WDC Blog - From the Front Line

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.

The NGOs Go On (and on and on and on and...)

So where were we? Ah yes. Day 3 and the we are in that special session where some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of varying denominations are allowed to speak. We have posted the first of these (a very fine speech indeed and presented very beautifully by Susan of AWI)

Five other NGOs speak:
1. A speaker from the Japanese Transport Workers Union explaines that they organize fishers and transport workers (including dock workers) and that they support a whaling policy that supports sustainable use of whales. He then starts to explore the ‘violent activities’ of some antiwhaling groups. He names Sea Shepherd and refers to reckless activities and asks us how we would you feel if our loved ones are at risk of ‘piracy attack’. [But more of this later]

2. Patti Forkens of the Humane Society International takes the stand. She first came to the IWC in 1973. She makes an impassioned plea for the whales and states that many NGOs want to see whaling brought back under IWC control. The existing negotiation process she adds has failed to produce an outcome. There is no foundation on which to build. IWC 61/10 [the way forward document] came from a private meeting of commissioners she notes. What has changed? Have the whaling countries agreed to meaningfully compromise? The previous [and infamous] Irish proposal and the RMS have shown the whaling nations to be unwilling to compromise. Recently one has even resumed commercial whaling. Whale meat trade has increased. All signs of bad faith!

3. A hunter from the community of Chukotka in Russia speaks next. He says that the hunters often feel some times like an inconvenience. And he is concerned about people trying to undermine hunts. Whilst our task of considering how to reform the IWC may seem immense we should consider the situation of his people in the harsh Arctic north. He concludes by thanking those that support the needs of indigenous communities world wide.

4. Finally, the third speaker representing the conservation and welfare communities, moves to the microphone. This is the redoubtable and remarkable Dr Sidney Holt. He has been around forever and helped in the founding (and early management) of a range of important NGOs (including 'modern' Greenpeace). A fisheries scientist by training but an environmentalist by inclination what will El Sid tell us in his five minutes?

He gives us a little history. Then he notes that all the [conservation-minded] NGO support the continuation of the moratorium but that it is time to move on and end Special Permit [Scientific] Whaling and whaling in statuaries. He adds that wondrous whales will never contribute substantially to the nutrition of humankind, nor do they threaten it (contrary to some suggestions).

He then goes on to speak of a phase-out of whaling and how this might be achieved.

So that was the end of the anti-whaling type speakers and but one more speaker is left.

He comes from New Zealand is from the Maori fisheries trust representing the indigenous peoples of New Zealand. He greets the flowers and the streams. The Maori fisheries trust has recently won rights over fishing (and he acknowledges the role of Sir Geoffrey Palmer in this). Since 1995 they have been involved in whaling world wide. Our organization supports the coastal traditions of other peoples he notes. We don’t hunt whales but the whalers hunt us. We are the youngest nation in the world. We have been fishing for 1000 years. Our rights have commercial and non commercial elements that we do not distinguish between them. You must give something important to move forward. We have concerns over the IWC’s definition of whaling especially aboriginal subsistence. It is our view that aboriginal subsistence, where peoples have to beg the Commission for food is a demeaning thing. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Makah whalers we have hunted dugong. To quote paper 61/12 submitted by Demark, aboriginal subsistence relates to neocolonial control. To limit us to subsistence alone is demeaning. We need a rights based formula to be included in the discussions on the future of the IWC.

The Chair asks for copies of the statements which will be summarized in his report from the meeting. He adds that we need to move forward on how civil society should be included in our work.

What do we move to next - ah the report of the Scientific Committee that relates to its Environmental work. Most exciting.

We have been fortunate to get a better version of the Russian smoking intervention from yeterday, so whilst we struggle to work in the heat here in Madeira and the lives of whales hang in the balance. Perhaps this will cheer us all up:

Russian Federation – would like to get back to history of the issue. In 1931 it was Norway which proposed to sign convention because of problems managing whale stocks and the basis was national legislation of Norway. In 1946 a new convention was adopted and this is the convention we have now but Norway provided the basis for this. Norway expressed their concern about whale stocks but today it is Norway being accused of not regulating the stocks – at the annual meeting in St Kitts, Japan proposed normalising activity of IWC. In anchorage members of convention agreed this normalisation was important but then this changed to future of the commission and now Japan is being accused of not making a compromise. People say IWC is divided and I cannot define which of these two groups the Russian federation belongs too. We have a reservation to the moratorium so if we follow logic we are pro whaling but not using this reservation so are we an anti whaling country? We have the right to use special permit but not using it so are we an anti-whaling country again? Last year at Heathrow we agreed to create a sanctuary of the entire ocean so we are an anti whaling country. We agreed to resolve issue of special permits on the basis that coastal whaling would be proposed and agreed to the setting up of SWG. We agree with the resolution which again proposed a SWG and support group but this is exactly the same as before. A year has passed and lots of money spent yet we are still at the start of the route so what has been done during this past year? We are told to avoid political clashes and we seem to have taken a step back, the scientific committee no use any more and the special permit issue can be decided by the commission rather than SC. EU has adopted a directive for three years ahead, South Pacific states have joined the EU. We have formed a small smoking group! I believe this group has reached a consensus and is avoiding political issues but it turns out one of the members would like to discuss issues in sunshine not rain so propose we should go to a swimming pool, where the water surrounds us and discuss and have a smoke! It looks like we are turning into a swimming pool where we discuss the same issues we have seen in the past. As long as we agree not to smoke whatever the weather outside we will not be able to reach agreement. We need to define a precise procedure for selecting members for the small working group and support group. If we continue raising political issues we will just spend more money and end up with nothing. Cigarettes are expensive these days!

So we hope that is all clear now.

It seems that Denmark and Greenland are trying all and any measures to get the humpback quota opened up. What those who might be thinking of capitulating to this strategy must realize is that getting the quota opened up IS the strategy. It does not matter what the numbers are, they simply want to show that they can get another species added whatever is said about 'need'.

Countries need to see through this blackmail and stand firm.

The Korean Commissioner introduces the report from the IWC Conservation Committee, which met last week. Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay mention that sanctuaries are important and point towards the south Atlantic sanctuary (for which there is not a proposal on the table at this time) as a matter that we need to come back to.

We move on to comments from six NGOs – they are broadly divided into 3 pro-whaling and 3 anti-whaling speakers. There has been much preparation behind the scenes on these presentations – each of which can only be five minutes long. We start with Susan Millward of the Animal Welfare Institute and because it is a honey of a speech we shall include it in full here:

Statement from Susan Millward, Animal Welfare Institute.

1. Whales in a Rapidly Changing World

I am the first of three speakers to address you today and my presentation represents many in the environmental, conservation and animal welfare community.

We believe that many people from many cultures and countries share the concerns on which we shall speak. I will address the threats that whales face in the modern world and then comment briefly on welfare aspects and the role of civil society.

I grew up in a coastal town in southern England. Occasionally our sandy shores were tainted by oil spilled from passing tankers and the realization that small drops of oils, for example ingested by preening seabirds, could kill them, made an indelible memory.

I now understand that there are chemicals which are far more toxic than oil[1] and that the effects of our thoughtless addiction to oily fossil fuels stretch far beyond leaks and spills to fundamentally changing our global climate.

So it is that we find ourselves in a rapidly changing world. Essentially we have broken the homoeostatic mechanism that has maintained planet Earth within the range of temperatures and conditions that have, until now, allowed our species and all others to evolve and co-exist. Our planet is now sailing into unchartered waters because ‘when you change the climate you change everything’ and there are immediate and longer term consequences for all species, including our own.

There isn’t time to detail all the statistics illustrating climate change[2] but for the cetaceans, climate change is primarily expected to impact them via loss of habitat (given the distinct thermal ranges of most species) and changes in prey[3]. However, changes in human behavior or activities resulting from, for example, increased flooding and other environmental shifts, may also impact cetaceans. For example, reduced ice cover in the Arctic is projected to lead to increased shipping, oil and gas exploration, and fishing, which will result in additional noise and chemical pollution and also bycatch.

In addition to climate change, an acoustic fog has descended in the seas. At one time many of the great whales probably communicated across the better part of entire ocean basins. Now our noise, mainly from shipping, has reduced their ability to do this and contracted the range of their senses from hundreds (maybe sometimes thousands) of kilometers down to just a few tens. Some of our more powerful noises also cause distress, confusion, displacement and, sometimes even strandings and death.

Because they are at the apex of marine food chains the tissues of these animals tend to host a concentrated and noxious cocktail of xenobiotics[4]; affecting the health of the animals[5] (and also potentially those humans who eat them[6]). This is not news. Such risks have been known for some decades. What is news is that whilst the levels of some infamous compounds are generally declining in the environment, newer generations of chemicals are taking their place, including in the flesh of whales. The consequences that such chemicals may have include reproductive and immune disorders and also neurophysiological problems[7].

Then there are the issues created by our increasing physical presence in the oceans and seas. We have built out into the habitats of these animals and as our boats get bigger and faster and our fisheries more intensive, so our impacts increase.

Clearly we need to better understand and address this synergistic cacophony of threats[8]. In this context we can celebrate the range of work now enshrined in the Scientific Committee on such matters, including the recent climate change workshop. From a conservation perspective, however, Governments and other agencies must act urgently and reduce pressures on cetacean populations wherever practicable.

Even if we did not have these complicating factors, the awkwardness of studying and even identifying whales at sea should be apparent to all delegates here, and especially any of you who have taken a whale watching trip and not been quite sure what species it is you are looking at.

And this further underpins the inherently unsuitability of attempting to sustainably utilize marine animals that are difficult to study, long lived and slow breeding and where there is no real need.


2. Whales and Welfare*

Many regard whales as special animals. Many of these animals live in societies; many show evidence of high intelligence and self awareness. Whilst it is difficult to subject a baleen whale to an IQ test, it would be inappropriate to write them off as simple animals. Where appropriate research does exists[9], there is evidence of sophisticated behaviours.

Whales are of course mammals and clearly capable of suffering in ways that we can understand[10]. Governments and intergovernmental bodies around the world are increasingly recognising our responsibility to protect the welfare of the animals that we use, making it a wholly retrograde step to approve the use of explosive missiles on conscious animals.

Despite considerable efforts by some parties, hundreds of animals will endure long and painful deaths each year. Indeed, since commercial whaling cannot be conducted humanely, should it be conducted at all?


3. Civil Society at the IWC

Finally, whilst we are grateful for this opportunity to address the Commission, what civil society requests is the ability to take part properly in the dialogue within this body. NGOs are able to contribute to the substantive discussions in many other Multilateral Environmental Treaties, including for example - in the experience of many of the NGO representatives here today - CITES and the Convention for Migratory species. In the meetings of these bodies our inputs as scientists, lawyers and other professionals are facilitated and even welcomed.

We believe that it would be practical and, indeed, beneficial to the Commission itself to offer us the same opportunities here. Therefore, we call for increased participation and transparency in the work of the Commission.

Notes:
[1] Some organic pollutants have toxicities that are measured in microscopic quantities of parts per million or even less.

[2] WWF provides a helpful overview here: http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/ noting that the 11 warmest years globally since 1856 have all occurred in the last 15 years and we have recently had significant hurricanes in the Caribbean and the United States, extensive droughts in eastern Africa, Australia, southern Europe and parts of China and India; and uncontrollable floods in many parts of the world, sometimes preceded by a long drought.

[3] Recent reviews considering climate change and cetaceans: Alter S.E., Simmonds, M.P. and Brandon J.R.. 2009. The tertiary threat: Human-mediated impacts of climate change on cetaceans. SC61/E8 Paper submitted to the Scientific Committee of the IWC. 17 pages; Learmonth JA, MacLeod CD, Santos MB, Pierce GJ, Crick HQP, Robinson RA. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals. Oceanogr Mar Biol 44:431-464; Simmonds M.P., & Isaac S.J. 2007. The impacts of climate change on marine mammals: early signs of significant problems. Oryx 41:19-26; Simmonds MP, Elliot WJ. 2009. Climate change and cetaceans: concerns and recent developments. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 89(1): 203-210

[4] Xenobiotics refers to chemicals not previously known in nature.

[5] There is a vast literature concerning contaminant levels in cetaceans. A recent example has looked at levels and trends in dolphins taken and stranded in Japan: Tomohiko Isobe et al. (2008) Organohalogen contaminants in striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) from Japan: Present contamination status, body distribution and temporal trends (1978–2003) Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 396-401

[6] See for example the review provided by Altherr, S. and Luber, S. 2009. Toxic Menu – Contamination of Whale Meat and Impact on Consumers’ Health. Published by ProWildlife and OceanCare. 32 pages. An earlier assessment of concerns can be found in Simmonds, M.P., Johnston, P.A., French, M.C., Reeve, R. and Hutchinson, J.D. 1994. Organochlorines and mercury in pilot whale blubber consumed by Faroe Islanders. Sci Total Environ 149: 97-111.

[7] And I might add that changing oceanic conditions and acute noise pollution may alter distributions bringing further difficulties to assessments of whale populations.

[8] Perhaps the plight of the western gray whale provides our most poignant example of where a small population comes into conflict with our industrial ambitions.

[9] most notably for the dwarf minke whales of the Australian Great Barrier Reef – for a review of cetacean intelligence see: Simmonds, M.P. 2006 Into the brains of whales. Applied Animal Behaviour Status. 100: 103-116

[10] Brakes, P., Butterworth, A., Simmonds, M.P. & Lymbery, P. (Editors) 2004. Troubled Waters – a review of the welfare implications of modern whaling activities. Available at: http://www.whalewatch.org/reports.asp


Let the NGOs Speak!

So Iceland is now willing to discuss 'compromise', encouraged by what it is seeing Greenland get away with no doubt, but why is it that they have to do everything in secret. It seems public accountability and lawful critique have gone out the window when you want to get commercial whaling through.

More from Iceland Review

IWC 61 some images from today

The Chairman's banner

The 'Volcano' building where the IWC is meeting.

One slide from Greenland's powerpoint

One of the famous air ducts in the meetinh room ceiling

IWC on break

The Cucumber Conversion Rate.

After a non-lunch many frazzled European Commissioners return to the meeting room to hear the report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-Committee read by its Chair, the distinguished Portuguese Commissioner, Jorge Palmerium.

Austria picks up on a matter raised by Mexico yesterday concerning the difficulties involved in resolving estimates for Antarctic minke whales. (Mexico asked yesterday what it meant for other population assessments that the most detailed probe of the Antarctic populations yielded so many difficulties.) The Austrian alternate commissioner and scientist Professor Michael Stachowitsch, suggests that we all need to be more ‘humble and more cautious’ when we approach scientific matters and notes that things that we thought might be true are not necessarily as true as we may think. [Or something very like that.]

Russia comments on ‘Stinky Whales’ and asks the scientific committee to provide a definition of the same stinky whales. [These are the highly olfactory whales which cannot be consumed, although there is no known reason for the ‘stinkiness’.]

The US asks the Science Head or Science Chair to say something on stinkyness. Greg Donovan says mildly that we have a reliable abundance estimate the situation is not worrying; all is well.

We move to the agenda item dealing with the aboriginal subsistence whaling limits (starting with the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea Stock of bowhead whales).

After this section of the report the US asks for Harry Brower of the US Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission to speak. He describes the recent whale hunting activity, which is slightly less than in the previous year. He notes very poor ice conditions this year which made the hunt dangerous and difficult and that a calf was taken by accident.

We move to agenda 5.2: ‘catch limits for N Pacific Eastern stock of gray whales’. After this report, Mexico notes that they are helping to monitor this stock.

Russia adds that this year there were ten stinky whales taken. Stinkiness will continue to be investigated by a joint US-Russian team intersessionally.

We move to common minke whale stocks off Greenland.

A list of the whales being killed is given. In west Greenland 200 minkes are allowed to be taken annually. This year however, the Scientific Committee has been able to give strong advice (for the first time) that an annual strike limit of 178 is advised.

Denmark then takes the floor he comments that there are few horses in Greenland, so we do not understand the concept of ‘horse trading’ [the context was lost on the scribe, sorry]. Denmark then passes the microphone to Greenland who then presents a power point in support of its new request for humpback whales.

[The larva begins to bubble in the magma chamber. Is that molten rock seeping up through the carpet?]

There is a minute of near silence as things are set up [we cannot see, it may be that the microphone is not working] static fills the air. Many delegates can be heard hammering away on their computers.

The power point shows a variety of images of hunting in Greenland, including an image from the bowhead hunt which has just been initiated. And Greenland reads from the white paper (IWC 61/12) that was released to the Commission shortly after almost everyone has left yesterday afternoon. The last image is of a child looking out from the screen flanked by lines of drying whale meat.

She notes that GL has just had its special national day and celebrated with whale meat.

They seek consensus on their proposal. The Greenland paper stresses the relationship between traditional foods and people. She notes that traditional foods are shared around GL but not exported, except to people in Denmark as gifts.

(Whilst she speaks, many delegates are wondering around and preparing speaking points. The EU may be attempting to ‘co-ordinate’ – we cannot be sure.)

Greenland adds that the distinction between commercial and aboriginal whaling is artificial. She also mentions attempts at ‘neocolonial control’ under the cover of protecting endangered species. We all agree they should be protected the question is how should it be done. Can GL whaling be considered commercialization of hunting says the title of one power point slide. No says Greenland.

She goes on to describe how flensing is conducted on the shore and the problems presented by the tides. Then she speaks about the conversion factors (i.e. how much tonnage of meat and other products represents how many whales). This approach she says has always been part of their multi-species fishery.

She promises that Greenland will work to improve data where she can. They have a ‘documented and recognized minimum need of meat from large whales of 670 tonnes’. This need she adds has never been met.

The presentation is completed. Denmark notes that he does not ask for a vote now, he wants people to think about this matter.

The saints come marching in.

Many speakers now line up to comment on Greenland’s proposal. Several small island nations wave their flags with enthusiasm.

St Lucia has been doing some maths. They suggest that GL has reduced its hunt in fact and reiterate that point that, to date, Greenland have been unable to meet the needs of their people. We should allow them the tonnage they request.

St Lucia then refers to a discussion that she was having last night and introduces us to the cucumber conversion factor. I was told, she says, that one cucumber costs about 8 US$ in Greenland. (In St Lucia they get about 8 cucumbers for this.) She concludes that she hopes this matter will not go to a vote.

St Vincent and the Grenadines support science. They are a small country involved themselves in an aboriginal hunt and they share the pain of the people. He gives some geographic details from the GL paper, noting how scattered and small communities are. If you don’t live in an environment, you don’t understand it he says and then he starts to speak of injustices and pools of larva can be seen glistening around the room. The denial of ten whales will be a great injustice. He thinks that any references to tonnage is a red herring.

St Kitts and Nevis asks GL to replace that last frame from the power point presentation on the screen.

[There is a pause as the visual aids technicians snap awake and after some static the image of the child and the whale meat reappears.]
If he was our child, our little boy, for his food security… how can we come back to him and say that a group of persons have ignored science… how do we define rationale use. Are we do say that this little boy should never ne given the opportunity… it cannot be right for the children in Antigua, St Kitts and Nevis, the US, Australia or the kids anywhere.

Cambodia thanks hosts and chairman for wise leadership. They support the proposal.

Japan in a sad voice talks about science; he carefully notes that GL proposes to reduce the number of minke whales killed following the advice of the Scientific Committee. This is very honourable he says. Now they propose ten humpback whales. He asks why killing some species is different to others. Iceland he notes and refers to the old commissioner has previously said that we cannot work towards the ‘survival of the cutest’; the jumping animals being cuter than the swimming.

The alternate commissioner continues with the advice that last year’s decision was a mistake. They have made a better proposal now supported by better advice. We have just adopted a way forward he adds and then [somewhat ominously] a decision against this hunt might even kill this agreement. Be consistent and do not make the same mistake as last year.

Korea supports GL.

Norway finds the request scientific and fully justified. He calls for consensus.

Costa Rica calls for more clarity on needs and notes that humpbacks belong to many others within their range.

Other speakers stand up to take sides – notably many small developing nations express sympathy and support with GL. The EU says nothing (are they co-ordinating?).

It is 16.2O where is the coffee break?

Ah there it is. Quick, quick…

[In the old coffee area in the top of the Casino building EU countries are trying to get their act together happily co-coordinating away. Will they manage to find some words or are they totally handicapped by their bureaucracy?]

Tea and coffee complete with small cakes and even some fruit are now served in the breaks on the curvy bridge that links the curvy hotel to the casino/volcano building. Here in the shade of the amazing kapok tree (or Tree-of-Sidney’s beard) small tables and stands have been erected. By the time the scribe extricates himself from the many wires and ear phones extended around his person and gets outside, revenging hoards of NGOs and whalers have eaten almost everything. (At least the scribe is not covered in ear-phone soot today.)

After the break the Chairman moves rapidly to consider the RMS (the IWC’s Revised Management Scheme). The redoubtable Arne Bjorge talks about the relevant report of the Scientific Committee. There are no comments, no one is very interested these days.

The EU appears to still be trying to coordinate and commissioners are running around the room but they appear to have missed their chance.
We move rapidly through the report where it deals with Western North Pacific Bryde’s whales and North Atlantic Fin whales (a variety of stock structures are identified). Then we gallop through the Scientific Committee’s consideration of North Atlantic minke whales.

There are no comments on all of this. Commissioners are obviously exhausted. Some from speaking and some from attempting to coordinate.
Arne Bjorge now takes us through the Scientific Committee report with respect to ‘bycatch and other human-induced mortality’.
The Chair thanks the Chair for his comments.

And we move on to Socio-economic implications.

It is hot again back in the dark chamber in the heart of the volcano. The alternate commissioner for Japan opens the topic by noting that because Small Type Coastal Whaling is part of the IWC’s ongoing negotiation, they [Japan] have no proposal under this agenda item.

He hands the microphone to a spokesman from the Japanese coastal town of Taiji, where he is the head of the committee that opposed the total ban on whaling by the IWC. He has attended the last five meeting where he has learnt much and he stresses that whales are a blessing to his community and that whaling is conducted there in a different way to anywhere else in the world. He speaks of a time when a right whale came close to shore and people were starving. Night was approaching and a life and death struggle followed. When the whale was lashed onto the boat a storm struck and lives were lost. A handful – only five survived – 116 perished that night, there was much misery in Taiji.

On a particular day in Taiji they still lay flowers, and whales have been part of the food culture for ordinary people for a long time. Whales are alive in songs and art making a rich and diverse culture… it is more and more critical to embrace sustainable use of marine resources. … there is an imminent world wide food shortage coming and we need to address this, whales can help. Japan is the only nation that can conduct the appropriate research programme.

He gets louder and louder until his final thank you booms across the room.

Korea (who matches the loudness) now speaks. The Commissioner states that here must be a balance between conservation and sustainable use of resources. He introduces us to an old friend – the major of Ulsan, the south Korean city where the IWC met a few years back. He reminds us of the nice petroglyths (ancient rock paintings) of whaling there and with the aid of a nice power point talks about whaling in his region. Ulsan appreciates its whale meat dietary traditions and for Ulsan it is culturally important. He concludes that they will do their best to protect endangered whales but wishes to enter into sustainable use of whales in order to protect their culture.

He looks forward to our support and encouragement for sustainable use of whale fisheries.

Korea concludes that the future of the IWC is the most important issue to be solved this time. Each and ever member of the Commission needs to understand the traditional whale meat culture.

Let’s all consult with each other and work in an atmosphere of consensus says the chair and who are the NGO speakers for tomorrow. Who indeed! And we close for the day.

Paul Watson the famous TV personality and leader of the Sea Shepherd organization is found in the middle of the afternoon sitting alone and bored in the foyer of the Pestana Casino Hotel. (It is rumored that he was arrested and released earlier. The security forces must have been delighted to have something to do.)

Around the hotel and in the streets beyond many tourists wonder, quietly getting redder (if British) or gently tanned (if from other nations). The chairman is hosting commissioners only dinner this evening. Presumably the EU countries will be spending most of this trying to co-ordinate something (anything) to say and many countries will be talking fiercely to many other countries about cucumbers and food security.

[Please note that this report of the meeting does not claim to be verbatim. What we try to do here is capture the essence of what was said. We welcome corrections if we have got anything wrong. We also welcome someone holding onto some food for us from the cornucopia on the bridge before everyone else makes off with it please.]

Portuguese commissioner Jorge Palmeirim, head of the IWC sub-committee for subsistence whaling says of Greenland's need - 'and it is not clear that they need to increase their quota'

More on this story from AFP