2018 International Whaling Commission 67 Day 4

Mark and Hermano the Brazilian Commissioner

It is still grey and somewhat wet outside; but here in the great hall we shall go into a great debate!

As promised we start with the Florianopolis Declaration (the resolution left over from yesterday).

Brazil quickly moves to indicate that they would like a vote, They say they have had extensive consultation and now is the time to vote.

The resolution - which rededicates the IWC to its conservation agenda passes. Forty member states supported, 27 opposed, and four abstained.

Florianopolis Declaration Vote

Some strong statements follow (and here I just try to capture the gist of what was said and I would be pleased to amend if I have made any mistakes).

The Commissioner for Antigua and Barbuda expressed his great sadness at the passing of the resolution and refers to lies and misleading actions. He feels that the proponents have no intention of seeking consensus or negotiating ; they showed sympathy to the way in which some of us felt about this non-binding... deceptive resolution. He sees the resolution as a slap in the face.

Nonetheless many Brazilians (and many others around the world) are celebrating.

Then the temperature in the hall starts to rise as Japan introduces its package to reform how the IWC works. The introduction from Japan is brief but the response from Australia is detailed and diplomatic.

Nick Gales, Australia's Commissioner to the IWC in full flow

Nick Gales notes the dependency of commercial whaling on national subsidies. He stresses that this issue is not about human rights or state security; he fully respects the rights of any country to make a proposal for the resumption of commercial whaling - he does not question their right to hold those views. But he adds,  I ask you respect my rights to hold my views.

Some have suggested our support for aboriginal subsistence whaling is at odds with opposing whaling for commerce. It is not. Each party has a legitimate right; debates can be robust; the IWC is resilient.

Then he reflects on how the matter was brought to the Commission  - at IWC 66 an informal process was initiated by Japan and a range of questions were posed. Then, a little over 3 months ago - a proposal unmatched in its ambition was delivered; that it can move so fast in this raises questions on intent. The proposal includes many procedural and legal ambiguities - this seems to be a largely all or nothing approach. It is hard to avoid the very difficult conclusion that this has been brought forward to fail. I will not speculate on the reasons for this.The IWC is functional. It is reviewing its governance procedures. Its sub-committees are of the highest international standard.

When he finishes (and I have only sampled what he said above, as with reporting of all speakers here) - there is persistent applause. The full statement can be found HERE.

The EU speaks next and expresses its sincere gratitude to Japan for  an open and constructive dialogue. We speak for 24 parties to the convention - parties who remain undivided - you hear one voice but we all agree. We have made great progress in managing stocks; to maintain this we cannot introduce new committees that will undermine the moratorium - we urge restrain in modifying the RMP - and oppose establishing steps that wold end the moratorium. The proposed sustainable  whaling committee would establish further division and undermine the moratorium.

They also do not support the move to the 50% plus one quota-setting mechanism [75% currently required] and are concerned about asking the Scientific Committee to establish quotas - resources should not be allocated away from other work. He concludes by noting that he appreciates that this
is incredibly serious but the EU cannot support.

Argentina speaking for the Buenos Aires Group says we thank Japan. The IWC is functional... no reform is necessary.

Brazil: also thanks Japan and goes on record for an open-minded discussion. He fully supports Argentina and will not repeat points but points at at the Florianopolis Declaration agreed yesterday.

Togo - find merit.

Nicaragua - agrees with the draft reform and notes the the best scientific advice available from the Scientific Committee shows that some whale species are abundance - and supports the sustainable whaling committee.

Guinea supports

Monaco says the proposal will take us backwards to the times when whale stocks were decimated.

Senegal finds the proposal highly relevant. We are not in conformity with the convention.

Costa Rica - thanks Japan from the heart; whales are large and slow breeding - affected by bycatch and... she notes the benefits of whale watching. She stresses that the organisation is functional.

Norway - Japan puts the finger on the problem that we have at the IWC - we are dysfunctional. We are at a cross-road - need to think carefully about how to achieve. Norway limits his dimension.

Uruguay and Mexico oppose. Mexico notes there is no cause to call people liars.

Chile - does not support.

Ecuador - our work has been highlighted by other bodies [her list includes CMS]. Our constitution protects all marine species; whaling is considered a violation to the rights of nature. She does not support.

Chair - we need to have a coffee time for the group working on the 'food security' resolution to meet.

But first some more speakers.

New Zealand - we have studied the proposal and it is a request to resume commercial whaling and this is the basis on which this package needs to be discussed. The paper does not present a policy that my government can support. The paper puts forward a narrative that this commission is dysfunctional because it has not set limits for commercial take - in fact we have set catch limits and they are zero.  She continues to illustrate the functionality of the commission.

Antigua and Barbuda then interupts on the issue of the 'food security' working rgoup. This body, he says, does not deserve the privilege of discussion food security anymore! He thanks all who took part - but giving the atmosphere [here]; he withdraws the request for discussion.

Chair I will ask you later how you would like to proceed.

The USA suggests that some elements of what Japan proposes can be discussed via the governance reform process.
.
Iceland sees Japan as environmentalists; ignoring science is not environmentalist... need to base ourselves on science.Whales should not be treated unlike other animals. If we were getting reports that all whale stocks were in an endangered situation, the situation here would be different.

He is applauded

New IWC member nation, Liberia reminds this body that the core reason for this body is to regulate whaling and mentions the 'blue economy'.

Colombia - says that in his  43-year  diplomatic career he had never witnessed the level of the aggressiveness and lack of diplomatic tone as that  after the adoption of the Florianopolis Declaration - this is what will make us dysfunctional, he adds.

Let me go back to the proposal - we should maintain the moratorium

Solomon Islands - the current situation is bringing this organisation to its knees and calls for the various elements in Japan's proposals to be implemented

Panama supports the moratorium - japan's proposal does not reflect their view of the convention.

Peru thanks Japan for its hard work. Scene underpins sound decisions but cannot support the proposal - in Peru whale-hunting is legally prohibited and they are opposed to commercial whaling.

Cambodia - if the IWC was working well, Japan would not make such a radical proposal.

Kenya - speaks to a conference Kenya is hosting in November and then speaks n support of Japan - the proposal, he says, includes the glue that will keep this commission moving forward.

St Kitts and Nevis - we need to negotiate for the good of all, not some.

Ghana - please do not split the body - let the scientific committee support us.

Grenada - the moratorium countries should accept the available science.

St Lucia - we have identified stocks that have recovered

St Kitts and Nevis identifies with others of sustainable-use inclination

India - we speak on two aspects - with respect to lifting the moratorium and establishing catch limits - we do not agree to the furst; for the second part - for amending paragraph 2 etc for 3/4 to become 50% + - there is some merit - we would ask for 2/3 - this would make things easier - noting that we cannot get the SAWS through!
many
We move to several NGO interventions - a few support Japan but many do not - especially interesting about these are the comments from Nanami Kurasawa representing one of the pro-whale groups who sees no news ideas in Japan's proposals. Chris Wold of Lewis and Clark University gives some input on the legality of the proposal he notes that it calls for amendment to the convention, a decision that is usually by consensus or 'super-majority' - the reason for this is that we are managing global resources - we want the international community to act with common purpose. He also suggests that Japan's proposal would violate rule E3b . Perhaps the effectiveness committee should do its work before this matter proceeds.

A consortium of Latin NGOs calls for defense of the moratorium.

Chair - we probably do not need to move item by item now, thank you for views - this is an important issue for this organisation and so I allowed all interventions. The view of the proponent please.

Japan - before providing answer I would like to respond to all points.

Chair - please be concise.

The spokesman for Japan

Japan - I will try but there are many points. We have discussed for 30 years; in the late 90 we had the Irish proposal - this failed; then Danish proposal - failed; then 12 years of RMS - failed; then last attempt future of IWC - failed. Human beings can make something from failure; so we made something from failure - this is the proposal - it is no out of rules.We have never adopted whaling....

Chairman [interrupting] - you mean  moratorium

Japan - sorry, we never adopted a moratorium, there was agreement that the situation would be kept under review and by 1990, at the latest, this commission will consider again [catch limits]. This was a 'catch limit' not a moratorium. We have to commit to what we agreed in 1982. The USA touched on the reason for this provision - inadequate scientific information - much science has accumulated.

We are all members of the ICRW. We should sincerely follow the provisions of the convention; what I was a student I was a bad boy and I tried to breach rules; now I have grown up I realize this is wrong. If some countries want a conservation organisation they can make this and withdraw from this organisation.

With respect to NZ points - we have only one landing point - therefore Japan proposes multiple landing points; Brazil suggested fundamental differences - yes, through the 'way forwaard process; we detected this - we could achieve co-existence with our proposal. India pointed our opposition to removal of moratorium - but we propose addition - catch limit for some species that Scientific Committee confirms are abundant. Legal experts confirm we can proceed - this is something like 'super-majority'

We wish to keep agenda item open. We would like to speak to our government. It is midnight in Tokyo. But I am optimistic and I have lucky whale tie.

Applause.

Chair - we will keep this item open. We will discuss tomorrow morning.

Mexico - as you know many delegates will be leaving tomorrow - we would like items discussed before 4pm.

Chair - definitely.

Welfare concerns then breaks out and among other things Austria praises the whale welfare assessment tool - we have the highest whale and dolphin standings globally says NZ, we welcome this. This work can improve whale welfare outcomes worldwide.

Japan - concerning data provision - Japan has put the highest commitment on improving whale killing but data presented here are sued to accuse Japan; so we submit those precious data to other organisation.

NGO comments follow. The high price of harpoons is noted by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

The report of the welfare group is endorsed.

Special Permits pops up after lunch.

[This relates to 'Scientific Whaling' - the category of whaling allowed under the convention's article VIII - and which allows IWC member nations to award themselves a quota of whales for scientific research. It is the controversial way on which Japan pursues its whaling.]

The Australian Commissioner next talks about the results of the Special Permit Standing Working Group. This looked at Japan's whaling in the North Pacific and Southern Ocean. Many recommendations need to be addressed.

Chair states we cannot change reports but we can put comments in the report from this Commission - the Chairs report.

Japan has a statement that he wants to add. The USA supports the reports and the recommendations - Article VIII allows special permits but he asks Japan to heed the recommendations.

NZ supports the report and talks about thickness of the blubber and stomach contents - these are claimed to be needed for diet studies - the expert panel concluded that it could not determine that lethal research wads necessary or would lead to improved information She concludes that that sampling has not been deemed necessary and yet it continues.

Some NGO interventions follow. One on commercial whaling from multiple organisations refers to Japan's whaling as 'commercial' and Japan demands an apology for this.

The Chair announces that Resolution 2030 and the Resolution on Food Security have been withdrawn.

Discussion about cooperation with other organisations follows. Australia highlights work with IORA among others. Austria. Japan emphasizes cooperation with FAO. Ghana notes that FAO has many more members than IWC.

We conclude with the report of the Finance and Administration Committee.During this, the UK proposes an amendment that will allow the Conservation Committee to meet annually. Antigua and Barbuda opposes. This blocks a consensus.

Then offers for the 2020 scientific committee meeting are requested and Antigua and Barbuda offers to host..

The day closes and Japan's package of proposals will return tomorrow.

Jose and Paul enjoy a coffee break

As with all of my reporting from meetings here I strive for accuracy but only sample what was said. I would be pleased to amend and correct any inaccuracies. 

All view expressed here as elsewhere on this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any entity I am or have been associated with.

IWC 67 Thursday

For technical reasons I will refer you to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin

HERE

A normal service may be resumed one day!

Here for compensation is a picture of the EU Commissioners

IWC 67 Day 4 Statement from Australia

Intervention by Nick Gales Australia Commissioner on Way Forward (Agenda item 12) - Japan's proposal to take steps towards resuming commercial whaling.

Nick Gales (centre), Mike Double (left) and Frank LaMaccia

·         Australia thanks Japan for introducing its proposal on The Way Forward to the Commission.

·         At the start of the week you all heard Australia’s well known and long-standing policy position opposing a resumption of commercial whaling presented by Senator, the Honourable, Anne Ruston.

·         It is not my intent to reiterate our policy, or its very solid foundations, in this intervention.

·         Rather, I will talk to two issues;

·         Firstly I will reflect on what it is we are debating here, and the manner in which we characterise our divergent views.

·         Secondly, I will briefly reflect on the manner in which this proposal has been presented to the Commission and the fundamental issues that it presents us with – irrespective of our views on whaling.

·         So, firstly – to the substance of this debate:

·         What is at stake here is a question of whether or not a commercial enterprise – a business – in this case whaling – should resume again after it was belatedly and appropriate bought to an end after decades of over-exploitation.

·         What remains of the whaling business today is an enterprise that has little - and diminishing - demand for its products, in many cases is reliant on State subsidies and at a global scale has essentially lost its social license.

·         This is NOT a debate about human rights, nor is it a debate about the important subject of global food security.

·         It is a business proposition against which any parties hold legitimate environmental and welfare concerns.

·         Having said that – I fully respect the rights of any Party to this convention to make their case for a resumption of commercial whaling – just as Japan’s proposition is doing here.

·         In return, I ask that the members here today respect my right to represent the Australian policy which opposes any resumption of commercial whaling.

·         Some members have stated that Australia’s clear and strong support for the rights of aboriginal hunters – a policy position I was proud to articulate in yesterday’s historic vote – is at odds with our opposition to the commerce of whaling.

·         It is not. Both positions are long-held by Australia, and both reflect the clear and legitimate elements, including science and the mandate of the Australian people, that inform our policy positions.

·         The answer to the question I have heard posed at this meeting of whether or not the divergent views on commercial whaling can coexist in this organisation is a simple yes:

·         It has ever been thus.

·         Each party enacts its legitimate right to express their views and engage in the IWC’s decision making processes.

·         While debates can be robust the IWC is resilient and continues to deliver on its business of conservation and management.

·         I will move now to the second part of my intervention on the manner in which Japan’s proposition has been bought before us.

·         At IWC66, Japan introduced its proposal to commence informal discussions on the substantive policy differences between Commission members within the IWC. They called this process ‘The Way Forward’.

·         A number of Contracting Parties provided their views on a range of questions posed by Japan and these were provided on an informal, social media site, or, at the request of some members, were distributed in IWC circulars.

·         A little over three months ago Japan submitted their package – also called ‘The Way Forward’: A proposal to this organisation that is unmatched in its scale of ambition since the establishment of the moratorium on commercial whaling 30 years ago.

·         That ‘The Way Forward’ can, in one step, move so rapidly from an informal consultation process to the package Japan presents to us today raises serious questions about the intent of this package and how we can be realistically expected to deal with it.

·         Many of us in this room can recall the lengthy and difficult negotiation process on the Future of the IWC; a process that, despite serious engagement from many IWC members, ended without an outcome that addressed the differences in views on whaling.

·         At the heart of The Future of the IWC was an intent to see if a compromise could be struck between those who sought to resume commercial whaling and those who wished to conserve the world’s whales without the threats of commercial whaling and focus on the many new threats whales and dolphins now face.

·         No compromise proposal was ever agreed.

·         Winding forward nearly ten years and we are presented with a hugely ambitious proposal that seeks to resume commercial whaling; a proposal that presents no element of compromise and a proposal that three months ago took members of the Commission by complete surprise.

·         Despite all this we are asked to accept this proposal by consensus and in its entirety.

·         Not only does such an approach suggest an unwillingness to engage in the type of good faith negotiations we have seen in delivering the ASW Schedule Amendment, but [as we have heard from other speakers] the proposal itself contains so many procedural and legal ambiguities that – irrespective of views on whaling – there is no appropriate mechanism to resolve these within the timeline and with what appears to be largely an ‘all or nothing’ approach we have heard from Japan.

·         Chair, given the stark and uncompromising ambition of this proposal and the manner and rate in which it has been presented to the Commission it is hard to avoid the difficult conclusion that the proposal has been designed and bought forward with the intent and in the clear knowledge it will fail.

·         If such a conclusion is valid, it is not for me to speculate as to why this might be the case.

·         However, I do wish to be clear on what narrative may arise from the discussions on Japan’s proposal if this is the case.  

·         If this proposal fails it is likely that the failure will be as much based on the manner in which the proposal was delivered to the Commission, its legal irregularities and the unworkable procedural changes it proposed as on differences in fundamental positions on commercial whaling.

·         The IWC is functional; it has agreed and workable decision making procedures, it is quite appropriately reviewing its governance arrangements and its decisions reflect the balance of views of the 89 Parties to this Convention.

·         Its Sub-Committees are of the highest international standard and the Commission continues to deliver important and effective outcomes on the conservation and management of whales.

·         Not all Parties can achieve their own primary objectives; we only need to reflect on the patience and tenacity of the proponents of the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary who have failed to see their proposal adopted after 20 years of efforts.

·         But – like most other members, they stand by the Convention’s rules and procedures and don’t seek to change them, they continue to work constructively on the broader work of the Commission and attempt to shape their sanctuary proposal to gain greater support from Contracting Parties.

·         Japan’s desires to resume commercial whaling have also been clearly stated for a long time – and efforts to convince the Commission to support their ambition have failed – in our view for sound scientific and policy-related reasons.

·         However Japan chooses to respond to the results of the Commission’s consideration of ‘The Way Forward’ any narrative that suggests it failed due to dysfunction in the IWC or that there is anything wrong with the manner in which Contracting Parties exercise their legitimate rights to vote according to their own well found views will find little plausible support.

2018 International Whaling Commission 67 Day 3

The day is cold and rainy.

In the great IWC hall we open with consideration of the 'bundle' of proposals related to aboriginal subsistence whaling. A revised version appeared at 6pm yesterday; just within the time-limit. The changes include a commitment from Russia to improve the welfare of its hunts.

Statements of support follow from many, statements of concern from some Latin American countries and then the USA, on the behalf of all the proponents, calls for a vote. The bundle receives the necessary 3/4 and there are some interesting abstentions. 

58 member states supported, seven opposed, and four abstained. (The screen above lacks one vote as the credentials for one country arrived during the voting process!)

I very much suspect this is an historic change in how the IWC works and direct readers to the commentary from the Spongs (see link below).

We move on to issues affecting the health and status of cetaceans. Various reports are presented and endorsed and we move to a resolution on advancing the Commission’s work on the role of cetaceans in the ecosystem functioning. It is adopted with 40 in favor, 23 opposing, with seven abstentions.

Resolution result - featuring Sue Fisher's hands

Delegates next adopted, by consensus, a resolution on addressing ghost gear and entanglements, after the addition of language stating that the resolution should not duplicate work of other organizations.

A small addition

In the discussion of the IWC's Bycatch Mitigation Initiative that follows, generous donations were made by Belgium, the UK and a consortium of NGOs which should help to keep this vitally important new initiative alive.

The day went on rather late with initial discussions of Brazil's 'Florianopolis Declaration' and Japan's 'Future of the IWC' package. We shall come back to both tomorrow. 

As we move towards discussion of Japan's proposals ' HERE is a short story in the Japanese press.

And HERE the Spongs describe day 3

(I am not responsible for the content of other sources.)

The spokesman for Japan

Argentina

Niki Ebtrup

Aimee Lesley of WWF

2018 International Whaling Commission 67 Day 2

Day two moves swiftly to a vote, followed by long presentations and many many interventions!

The Brazilian Commissioner carefully makes the case for the SAWS

First the case for the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary (SAWS) is made by the lead proponent, our host Brazil.

Then various countries take the floor to support or oppose. How they react is rather predictable. The EU and Latin countries express support. Many, mainly developing, countries do not and the countries presently conducting commercial whaling also express their distaste for the sanctuary.

Eventually a vote is called and proceeds by roll-call; the first time that the new Executive Secretary has had to do this. The microphones break down part way through but a hand held microphone saved the day... but not the sanctuary.

Yes 39, No 25, Abs 3, N/P 3 - failed by 9 votes.The proposal needed 3/4 of those voting to be in favour.

Here's the final voting screen. A few odd abstentions and missing players.


Aboriginal issues are next opened up. The relevant reports are read and approved. Then representatives of the USA, Russian, Greenland and St Vincent and the Grenadines native peoples and citizens - who are all asking for their quotas to be renewed - make presentations.

Slide from Greenland presentation

and another

and one more.

Discussion follows. Some countries are simply supportive; others have concerns and it is pretty clear that further work will need to be done to improve the package of proposals if it has any chance of consensus.

Great and more fulsome reporting HERE from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Commentary from the Spongs HERE.

And live streaming from the Commission HERE

NGO briefings are a little more copious today

Claire Bss of HSI who made an intervention on ASW

2018 International Whaling Commission 67 Day 1

A room awaits a meeting

Day 1 of IWC 67 begins with a slow careful explanation of procedures from the Commission Chair Jogi Morishita. Welcome speeches from Brazilian ministers follow and then we start to work through the agenda. The Scientific and Conservation Committee make their reports (in 45 and about 20 minutes, respectively). Resolutions are introduced but not discussed, except for the one concerning governance which is passed by consensus.

Brazil throws a party - a welcome reception in the evening.

A view from the front - the mighty USA delegation - the first two rows in the foreground
(I am actually in this shot over on the left)

A view from the back - The Commission Chair on the big screen

Some important contributions

Good blogging from IWC 67 from Paul and Helena Spong of Orcalab: HERE

Of course I accept no responsibility for what others say on their blogs

Man in a suit speaks to protesters outside the meeting place

Interesting article in the Telegraph HERE

2018 International Whaling Commission 67 - Day minus 1.

I am on the island of Florianopolis in the southern part of Brazil.

It is the evening before the opening of the 67th meeting of the IWC.

Some of my blog readers will know that I have previously reported in detail from such meetings. For technical reasons I cannot do so from this one. But I will share pictures from here, point at other sources of information and comment on any major developments.

I also note that there is live streaming from the Commission HERE. You would will (I believe) both be able to watch the main Commission meeting and hear recordings from each day.

If you want to know what I think about the main issues please go HERE

The meeting is being held in a massive beach resort - seen here in today's winter sun this afternoon.

And a few protesters have now collected outside.

An indignant Brazilian Cuckoo watches over all of us.

Finding one of the world's rarest dolphins

Credit: Projeto Toninhas / UNIVILLE

Another day and on the trail of another new species - This is Sao Francisco City in Brazil: very pretty and quite old and the entrance to Babitonga Bay.

Hundreds of cormorants roosting like black weird fruit - more of them later.

One of many small islands in the Bay

A tiny distant fin - a sighting of one of the 50 or go genetically -distinct frnaciscana
dolphins that live in the Bay

Two individuals - possibly a mother and calf

A passing tourist boat - seemingly oblivious to the dolphins

A low flying line of cormorants stretching across the bay.

A dolphin of a different kind!

Sotalia

Dr Marta Cramer - leading authority on the frnaciscana and yours truly

Our boat

A Brazilian lap wing

Back to port

Two leading ladies of Brazilian dolphin research - left, Dra Camila Domit and right, Dra Marta Cremer
(also my host on this wonder boat trip and the kind supplier of the excellent franciscana images below and at the top of the blog, which were taken by her team during our trip)

Credit Projeto Toninhas / UNIVILLE

Credit: Projeto Toninhas / UNIVILLE