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 |
