Author - CEO

Epilogue: Farewell Funchal.

Funchal Harbour

Well, the IWC 61 delegates have now left all the meeting halls that we came to know so well. All the small group meetings and co-ordinations have finally ended. (Many European delegates are probably lonely now without someone to coordinate with and wondering how to make decisions outside a co-ordination). The emails have slowed and the Skype alerts have stopped popping up on our screens; no one is asking any more ‘what exactly happen there’, can you explain what Hogarth actually meant’ or things like that. Planes are carrying people back around the world to some 85 different countries, although it should be noted that a fair few are also staying on for a least a little holiday. 

So it is that Team WDCS leaves Madeira but you cannot live in a place for a month without forming some opinion of it. This is true even if you are only venturing out occasionally from the IWC meeting fortress (an enchanted place that emerges somewhere on the planet every year, then goes about its arcane business before disappearing again some weeks later). But I don’t think we can claim to have an opinion of Madeira in total, only Funchal its capital; a warm city of leafy avenues and flowery parks. A place where orange tiled roofs dominate the city slopes and tourists wade slowly through the warm air and falling petals as if locked in a timeless dream. We liked the city. It was safe and fun and, once we have discovered that the food in the supermarket was a quarter (or less) what it cost in the cafes and restaurants, we were more than happy.  

However, crossing the city, bordering it and linking city to airport and town to town are a series of mighty carriageways, something that visitors of just a few years ago would not have recognized. European money has changed the face of Funchal; tunnels pump motorcars through mountains and bridges vault them swiftly over ravines; and the pace of life has speeded up. The big and beautiful botanical garden which hangs on a hillside two cable car journeys from the shore is now complete with a background of less than beautiful traffic noise.

Blandy’s Story Centre Museum in the old town, shows us a more gentile time. The old Pathe Pictorial reels that play here in constant loops show us the period when mass tourism had just started but was constrained because the tourists could only arrive by boat or, for one short glorious period, an air-boat that set off from Southampton and landed in Funchal Bay. (The airport did not arrive until 1964, with its runway extended out over the sea on pillars in 2000.)

Tourists in the 30s, 40s and 50, enjoyed simple pleasures: the warm air and sea breezes (a good combination for chest ailments); a certain quality of service; refreshing walks in the mountains; and being carried around in hammocks by strapping young men. We are not sure when the ‘Funchal slalom’ arrived – the fast slide down a cobbled track in a wicker armchair on rails (with two 'gondoliers' in attendance) – but it seems to have long been popular and is still going strong.

Also still going strong is a certain elegance and remoteness from the faster moving 21^st centaury. Waiters – even in the cheaper places – still dress smartly for their role and take care to arrange their tables just-so. Indeed many tourists are surprised when their own haphazard rearrangements of tables (or even just the condiments) are swiftly returned to their correct (starting) position by a stern waiter.

Madeira has no beaches. Hence lidos have been built in various parts of town, where escalators take lazy tourists down to concrete platforms and pools at sea-level. The old films at Blandy’s museum show ladies in the 50s being super-excited about these opportunities to toast themselves in the sun and parading out to sea in remarkably pointy bikinis (have ladies changed shape in recent decades – I think we should be told).

However, the ancient elegance and simple pleasures of Funchal and Madeira may be threatened. In combination with the newly busy roads comes talk of trying to attract a new type of tourists – the young! Attractions could include further night clubs and white-water rafting. Most significantly comes the notion of making artificial beaches.

You have to speculate that the reason why Madeira is unlike so many other warm European sea-side resorts and not buried under piles of youngsters doing a good impression of the US frantic and booze-fuelled spring-break phenomena, is because it has, so far, no beaches where the young can sleep-it all off. No beaches means no beach-parties, surfing or sleep-overs in the warm sand.

Perhaps the Madeiran authorities need to think about this a little before the developments evolve themselves. The island has a certain old-worldy charm and is certainly dominated by the TOSAs (Tourists of a Senior Age), but perhaps this is not a bad thing. They need somewhere to go and they bring money with them. 

Development may also be an issue for the whales and dolphins that currently come so close to shore. For the sperm whales this is their breeding grounds, for the Bryde’s part of their range, and the sharp topography of the islands makes the waters highly productive. These waters, like those around the Azores seem to be rearing and feeding grounds.

And, as acknowledged during the IWC plenary, whale watching has been developing slowly here and can generally be welcomed. It seems to be mainly well conducted, but here, as in other seaside resorts, there is certainly scope for ‘too much of a good thing’. The old TOSAs don’t like fast moving boats too much, but the youngsters do. More and faster leisure boats, including whale watching craft, may come into play. In fact this is already happening and one afternoon we witnessed the domination of the main shore area by the swift zig-zagging of a small group of seemingly jet-propelled wet bikes. Sometimes know by the trade name ‘jet skis’ these motor-bikes-of-the-sea can reach speeds of up to 80 miles per hour. They can also corral and chase dolphins, as has been shown elsewhere.

St Maria - under sail.

So Funchal/Madeira – we thank you for being a benign and enjoyable place to stay but urge you to take care in your development. Cherish the TOSAs (we all get there eventually) and please keep those pretty little spotted dolphin calves safe.

Finally a list

We thought it might be of interest to readers here just to mention some of the good and bad things that we have enjoyed or not enjoyed during our stay.

Many of us have enjoyed:

Whale (and dolphin watching), although some of us were a little concerned at times that the boats came close to pursuing the animals

Being propelled down a steep hill in a wicker arm chair pushed over cobbles on skies

The local fortified wine and fine cakes (both of which are orders of magnitude cheaper in the supermarkets than in the restaurants)

Simply staring out to sea hoping a whale or dolphin will come by (and sometimes they did)

The colourful lizards (especially the big green ones); the drifts of pigeons over the roof tops and the singing blackbirds.

The extraordinary and huge firework displays every Saturday night (a good half an hour of pyrotechnical splendour with a different national theme – Italy being better than Germany this year)

The company of many like-minded friends.

Saturday Fireworks at Funchal

A few of us have enjoyed:

High tea at Reid’s Hotel (the oldest on the island) with a wonderful view over the main bay of Funchal

The local delicacy of Scabbard fish with banana - a delicate and unique conbition of flavours that, despite initial fears, really seems to work. (However none of us enjoyed meeting the scabbard fish – a true monster of the deep with huge eyes and a mass of oddly protruding teeth. Indeed the animal is so ugly that reproduction is only possible in the deep sea where they cannot see each other.)

Seeing the whale watching galleon (a replica of the Santa Maria which first brought Columbus to the island) coming around the point under full sails, briefly transporting us to another time. 

Spotted dolphins in Funchal Bay

Many of us did not enjoy:

Getting sunburnt (especially around the ears)

The mosquitoes (not numerous but potent killers of sleep and biters of fingers and toes)

Being propelled down a steep hill in a wicker arm chair pushed over cobbles on skies

One of us really did not like:

Having the ancient translation headset earphones disintegrate covering us (and the ears again) in a sooty-gluey substance that cannot be removed from shirts

And goodbye.

Some of you may be wondering what this resolution agreed during the meeting says.

It was submitted by USA and Norway jointly and has as a title: Consensus Resolution on Climate Change and Cetaceans. In its preamble the resolution recognises the work done by the IWC before on environmental threats and welcomes the report of the climate change workshop held in Costa Rica in February 2009 and the IWC’s workshop on cetaceans and climate change held the same month.

Then it says:

“Concerned that, as stated by the IWC SC workshop “climate-related changes will impact negatively on at least some species and populations, especially those with small and/or restricted ranges, those already impacted by other human activities and those in environments subject to most rapid change… For these species there is a real potential for elevated risks of extinction.

The Commission therefore:

ENDORSES the outcome of the climate change workshop and associatedrecommendations of the Scientific Committee given in IWC/61/Rep1, including the need to expand the current international multi-disciplinary efforts and collaborative work with other relevant bodies;

REQUESTS Contracting Governments to incorporate climate change considerations into existing conservation and management plans;

DIRECTS the Scientific Committee to continue its work on studies of climate change and the impacts of other environmental changes on cetaceans, as appropriate;

CALLS on Contracting Governments, IGOs and NGOs to support the expansion of this important work;

REQUESTS the Secretariat to forward this resolution and the workshop report (SC/61/Rep 4) to relevant bodies and meetings including inter alia the World Climate Conference, the UNFCCC and the IPCC in time for upcoming meetings; and

APPEALS to all Contracting Governments to take urgent actions to reduce the rate and extent of climate change.

It seems the outgoing IWC Chairman and President Bush appointee to lead the USA's defense of its whaling interests, sorry whales, - Dr William Hogarth, cannot resist having once last go at trying to get a resumption of commercial whaling.

In speaking to the BBC’s Richard Black at the end of the IWC meeting in Portugal he is quoted as saying;

"I'll probably get in trouble for making this statement, but I am probably convinced right now that there would be less whales killed if we didn't have the commercial moratorium," he told BBC News immediately after the meeting ended.
   
His argument is that Japan's hunts, conducted under a clause in the whaling convention that gives any country the right to hunt as many whales as it wants for scientific research, are essentially unregulated.

His words of course serve to encourage the existing whalers who are hanging on by their fingertips, and has been widely reported in Iceland, for example, as a reason to keep going with their diminishing industrial whaling. By the way Iceland adds, whilst it agrees that the moratorium should fall its never going to agree to Dr. Hogarth’s counter points of no trade, goodness no.

Despite what Dr Hogarth says, the moratorium has meant that whales have been given a chance. The whaling industry has been held at bay, with Japanese commercial companies giving in the towel and handing it all over to the government to run and the one coastal whaling company left only able to do so because of subsidies and ‘scientific whaling’ contracts - whilst they have had to resort to selling whale meat for pet food to make ends meet.

Norway has had a disastrous year, having to end its hunt because of a lack of demand, and Iceland's Hvalur and its associated companies are loosing fish market share in Europe as I write. And, for the first time the international community is beginning to wake up to the fact that not every claim in the name of an Inuit cause for more whales is as legitimate as another.

No, I think the moratorium has been a good thing and it will mean an eventual end to this practice. It's time for the IWC to turn to those peoples that have at least a legitimate claim for hunting whales, and the USA and others need be able to tell the difference between these claims. Its time the IWC worked out what it means when it says its supports Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW). A few definitions might be a good start.

Leadership in such a fora as the IWC does not mean giving into everyone, it means deciding what is right for the 21st Century and fighting for those principles. So maybe its time for the moratorium to go, but only to be replaced a full ban on commercial whaling once and for all - and maybe its time for the USA to take up that challenge, not quietly but openly and with conviction.

There was a passing of the torch at the IWC this year in the US delegation. Now the new guard has to shake off the past few years and rise to the challenge of helping to end commercial once and for all

‘Exposing your Smalls in public’.

So where were we – ah yes in the gloom of a vast meeting chamber of a big international meeting room where ‘nothing is decided until everything is decided’ … or possibly just ‘nothing is decided’.

As we dream of freedom we are still reviewing that part of the Scientific Committee report that deals with the smaller cetaceans – a disputed part of the IWC canon of work because the pro-whaling nations do not accept that that IWC has competency for these species.

Finland now takes the floor and rather bravely highlights the Japanese catches of, for example and in particular, Dall’s porpoises. We noted last year, says the commissioner, new abundance estimates which went into unsurveyed areas and then Japan said it was looking at new management approaches such as potential biological removals to manage these takes. He adds that the scientific committee has advised that catch limits should be much lower. He asks Japan what progress has been made.

However, before they can answer, St Vincent and the Grenadines predictably questions the authority of the IWC to look at small cetaceans.

Italy chimes in with the notion that the work of the Scientific Committee’s sub committee on smalls is paramount and allows us to achieve co-ordinations. [I think we go that right.]

The UK shyly (and looking a little battered today) thanks the Scientific Committee chair for its work on smalls and notes that it maintains its concerns on Dall’s porpoises.

Ireland then makes a long, detailed, bold and wise intervention on smalls. The gist of which is to encourage this work to continue and highlight concerns on the boto (the Amazon river dolphin) and note that they too are concerned about the Dall’s porpoises. And they thank Australia for its generous contribution to the Small Cetaceans fund [one of the few thanks that Australia gets this meeting].

Japan now takes the floor and mildly dismisses the Commission - we will talk about this in the ongoing IWC negotiations; if you need more information please speak to us OUTSIDE of the IWC says the Alternate Commissioner. [There could be a long queue in the coffee break if there is one.]

France is concerned about the situation of the vaquita.

Korea comments that small cetaceans are outside the competence of IWC and notes that some 340 finless porpoises caught in a fishery in the Korean Straights are not a directed take. They are undertaking research on this.

Luxembourg very elegantly congratulates the SC on its excellent work on small cetaceans. Every year we speak about Dall’s and we must take measures to address this he adds in French.


Mexico loses his mind

Mexico suddenly breaks into the debate. Sorry to speak again says the distinguished Commissioner. He is having technical difficulties. ‘We need electricity to run the computer, and I don’t have any. Since I don’t have memory any more I need my computer to make interventions but somehow he recalls something to say and he thanks the US for their support for the vaquita.

St Vincent and the Grenadines is very concerned about the distinguished commissioner from Ireland commenting on management. This matter should not be part of the group.

The Chairman himself now mildly intervenes and reminds the Commission that this is one of the 33 issues which are part of the ongoing IWC negotiation on the future of the IWC and in doing so encourages the Parties to move on.

But Carmen the Spanish Comissioner still takes to the floor – it is important for this work [on smalls] to continue she comments.

[And so ‘smalls’ is finished for this year and many fine recommendations in the report of the Scientific Committee have been agreed.]

We move on to the Scientific Committee report on its views on its future. Arne Bjorge resplendent in silver beard and red bow tie tells us about the new Scientific Committee handbook [perhaps this will explain to us the differing roles of the Head of Science and the Chair of Science].

[The US is kneeling at the feet of the UK towards the back of the room (is this a coordination or more lobbying?). The US Commissioner nominate gustures wildly and points at a piece of green paper that can only be the Greenland proposal.]

There are no comments on the handbook or related matters and Arne ploughs on. We touch on surveys in Antarctica and thanks to Japan for supporting the SOWER surveys.

The appointment of a new Vice Chair for the Scientific Committee is noted: Kitikarto of Japan has been appointed.

The next chair of the SC is Debbie Palka of US as Arne, having served a record 4 years is retiring. He gets a round of applause and fiddles with his bowtie and smiles from the big screens.

The Australian Scientist notes that Arne got more excited as he moved to the end of his delivery of the Scientific Committee speech. He notes that Arne has been an excellent chair including taking on chairing of very difficult sub committees personally.

Mexico also thanks Arne; as does the US. Their acting Commissioner notes Arne was once his deputy. He says I don’t think people realise how difficult this role is; buy him a cool drink.

Then we bounce back to the report of the Conservation Committee reports on Ship Strikes: Belgium notes the new database.

UK very eloquently congratulates the Conservation Committee for its work and praises Australia for its major contribution to the work of the Conservation Committee [another of those rare thank-yous to our antipodean friends] and reports back to the plenary on the small small cetacean workshop on climate change which they have been trying to fund raise for in the background of the great humpback non-debate.

They note that thanks to the generosity of Australia, WWF, Austria, the US and WDCS there is enough in the kitty for the small small workshop to happen – although we have not quite reached to total sought, so further contributions are welcomed.

Luxembourg associates with the UK and agrees that the small small workshop is important and wishes it well.

Under the agenda item ‘catches from non-member nations’, nothing happens. [Not a word about the expanded bowhead hunt in the ex-IWC member nation Canada.]

Similarly the report of the infractions committee which notes the accidental [and illegal] take of a bowhead calf by the Alaskan Inupiat people passes without comment.

[It is late. It is hot. Commissioners are tired and the Chair is keen to finish.]


Achieving the Practical Installation of NGOs


The report from the IWC’s Finance and Admin Committee passes with little comment. We note that Commissioners are not keen to have their names and email addresses on the IWC website in case anyone contacts them [or spams them as one NGO did last year by accident]. No, Commissioners would much rather have small private meetings and not be disturbed by the rest of the world.

There is some discussion about trying to make the IWC carbon neutral. Fat chance if we keep having large international meetings.

St Vincent and the Grenadines is concerned about the fees that have to be paid to allow it to attend the IWC and blesses the meeting with a long list of countries that pay less than it does.
NGO fees for attendance are noted (many hundred of pounds for the use of an uncomfortable chair).

Australia then takes to the floor to explain that the 1.5 million Australian dollars that it is donating to the IWC will be donated via the existing IWC payments structure.

[By the way we are now writing this at midday in WDCS HQ on Friday and the Children are still singing outside – four hours of singing and cheering. What energy!]

We move to the issue of who will replace Bill Hogarth as the new Chairman of the IWC. Sir Geoffrey of New Zealand is waving his flag with enthusiasm. He booms out that he would like to nominate Christain Maquiera of Chile. And Anthony Liverpool of Antigua of Barbuda is made Vice Chair. There is a heady outbreak of applause.

Portugal becomes chair of the IWC Advisory Committee, another group that meets in private, but we are pleased with his appointment as the Portuguese Commissioner is kind and wise.

The Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee is now Australia. [Might this explain why they were so quiet this year – they needed to gain support for this position? We can only widely speculate and peak through the cracks behind closed doors.]

The Chilean Commissioner Snr Maquiera now speaks to thank the Commission for the great honour it does him in making him the Chairman. He says that this is in recognition of the hard work and trajectory of the Latin Countries here. He thanks the outgoing chair for his leadership.

[more applause]

Maquiera does not support the status quo. He notes that 2010 is the UN Year of Biodiversity. He says he intends to take a hard look at the IWC and how it works.

Japan [the outgoing vice chair of the Commission] reminds us of normalization [which we have heard surprisingly little of at this meeting] and the [infamous] St Kits and Nevis declaration which dedicated us to normalizing the IWC [and made various ridiculous statesments about food security, but he does not say this.] He refers to Sir Geoffrey’s earlier mountaineering metaphors [will someone please explain to the scribe sometime whether Sir G is playing IWC bingo ; trying to mention climbing mountains as often as possible in international meetings] and the Japanese Commissioner recalling the bottle of Mount Difficulty wine offered by New Zealand, now offers himself Mount Compromise.

We move through a few administrative matters and then suddenly the US Commissioner nominate pops up to ask if we could decide here and now if the timing of the Scientific Committee relative to the Commission can be changed before the next annual meeting.

This is an issue because the Committee meets just before the Commission and this gives very little time for anyone to read and understand [and in some cases translate] its many pages of findings before they are discussed.

Up on the stage the outgoing chair of the commission and the Secretary turn bleary eyes towards the US Commissioner Nominate. No they say. We have to come back to this.

We move to the issue of where the IWC will meet next. Morocco [sadly without the use of a power point – we always enjoy the welcome videos] notes that it is only 700 miles from Madeira and offers to host.

But before this can be accepted France starts to ask if the NGOs could perhaps get better value for money for their large fee but Chairman Bill swivels around in his chair to stop this line of discussion until we have agreed our next venue.

Guinea and some others speak up to support Morocco. [WDCS dreams of a cool tent in an oasis at the base of some huge hill with the meeting venue on top of it.]

It is agreed.

Madam Secretary then tells us that she is sorry, but that she has worked out what the schedule might be for next years’ meeting as we are finishing so swiftly [to avoid any unnecessary discussion here of matters of controversy or substance – but she does not say this]. But the plan for next year will look much like this one’s.

France finally gets to make his NGO-related comment. He says that we need to think about their ‘practical installation’. They should be given

i. [proper] speaking rights; and
ii. tables

Many NGOs at the back of the room balanced on uncomfortable chairs with laptops cooking their genitals, wrapped in cables and tripping over each others’ bags gently clap. As do some delegates under the table until they are admonished by their Commissioners.

[The NGOs pay £500 for their first delegates and then £250 more for each other person coming as part of their delegation. And for this they get a badge and the aforementioned chair, but no reliable source of electricity and no table. In the bad old days they rarely got access to water either but that seems to have improved and at this meeting they get wonderful pastries, cakes, fruit and occasional excursions into the sunshine too.]

No one associates with France and we move on.

We move to the final actions….

Portugal says good bye to us all. The US thanks him. Many people thank Chairman Bill.

He makes his concluding remarks – this includes thanking the US whale team including Deputy Doug. He refers back to the Russian intervention on small groups in smoking pools and then ‘takes us on a train’ ride that has taken him from Cambridge to London and on to Madeira…

Then [quite remarkably] he expresses his opposition to the Commission ‘holding natives hostage’. [Is this a reference to Greenland or the fact that Japan can block the quota for the US native hunters. Or perhaps both.]

Then he thanks Nicky Grandy [Madam Secretary] and says we must hitch up our goats and get going.

He receives a standing ovation. And the meeting is closed.

The hoards of secretariat staff who have been waiting anxiously in the wings now invade the magma chamber [as they do at the end of every commission meeting] to collect the flags of all the nations before they can be nicked.

And so IWC 61 ends with a whimper not a bang. The fate of humpbacks in Greenland is not resolved but, frankly, looks bleak.

Many readers will have noticed that WDCS has strongly opposed this addition to the Greenland hunts and we have received much criticism for this position (as have certain delegations) on the grounds of opposing the legitimate needs of native peoples. This is not correct. WDCS does not oppose properly regulated ASW that meets a genuine nutritional subsistence need of indigenous people and conforms to the requirements of the IWC. There are many problems with this humpback proposal and Greenland’s whaling in general that we will not detail here, but by deferring a decision at this meeting and transferring the politics a few months ahead to another meeting, the IWC is making itself look even more dysfunctional.

More positively as we close the web blog (and pictures are still to follow) as ever the scribe thanks the editor; and this year Team WSPA who helped keep the blog on line [thank you Jo] and Team WDCS amused.

The biggest thank you this year goes to the UK delegation who, under difficult circumstances, magnificently championed the humpbacks and withstood huge (inappropriate) pressure from many countries that should have been their allies.

We thank all our colleagues in our NGO sister organizations all over the world, for all their efforts, friendship and solidarity. It was wonderful to see the return of some old friends this year, but we greatly missed a couple of beloved members of the usual WDCS team. But you were with us in spirit and always on the end of a skype-chat. Kate, you are a marvel. Please now get some sleep! And finally, D.J – friend, coordinator, tour-operator and saver of local dogs - you rock!

Courages mes braves and good bye.

Firstly, we want to extend our thanks to all of you who were able to support us in this crucial stage of the campaign to stop whaling. We want to further thank the thousands of you who were able to grab a few seconds and send a protest email during this last week of battling to protect the whales.

Your actions directly affected the meeting and without your help, Humpbacks would have been added to the number of whales dying this week.

As the WDCS team packs up at the meeting on Madeira, Portugal the IWC comes to an end one day earlier then scheduled.

Whilst there was some real progress on issues such as an increased understanding of the impact of climate change on whales and dolphins (due in no small part to the pivotal role of Mark Simmonds, WDCS’s Director of Science), some of the other pressing issues were avoided by a Commission seeking to avoid controversy at all costs:

•    A decision on the Danish proposal to hunt 10 humpback whales a year was postponed to an intersessional meeting to be held later this year.
•    Norwegian and Icelandic whaling has not even been addressed at this year's annual meeting.
•    No action has been taken to strongly condemn the ongoing, escalating trade in whale meat.

In many ways, in seeking to avoid ‘controversy’ the IWC has missed an opportunity to address the so-called ‘stalemate’ at the IWC, which was actually deepened with the inability to come to a decision on the Danish humpback proposal. The culture of avoiding clear decisions, including by voting if necessary, won’t resolve the perceived problems. Standing up for whales being protected means also being prepared for tough negotiations and decisions. Not conclusively resolving the humpback-whaling request by Denmark has to be seen as a big mistake.
 
As conservationists we shall be encouraging the USA to take another look at its position on the Greenland issue and we have to address the fact that the European Union was compromised by its perceived need to negotiate on almost everything. This was despite the strong efforts by the UK and Germany, as well as Belgium and Luxembourg, who tried to uphold the European stand against increasing whaling activities.

Our thanks go to these countries for being true advocates for the whales and we look forward to a new US position as the Obama team takes over the leadership of the US delegation for the coming years.  As mentioned above, WDCS is pleased that climate change was recognized by consensus to represent a growing threat to whales, and we are appreciative of US efforts on that front, at least.

We shall update the web with further thoughts over the next few hours and days, but we wanted to let you know that the fight goes on.

So, again, - our thanks to all of you, for your support, help and commitment to this issue.

We move to the highly controversial topic of whale watching (WW).

Arne Bjorge gives us his nice report from the Scientific Committee on this noting that a long term experiment on whale watching is due to commence.

UK (a little hoarse) - Chairman we congratulate the WW Subcommittee on its work this year and note that some of us have now been here for sometime many of us have been able to enjoy the excellent opportunities available here to see whales and dolphins from this beautiful island.

We note from a very helpful and thorough paper provided to the Scientific Committee this year that whale watching in Madeira is focused near to where we now sit. In fact you can walk from here and in less than half an hour be out amongst the whales and dolphins. Some 58,000 people take part in whale watching in Madeira each year; it involves 12 boats (including some rather beautiful large catamarans); is slowly growing; and it is worth some 1,5 million euros.

We note that the current guidelines will be underpinned shortly by legislation that will soon come before the Island government. The IWC Scientific Committee has repeatedly told us as Dr Bjorge has just reminded us that guidelines are most effective with legislatory backing and so we commend such a move.

Chairman, the people of Britain both at home, and here in their legions on holiday and in many other places around the world enjoy their whales alive. Well-managed whale watching can be regarded as a sustainable use of these animals and a source of usually low impact enjoyment.

Whales are not only a global resource; they are creatures of great splendour and awe – generators of inspiration and respect for nature, charismatic symbols of our global environment; let us follow the example set here in Madeira – once itself the center of a very major whaling industry – and move to a more harmonious relationship with them.

The German Invisible Porpoise

Many others join in to celebrate whale watching.

The distinguished commissioner from Mexico notes wisely that the carrying capacity of whale watching is the last aspect that we need to quantify to ensure sustainability.

Argentina eloquently congratulates the scientific committee on its work. Notes the socio-economic importance of WW in Patagonia and identifies some ongoing initiatives in his region.

The Chair next calls on Norway to speak.

No he says it is a mistake he really does not want to speak on this matter.

Germany regrets that it only has porpoises in its waters and notes that they are mainly invisible. But agrees that WW needs to be regulated.

Costa Rica congratulates IFAW on its new report on WW around the world.

After a while we come to St Kitts and Nevis. He is worried about who gets the priority – whalers or whale watchers. We need to consider who is benefiting from this use – consumptive or non-consumptive. If the WW industry is generating over 2 billion dollars where is it going. He is interested in compensation. Apparently the developing countries are getting almost nothing.

Iceland is happy to report that whaling and WW co-exitist happily side by side.

Guinea thinks that the benefit must go to the poor.

Belgium commends the work of the Scientific Committee (SC)_ They think that as WW management is on the agenda of the Conservation Committee (CC), the two bodies are now complimenting each other. (So the SC compliments the CC on WW.)

Monaco - I associate with many countries on the immense value of renewable resources and commend the work of the SC. I pick up comments from the respected delegate from St Kitts. We should pay attention to the vast economic returns from this new industry. The nice thing about whales is that when they are alive we can benefit from them – we need to share and transfer knowledge about them in this case about whale watching inducytyu management. Poor countries could benefit from this.

Cameroon – how much do we have to invest – us the poor and developing contries – to start this industry. We have financial problems. How much does it cost. Is it worthwhile.

Korea is small and mountaneous, so coastal communities depend on fisheries – we have introduced whale watching with feasibility studies and public education but no industry has emerged. We observe that the value and benefit of whale watching varies from country to country and is not universal.

The UK - Chairman we congratulate the WW Subcommittee on its work this year and note that some of us have now been here for sometime many of us have been able to enjoy the excellent opportunities available here to see whales and dolphins from this beautiful island. We note from a very helpful and thorough paper provided to the Scientific Committee this year that whale watching in Madeira is focused near to where we now sit. In fact you can walk from here and in less than half an hour be out amongst the whales and dolphins. Some 58,000 people take part in whale watching in Madeira each year; it involves 12 boats (including some rather beautiful large catamarans); is slowly growing; and it is worth some 1,5 million euros.

We note that the current guidelines will be underpinned shortly by legislation that will soon come before the Island government. The IWC Scientific Committee has repeatedly told us as Dr Bjorge has just reminded us that guidelines are most effective with legislatory backing and so we commend such a move.

Chairman, the people of Britain both at home, and here in their legions on holiday and in many other places around the world enjoy their whales alive. Well-managed whale watching can be regarded as a sustainable use of these animals and a source of usually low impact enjoyment.

Whales are not only a global resource; they are creatures of great splendour and awe – generators of inspiration and respect for nature, charismatic symbols of our global environment; let us follow the example set here in Madeira – once itself the center of a very major whaling industry – and move to a more harmonious relationship with them.

Lunch beckons.

Many European countries rush off to coordinate. Many do not eat and the lack of food starts to affect their minds.

Seemingly without any real pause we are back in the room with the freaky huge overhead air ducts and swirling carpet.

Korea is loudly presently the rest of the report from the Conservation Committee. He reveals that the CC is now planning to look at whale watching. This causes great excitement

The CC report also covers Stinky whales (see earlier); Ship strikes (and how to address them); and whale watching (WW) – the key aspect of this being setting up a new work area within the CC on WW.

The Australian Minister, Garret makes a strong speech on whale watching noting that some 13,200 are employed worldwide. New IFAW report – when well managed totally sustainable. It should not put cetaceans at risk through increased interactions – we expected maximized oppoertnities and minimized risks. $ Australia 25,000 will go to a workshop.

South Africa tells us a little about poverty in his country and the importance of WW there. Brazil speaks of the honorable and [we think he says] extraordinary minister for Australia and is grateful for their [major financial] contribution to the work of the conservation committee.

Many Latin American countries speak to support the initiave and congratulate each other on related issues. Argentina (the eloquent alternate commissioner) offers to host a key meeting.


Bill takes Tea with the Porpoises.

The Chairman breaks in to say that in his previous job he used to get lots of reports of people chasing porpoises. Porpoises come by his Florida house every afternoon when he has drinks (and he sees manatees).

St Lucia wants to see that no undue pressure is put on these animals as they recover from long years of abuse. [Are we still speaking of whale watching?] The information in the Australian document is incorrect. WW in St Lucia has increased by 77% it suggests and she goes on to detail some problems with the document. [Some time passes. What did the EU just coordinate about?]

India suports whale watching but it needs to be safe for whale and whale watchers.

We move to another agenda item. Special Permit [aka Scientific] whaling. Arne takes us through the Scientific Committee report on this:

Special permit whaling

Major focus of committee this year was the results of specialist workshop to look at the results of JARPN II programme.


Objectives were to review first six years of JARPN program and review future plans for meeting the objectives and evaluate the techniques used.


There was a review of work undertaken: tremendous amount of scientific work but difficulty in accessing programme progress against long term objectives. Lack of short term objectives was considered a weakness of the programme. Ultimate goal of providing species management advice is a major task and will take more time.


Further analysis needs to be undertaken. Panel noted modelling work but models are not at a stage to draw even general conclusions never mind contribute to management advice. More time needs to be spent on the modelling. Also notes that some data comes from sperm whales which are of no use to the modelling study.


Panel acknowledged general difficulties with studies of stock structure.


Issue of lethal and non-lethal research remains controversial inside and outside of IWC. However comments of panel are just of a scientific data.


Sample size and design – without a full analysis it won’t be possible to provide advice on this.

Comments from the floor:


Monaco –severely questions the need for this science and the why did you kill all these whales, we still don’t have the answer to this. He is especially concerned about the killing of sperm whales for no reason.


Australia – number of points; share with Monaco’s concerns and that there have been considerable difficulties in obtaining this report in enough time to go through it. Fundamental questions have not been answered such as why is there a need for any sperm whales to be taken in JARPN hunts when they are not relevant? Can the scientific objectives be answered by non lethal techniques and do they need this many whales and what is the effect of populations? Commission is now left without advice on the issues of most serious concern. Where do we go from here? We need to find a way forward


India – definitely a need for refinement of research, especially this unnecessary lethal research


Sir Geoffrey – New Zealand’s position on scientific whaling is well known but we must emphasise this is an important issue for us and key if we want to progress in the future of the IWC discussions. We can acknowledge Japan’s decisions not to take humpbacks while diplomatic process is under way but also must highlight the need for answers to fundamental questions.


UK – Thanks scientific committee but the review needs to provide answers to all the questions we believe to be important. The UK is deeply concerned by the responses of reviewers to key questions. After 6 years and hundreds of dead whales, Japan still can’t provide evidence to justify its decision to kill all these whales. Japan also maintains its decision to take sperm whales even though they cannot justify this. Article 8 has been misused and this is undisputed evidence which highlights importance of bringing the programme under IWC control. Japan needs to show signs of addressing these issues. Abuse of article 8 must not continue - this has divided us for years. The UK is committed to take part in any discussions to resolve issue.


Mexico – There are many factors which have not been considered by the Japanese research and their claims for changes in abundance/distribution of minke whales. It needs to be clearly documented what could have been gained through non lethal means. The information to date is not reliable – group did not investigate all the factors to identify answers to the problems.


US – fully committed to resolving this which has been identified as a key issue as part of future of IWC discussions.


Switzerland – associates with Mexico


Ireland – also associates with others

South Africa – Associates itself with NZ, Ireland, US

Australia – also associates with the above. We have particular concerns regarding annex P [which defines the review process]. In Rome we had a number of questions including the need for independent reviewers on the panel and issue of transparency. There are still no satisfactory answers. We look forward to improve things. The work plan for Scientific Committee suggests a review of annex p and Australia supports that.


Korea – Special permit whales has more fundamental issues because it occurred after the whaling ban. We are committed to the objective and recognise importance of conservation but also sustainable use. When humans recognised usefulness of animals as food all the problems began but this must be about the right to be feeding and eating animals and respect for animals.


Luxembourg – we concur with New Zealand and others. Criteria of JARPN II has not been complied with, we urge them to adopt non lethal techniques


Germany – associate with comments of UK and Ireland


Portugal – highlight need to bring it in line with other international guidelines for lethal research, such as it should only take place when essential and when other methods have been tried.


Finland – associate with previous speakers


Chair reminds everyone that this is issue for small working group [on the future of the IWC] over the next year so would appreciate short interventions.

Spain – associates with others particularly Portugal

Norway – reminds UK and Mexico that this is not the meeting of scientific committee. Our scientific committee has carried out review and we think the Commission should thank scientific committee and note report


France – states opposition to scientific whaling, and associates with others such as UK


Iceland – report of specialist panel is in general positive towards JARPN II programme. Cherry picking the negative side which does not support the report.. This is a step forward from polarised position


Monaco – Has opposition to large scale and unjustified scientific whaling, it is an obstacle to this commission and hopes it would be addressed over the next year.


Japan – Thanks chair of scientific committee for extensive presentation of the review and also thanks to the experts on the panel. These are very able scientists who have full respect. Surprised initially that the review was balanced and neutral, this has not been seen before so annex P is working well. Japanese scientists felt they were finally engaged with good scientific discussion. Constructive criticism is not a reason to stop research activities. The panel recognised high quality of field and laboratory work undertaken and that there has been substantial effort and start to using the data towards modelling objective. Also noted that the results provide good scientific contribution on issue of environmental pollutants. So contrary to claim that our activities produce no achievements, the experts recognise we are doing a good job. We heard our analysis was not enough but also recognition that this is an ambitious plan and it is only reasonable that substantial progress will take time. About the sperm whales – it was needed to be included in report but as a small sample size to see the correlation between deep water and surface ecosystems. The small number of samples taken prove that there are certain correlations so it has some scientific importance. JARPN scientists provided a response to the questions raised in document which of course don’t answer all questions but refer to where progress has been made. Competition between whales and cetaceans – we have never concluded whales are the cause of the reduction of fish around our waters – we said we have some evidence that whales are playing an important role in ecosystem and our catch in recent years and that more evidence is needed – this is why JARPN II was started. Japanese scientists are cautious to come to a conclusion and we try to do as much data analysis as possible. For some countries position statement comes first before they look at the science.


Chair of Scientific Committee – thanks for all comments. The main reason for prevailing controversy is not scientific but it is the question of appropriateness of use of article 8 for long term programmes or whether it is justified so not about the science.


Monaco – Will be happy to have private talk with chair of scientific committee. This is not just a political question, it is based on science. We need to look at this in the context of how can we make use of non lethal techniques and new technologies? Major scientific advances have been made and this needs to be looked into.


The Chair closes the item, we admire the air vents in the ceiling try to focus on the carpet and move on.

Monaco says thank you and he will be happy to speak to the Chair and says this lies within the scientific realm as well.

No one likes violence.

Next we are treated to a film by Japan.

[Once again the Sea Shepherd PR team will be pleased with the publicity.]

We are shown various angles of some footage purporting to show the SS vessel the Steve Erwin ‘ramming’ a Japanese ‘research’ vessel.

The film also shows some fine deployment of water jets.

Japan speaks to claim that their vessel was dangerously rammed caused to list to starboard and notes that we can hear the screams of panic from their crew.

They note they have called on various countries, especially the Netherlands (the flag state) to act and stop this violence.

[In a hotel foyer not far away the TV Personality and Skipper of the Steve Erwin relaxes and enjoys some more publicity.]

In fact the rest of the afternoon is now spent with one country after another condemning the violence and calling for action. Basically they all agree – some more strongly than others that Sea Shepherd deserves as much publicity as it can get [Editor; surely punishment or something like that.]

Australia say they are looking into the matter in the southern ocean, they are concerned.

The Netherlands say the IMO is the appropriate place to consider this. The NL adds that in Decemeber 2008 and Feb 2009 the principles of good seamanship were not fulfilled. The NL remains opposed to any of whaling and [supports] the right of free speech and demonstration and notes that this should apply to the high seas too. The have warned Sea Shepherd repeatedly and action is pending.,

The US says that this is not the place to discuss this.

Sir Geoffrey of New Zealand is worried about the fragile environment where these actions are taking place They have written to Sea Shepherd and drew their attention to international law. The recognize IMO too and they are discussion how to handle these matters now.

Here come some saints

Antigua and Barbuda concerned

St Kits and Nevis concerned

St Lucia concerned

St Lucia notes that 30 years ago the same individual was responsible for ramming a vessel in Portugal

Korea shares the concerns raised. This is basically a legal issue. Individuals have the right to be heard but this should happen in a [very loudly] peaceful manner. You may recall the Rainbow Warrior incident and the life lost then. No one can equate the value of human being with an animal. There can be violent attacks in laboratories but they are punished. Why not apply this principle to maritime violent acts.

Benin – does not like violence and favours punishment

[It is so hot in here now that delegates are peeling off any extraneous clothing. Clearly we are being punished. There will be more stripping later - stay tuned.]

Suriname – does not like violence

In fact many countries follow, none like violence.

Denmark condemns the ‘French activist’ group, noting that its leader is banned from his own country. We should condemn activities he says.

Portugal notes that this is a matter that unites us [is this a success of the small group negotiating process.]

Togo - it is man that creates situations that allows the whales to multiply.

Kiribati thanks hosts and agrees with the saints

St Vincent says it is being attacked

[and many others follow]

[Ok we get it… you are unhappy with people doing bad things at sea… now let us out of here we are cooking. And that some of you value Japan’s research.]

UK – we welcome the information provided by the flag states concerned and we think this should be resolved at the IMO and we should defer to the relevant bodies.

Iceland (ignores this) and thanks Japan and condemns violent acts.

Norway this is ‘a blatant violition of national and international law’ we note and investigation in Australia and we hope a court case will follow. He also looks forward to actions in Netherlands. The IMO is a rule making body. It tells you how to conduct yourselves at sea but it has no court. Countries have to deal with this matter the IMO can make rules in the future the flag state and the port state need to act.

Monaco says nothing is more valuable than a human being.

Germany – violence is wrong.

Sweden associates with Norway as does Finland.

Cameroon comes back for a second time and supports Norway.

Who is that whispers Chairman Bill to Secretary Nicky. It is Japan she says

Japan I would like to thanks all those that commented and we would like the IWC to liase with the IMO and hopes for co-operation with the countries concerned.

Chairman – well those states are here and doing things. Let’s just write to the IMO. Ok. Close the item. OK?

OK.


A change of theme: a Minister gets excited.

Australia now presents its Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP) which is committed to the development of invocative, powerful non-lethal technologies and research in the southern ocean. They recently held a very successful workshop. A power point [this meeting may be setting the record for power points] is given by Minister Garret.

They will be looking carefully at how climate affects the whales.

In 2009/10 there will be a joint survey with New Zealand and a new helicopter will be surveying over the ice. There will also be much tagging of whales. [The minister is excited – it is exciting he says.]


Back to the Humpbacks

Denmark we now have a changed proposal that should be acceptable to the majority here or at least all the countries that want to provide food. Greenland has to rely on the resources to be found in our land. The state Secretary will explain more. We propose a one year quota – the number of whale stuck shall not exceed ten and this will be reviewed if new scientific data becomes available.

The Chairman says please consult tonight [does he mean coordinate] it is very important to the future of this organization. He then gives instructions to the wine bar where the NGOs hold a reception in the evening. Many delegates arrive drink and leave.

The stripper is also rather disappointing.

In honour of his 50 years of attending IWC meetings the redoubtable Sidney Holt is awarded with a t-shirt, showing his travels around the world with the IWC. This is presented complete with a fine speach by Patrick of IFAW and much applause.

Sidney strips his top off to put his new shirt on. Ladies faint, small children cry but a fine time is had by all.

Congratulations Sidney.

So as I write this it seems that the rogue US delegation is now trying to strong arm the UK, - blaming the UK for Greenland not getting its unsupportable humpback quota.

Well, well done UK and Germany is what I say, - and where does the US get off in trying such pressure? Both these countries have evaluated the available information supplied by Denmark and found it lacking, both scientifically and politically in its arguments for justifying an increase in the hunt.

Denmark has not been able to persuade the IWC of its case so its using the US to suggest taking the issue into another IWC intersessional meeting to discuss this one issue. It hopes that NGOs and other countries that oppose the quota will not be able to attend and it can slip through proposal through away from prying eyes.

And before any journalists say this shows the IWC is dysfunctional, what it actually shows is what the whalers strategy is.

Lets get an endorsement for a any form of coastal whaling that allows for commercialization. Of course this one is wrapped up in the trappings of ASW language and Sweden and others are pandering to such rhetoric. But of course if the USA and others can get this through then they can deliver Japan its coastal whaling; Heh, they may even be able to justify Iceland joining the EU as a whaler.

On behalf of the whales, thanks for nothing USA.

"Whales have the right to be eaten"

After the NGO speakers have scuttled away to the second-class seats at the back of the magma chamber (where there are no power sockets or tables and sometimes still no water), the two big TV screens at the front of the hall fill again with the imposing bearded image of Arne Bjorge, the Chair of the IWC Scientific Committee.

He takes us through the report of the Scientific Committee where it considered the workshop on climate change held by the IWC in Siena in February.

After he finishes, the UK speaks up (a little hoarsely) thanks Costa Rica who also held a climate change workshop in support of the IWC one. Noting how the information flowed from one to the other. He congratulates all those involved in the IWC climate change workshop and notes the many excellent recommendations endorsed by the Scientific Committee. One recommendation speaks to the need to further work on small cetaceans and that intersessional work had been proposed, which the UK strongly supports and asks that the agenda item is kept open so that interested parties can consult.

Austria offers to host

Italy is also supportive.

Luxembourg (very eloquently) speaks of the warm hospitality of the host [certainly the larva in the magma chamber is bubbling away this morning] and thanks Austria for offering to hosting. He is pleased that the Siena meeting (which he was instrumental in setting up) has gone so well. Others speak up in favour as well and then we come to Australia who notes that some of the recommendations from Siena will be picked up via their Southern Ocean Research Programme .

The US says that it would like to contribute financially to the meeting.

After further messages of support for this very popular initiative – a small, small cetacean workshop on climate change – the Scientific Committee chain is finally allowed to take us further through his agenda. He next speaks about Ecosystems Modelling. {Over in the corner a few European Countries are avidly seen to be trying to coordinate.]

The the SC Chair speaks of the IWC’s pollution work via its programme Pollution 2000+. Mexico speaks to support and Sweden tells us about its own polluted porpoises.

Dr Bjorge ploughs on with his report, noting the much valued delivery of the annual State of the Cetacean Environment Report (SOCER). No one says anything. The CERD initiative on disease is also detailed and then growing concerns about the proliferation of marine renewable energy devises in the marine environment. More research is called for.

An IWC sponsored conference on MPAs is also noted. All items now pass by at high speed.

The chair announces we are on agenda item 11.4. There is an urgent shuffling of papers. Anyone know what this is about? Will he tell us. Apparently not and we are poised to move on when Monaco realizes that this is about Human Health. As you may recall, states the distinguished commissioner, Monaco helped to draft Resolution 1998.1 which placed this matter on the agenda. In those days we had some suspicion that, due to biomagnification, pollutants would come up the food chain to top predators. [He lists some multi-syllable chemical names. Sounds complex and a few European Commissioners look up anxiously in case they need to ‘coordinate’ on this.]).

Monaco continues that some ten years later, the evidence coming from medical authorities shows that our suspicions were right that pollutants would be widely distributed. He notes that extensive data from the Faroe Islands focusing on mercury and PCBs shows that levels are high (twice the values tolerated for the most contaminated fish) has led the chief medical officer there to recommend that whale meat is no longer consumed.

He speaks slowly and calmly and goes on to detail the advice – ‘It is recommended that pilot whale is not used for human consumers’.

Norway’s distinguished lead scientist say that it is true that some whales contain high levels but this varies between regions. Pilot whals are amongst the worst, minkes whale are amongst the best (especially from the southern ocean). We have enjoyed the scabbard fish here he adds.

Based on pollution levels Norwegians can enjoy many whale meat dishes per week and there are many health benefits to eating whales.

The UK shares Monaco’s concerns and notes many new compounds of unknown toxicity are turning up.

The alternate commissioner from Japan says very gently that they are very serious about food safety in his country and the Japanese consumers are sensitive and serious about this. Seafood is no exception. We need good information as UK commissioner has just stated. We need unbiased information. In Japan the almost 80-90% of availability is coming from research activities (or byproduct of research activities). We made checks and like Prof Walloe states, meat is very clean. We keep finding that the level is less than levels of concern. Monitoring contaminants is very important and both JARPA and JARPN produce data. … We also look at the positive aspect of whale meat. Most food has some contamination. If we stop eating foods with residues we, will stop eating. Japan and Iceland have the greatest longevity. Old sharp and smart people in Japan might be correlated with whale meat consumption.

A cool wind is blowing through the magma chamber

Iceland says that all our reference levels are OK for our whale meat.

Korea we have to be concerned about health risks – we take due account of the UK’s intervention – but we need balance and objective approach and a balanced approach. We like the interventions by Iceland and Japan.

Switzerland – we appreciate the delegations that raise this problem and encourage delegations to consider this and study it further.

Denmark – reference has been made to the Faroe Island and we now respond. I have a memo with me on this information from the chief medical officer it puts it in context. Longevity in the Faroe Islands is good. We should not discuss public health more here but we need to try to reduce levels of pollution in the environment and we need a global agreement on mercury via the UN.

Chairman Bill notes that we have had quite a few conferences on this but doesn't elaborate.

A break is called and delegates start to untangle themselves from their cables and ear phoness (no soot today) and rush towards the cakes out on the bridge under the amazing kapok tree. The Northern whaling nations are in the lead (as usual) and the EU is not sure whether or not it should leave the room yet. Probably it will coordinate in a moment.

Australia should hold its head in shame if it supports Denmark in hunting humpbacks - so says Australian citizens.

Hats off to whales campaigner Mick McIntyre, of the Sydney group, 'Whales Alive', who called on The Australian Environment Minister Mr Garrett, to hold the line when it came to the killing of humpbacks.
 
"It's sheer hypocrisy to stand up and tell Japan they can't take our southern humpbacks, but at the same time sit back idly and allow Greenlanders to take humpbacks for what is clearly a commercial hunt," Mr McIntyre said as reported the Tasmanian Examiner.

The Humpback Hunt

Since Monday evening when, just after most people had left for a reception and the proposal from Denmark on the behalf of Greenland to start a new humpback hunt in the North Atlantic arrived, the IWC (and especially the European Union[EU]) has been in some disarray.

Whilst much business as reported slowly here in the web diary has gone on as usual, behind the scenes the EU which holds a blocking minority at the commission has been trying to deal with this proposal. We know that within the EU the vote is divided. Denmark obviously supports (which also means whenever the EU meets to negotiate around this matter the proponent is present) and Sweden does too.

The UK Germany and a growing number of others strongly oppose. The EU countries are meant to reach consensus. If they are unable to then they have to vote. However, there is much confusion about how this system works here and, we are sorry to say that this confusion comes from the European Commission staff present here too, which is really not helping.

Whilst there has not been any further discussion in public in the IWC plenary on the Danish proposal, an amended version was introduced again last night, reducing the request to 10 whales for one year, not the original three. The EU met last night to consider the proposal and negotiate further with Denmark. This is all likely to come to a head this morning.

Our hope is that the EU as a block will oppose and the whales will be saved.