some time and are all required to sing from the same hymn sheet or those poised European officials will come and sort them out (or something like that).

The proposal for a quota consists of a ‘needs statement’ which explains why the Greenland people ‘need’ the whales; a schedule amendment which includes the numbers of whales of each species and stock and the years in which they should be taken; and a resolution which directs the IWC to work to sort out some of the problems dogging aboriginal quotas. These three documents, referred to as “the package,” are readily available on the IWC website if you would like to see the details.

As each Commissioner comes to the microphone to support or oppose the proposal they make a formal comment to Slovenia to thank them for hosting the meeting and typically compliment the surroundings. I will not include these in my précis here of who said what – which is really just a sample of comments.

So it is that when the Commissioner from Denmark (also representing Greenland) comes to the microphone she extends the usual compliments to the host and then focuses on her proposal. She stresses that the quota will not harm the stock and that it is a carefully balanced compromise that should allow for better planning for the hunters. She refers to intense discussions over the last few days and passes the microphone to her colleague from Greenland who – with the help of a powerpoint describes the importance of marine resources to her people.

Italy speaks on the behalf of the EU nations and lists them all [she promises to do this only once] and emphasises the support of the whole EU for the package.

In the debate that follows, Argentina speaks on the behalf of the Latin countries (sometimes called the Buenos Aires Group or BAG) and comments that the catches made by Denmark over the last two years [for which they had no quota] should be treated as infractions and he comments on a strong commercial aspect to the hunts. He would like to support a consensus but he cannot.

Monaco also has several concerns. He does not find the request consistent with that made by others for ‘aborignal quotas’ and he is concerned about the meaning of  subsistence, noting that Greenland takes many fish and seals and that it appears that economic and nutritional needs are well covered.  How many whales does Greenland really need? Monaco will remain uncomfortable until these matters are resolved but he hears the call for consensus.

Guinea however supports.

Japan has strong and continued support for this proposal and he encourages consensus. He disputes that ‘local consumption’ means no commercial aspect. He adds that the fact that you have other fisheries resources does not mean you don’t need whales. He makes an analogy to clothing: its sounds to him that just because you have trousers and other clothes,  there is no need to give up the kimono.

Antigua and Barbuda notes that we seem to be debating two proposals at the same time (the schedule amendment and the resolution, and seeks clarification how these will be voted on.

Norway associates his position with that of Guinea and Japan.

Chile however associates with Monaco and then Uruguay associates with them.

Iceland says something like he does not support the principle of aboriginal …either whaling is sustainable or it is not.

NGOs are not called to speak in the first ever NGO intervention under the relevant agenda item [an innovation for civil society participation]  – WDC is given 2 minutes and notes from a recent economic study that a different and lesser amount if whale meat than that being requested by Greenland is calculated.

Then a representative of the Alaskan Inuit Organisation makes an eloquent intervention about the circumstances of his hunt.

The NGO interventions from up on their large soft seats even precede the interventions from an Australian minister who stresses that his country and Japan are the best of friends on issues other than whaling and describes the outcomes of ICJ [where they were not the best of friends]; he goes on to describe modern threats to whales including two mentions of marine debris

After a hasty lunch, we return to the great Hall of the Grand hotel and Greenland’s quota request.

Costa Rica raises concerns about commercial sales and the way that meat is apportioned to the population.

The USA speaks in favour of the Greenland quota and gives some history to the issue of Aboriginal Whaling at the IWC.

Korea takes the floor and links culture in his country to the issue – reminds us of ancient petroglyphs of whaling near to Ulsan.

Ghana supports Greenland.

Russia likes Slovenia and notes that the Slovenian Commissioner has already improved the weather since last week and congratulates Slovenia on its caves. Russia supports Greenland. He regrets that the Buenos Aries Group [the BAG] broke consensus.

The Dominican Republic associates with Argentina.

St Lucia is very grateful to the IWC and Slovenia and ‘provides support’ to GL and Denmark proposal and associates with countries that support it.

Chair: So I have listened to the discussion and note that we have not come to consensus, so I will turn to Denmark and ask how she would like to proceed.

Greenland: thanks those who have supported her and those that have tried to reach consensus. She would like to respond to some issues. With respect to reporting, Greenland has honoured all the necessary requirements and she covers various points including that she is reporting as  ASW and not any other form of whaling; our proposal is for 2015-2018; in terms of coordination with ranges states we are keen to do this; thanks for giving us a good time to carry this over lunch and hear the view of others; there were questions on local use and commercialisation – thanks the UK for referring to previous resolutions including sharing of currencies; over lunch we exchanged views with the sponsor of the package. We have exhausted all ways forward and we should take a decision that will allow other matters to be worked on during the week.

Italy is called to the microphone and says that she has explained in previous days what the intention of the resolution was and she is pretty sure that it is understood. This is a package, so we are in favour of both of them; we should actually vote on the resolution as soon as possible after the schedule amendment. It would be difficult to negotiate extensive changes. We have worked for a consensus but it is not possible.

The Chair is disappointed that we could not reach consensus but she appreciated the efforts that Denmark-Greenland have made.

Argentina commenting for the Latin nations would like to ask that the resolution should be voted later as we are going through some negotiations and we would like the opportunity to continue and try and reach consensus.

Italy… pause… finds herself in a difficult position, these are a package; I can only take a decision when the EU has consulted. Please allow me thirty seconds to at least speak with Denmark.

Chair – I will give you five minutes

I

taly: thank you 30 seconds for Italians is 5 minutes. [There is some laughter]

Impromptu EU Coordination

An EU huddle breaks out (over on the right side of the amphitheater pit) and then disperses again.  T

Then an even larger Latin huddle forms (even more people and on the other side of the room); finally a smaller EU huddle occurs with just the Commission officials and a couple of delegates including a lawyer.

Latin American coordination

Other commissioners watch with wry smiles on their faces.

After about ten minutes of this, the Chair calls on Italy. She thanks all who support their draft resolution and will move to a vote on the resolution despite Argentina’s offer.

The Chair then asks to proceed to the vote. We shall vote first on the schedule amendment (the quota). The vote will proceed by roll call and they will be recorded on the screen. It will be part of the status of agenda document says the Executive Secretary. We will start with Switzerland he adds. 

(The Swiss Commissioner is being photographed by his alternate.)

Switzerland – yes.

US, Japan and UK – yes

Australia abstains

Otherwise the voting is rather predictable. Eritrea is absent; as is Palau.

Gabon abstains, as does Monaco.

The final tally is 46 yes, 11 no – 3 abstains and no non-participations. The motion is passed.

There is some applause, but not from where I am sitting.

Chair: thank you very much and congratulations to Greenland/Denmark.

Explanation of votes follow:

Mexico: says that his delegation recognises the effort made by Greenland over the last two years;  we regret that we were unable to support the package; we recognise the needs of indigenous peoples but the quota exceeds the needs required for their population and that raises concerns for us. We welcome the draft scheme from the EU and this may make it possible for us to support in the future.

New Zealand says that he would also like to give credit to Denmark – we were surprised that similar numbers to those rejected before were put forward again. But we did see a new needs statement.Because the vote was very close we voted as we did.

Australia stressed that she supports aboriginal subsistence whaling when it is according to the rules of the IWC and notes that she was concerned that whaling continued by Greenland despite the fact that they were not awarded a quota at the last meeting. Australia abstained because she did not want to 

stop things from moving forward.

No one else wants to speak and we move to the next vote. This is the resolution from the EU about Aboriginal Subsistence whaling. The roll call starts with Tanzania. It is a curious vote with many abstentions. In the end 40 say yes, 5 no, and there are 15 abstains.

Congratulations to Italy and the EU says Chair and opens the floor for explanation of vote. The Russian Federation says he would like to repeat again what he said during the debate. The Russian Federation (one of the four aboriginal whaling nations) will not follow the decision of this resolution.

Denmark thanks everyone and Antigua and Barbuda note that they support sustainable use and that use of food should be unconditional.

Mr Russel Smith the new USA Commissioner thanks GL/Denmark and the EU for their work on this and notes that the ASW report is on the website and that this should address some of the concerns raised in the debate.

Cambodia thanks Slovenia for the nice reception last night (actually many nations have said the same and I have not noted them all down – just sampling some of the debate here) – and associates with 

Antigua and Barbuda: People have a right to survive.

Italy – then thanks everyone on the behalf of the EU and we move to a statement from the UK minister.

Stay tuned.

IWC 65 Monday Opening

The Grand Opening in the Grand (upside-down) Hotel

At a few minutes after 10am on Monday 15^th September, IWC the sixty fifth meeting opens.

In which Chair Jeannine is Strict and Ministers make speeches

Delegates have been milling outside the great hall generally getting in each other’s way and trying to overhear each other’s key strategic discussions. There are some TV vans outside and a few journalists moving swiftly through the big crowd of several hundred people looking for charismatic mega-fauna, like ministers or the Commissioners of Japan or Australia. A small group of European Union officials wait nearby in case they need to leap into action if any European Union nation breaks away the The Agreed Position.

The great meeting room in the Grand meeting hotel is in fact a vast roman-type amphitheater with delegations playing the roles of gladiators for the entertainment of the spectators perched above on a raised tier of remarkably comfortable seats. From here they look down on the national delegates (the IWC Commissioners and their teams) sitting behind their flags. These poor souls are sitting in remarkably uncomfortable seats (to quote a colleague, this is the ‘Ryan Air of delegate seating’). 

Only the two lead delegates have a table on which they have their flag and name plate and can rest their papers, heads and so forth. Lesser delegates have to learn to balance notebooks, computers, translation devices and such on their knees and in their pockets and as we progress the whole meeting is peppered with what rapidly becomes the recognizable sound of headsets being dropped and gentle accompany cursing.  

The Slovenian Commissioner, Andrej Bibic, acts as compare for the opening and introduces the Slovenian ministers who make some speeches about the landscape and fish and generally welcome everyone. Minister Karl Erjavec, the Minister of Foreign affairs notes in his speech that we should listen to the views of experts and NGOs and this is warmly received. Tanja Strnista, Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Enviornment addresses us next . Amongst other things she speaks of the famous local caves and compliments the IWC Secretariat’s professional work is (these two matters are not directly linked).

Peter Bossman the major of Piran then greets us and speaks of the beauty of Piran and depleting whale numbers and urges the IWC to come to some agreement as to how to regulate whaling before there are no whales left. 

Simon Brockington, the executive secretary of the IWC thanks Slovenia back for acting as host and praises the venue. He adds that it is a particular pleasure to welcome so many observer organisation, whose contributions [probably verbal but he may have meant fiscal – or possibly both] he is looking forward to. He notes that in the last two years , the IWC has held over 30 working groups and stresses that the IWC is not just an international organisation but a global one. He also acknowledges over half a million British pounds in voluntary contributions to the work of the IWC. He is warmly applauded.

Finally, we come to the last speaker, the Chair of the IWC, Jeannine Compton-Antoine – a lot of what she wanted to say she says has been said, she says, but she thanks the secretariat and praises the location.

The first agenda item is the Credentials committee which consists of Japan, New Zealand and the Secretariat and all countries have their papers in order. The Exec Sec then reads off a long list of who does not have voting rights and this includes Cyprus, Mali, Mauritania, Portugal and the Solomon Islands.

Madam Chair next explains strictly that she will only allow limited debate and if it was previously said in a working group, it need not be said again. Commissioners are encouraged to associate with others. NGOs will be allowed to contribute to the debate if there is time; they must provide a list of who will speak in advance, after they have coordinated among themselves.

She reminds us that all documents are available on the website and moved to the adoption of the agenda which has some small changes.

There is a pause to see if there are any issues. Jannine looks at Simon; Simon looks at Jannine. Nothing happens and the agenda is adopted.

Toshide Kitakado, the Chair of the Scientific Committee then presents the work of the Scientific Committee over the last two years via a series of power-point slides that I will post seperately, for those that like that kind of thing,in a separate report.             

He notes there was some disagreement on how the review of JARPAII (Japan’s now infamous whaling programme in Antarctica) should be handled – and we are directed to see the relevant statements in the report. (There is no power-point slide about this). Finally the SC chair (in what is only a twenty minute item covering two annual reports from the Scientific Committee and all the work in between) notes that for more information he, or Greg Donovan (Secretariat Head of Science)  or Caterina Fortuna Vice Chair of the Scientific Committee can, be approached in the breaks.

And then we move to start the serious business of the day with the report on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling.

The temperature starts to rise.