IWC 62 Agadir Thursday afternoon

The Chairman starts the afternoon session by thanking the Finance and Administration Committee for meeting over lunch. A coffee break is promised for 16.30.

Let’s All Go Whale Watching

The Chairman of the Conservation Committee takes us through the report of his committee on whale watching. The work of the Scientific Committee on this issue is reported on via the Conservation Committee report.

India notes the importance of the work of the two committees on whale watching and how it can provide sustainable livelihoods to people.

The Conservation Committee Chair notes a discussion in the Scientific Committee about how to liaise between them, and they want a liaison officer.

The meeting is suddenly awoken by a loud greeting made in Maori by one of the delegates from New Zealand. She speaks strongly, now in English, in support of work on whale watching.

Argentina describes the development of a plan on whale watching to run for five years. He offers to host the workshop on whale watching in Buenos Aires in November.

Australia (the Minister speaking) thanks Argentina for its leadership, and offer to host the next whale watching workshop, and he expects interest in the use of the tools that the workshop will provide will grow as more countries become involved. Australia will provide 20,000 dollars for the workshop; it urges the Commission to endorse the draft strategic plan and workshop.

Uruguay speaks up in favour of whale watching too and so do other countries.

Whale watching is also favoured by the UK, which notes that ‘assessing a country’s suite of opportunities for whale watching using the consistent approach that the workshop will develop will support a reliable and effective management regime for future opportunities’.

The Brazilian Commissioner makes an explosive intervention on whale watching… it is so fast and furious that the translators seem unable to cope, except for the last few words, when he is looking forward to going to Buenos Aires.

The Mexican Commissioner reminds us of something in the Scientific Committee report – problems in the Mekong for the dolphins there. He thanks Dr Kato – the retiring Chairman of the Scientific Committee’s Whale Watching group.

Luxembourg celebrates income generation from this ‘form of terrorism’ [this may have been a mispronunciation from the translator as the Commissioner was speaking in French and the scribe listening in English, and it seems unlikely that he would be promoting whale watching terrorism] and he congratulates Argentina.

Argentina thanks the US and Australia for financial support and mentions the great world expert on whale watching, Erich Hoyt.

The USA thanks Argentina and others, including Dr Kato from Japan for his work as chair of the sub-committee for more than ten years.

Any other comments, asks the Acting Chair Man expectantly.

Cameroon has a lack of security in its waters and this industry is far too luxurious for some nations.

Despite this, the report is noted and agreed.

Cooperation with other organisations is dealt with as read. No comments. We want our tea break.

Pierre of Luxembourg



The Aboriginal Hunts – The temperature starts to rise.

The Portuguese commissioner, who ably chaired the working group on the aboriginal hunts, now takes us through his report (into which the Scientific Committee has also reported).

He reports on catches and sitting alongside of him, we see the redoubtable Greg Donovan, Head of the Scientific Committee. The BCB bowheads stocks are noted; 112 Grey whales were taken in Russia, one was struck and lost; ‘stinky whales’ are mentioned (grey whales with a strong smell). There is a pause… no comment.

But the tension is building in the room.

The coffee staff are noisy, throwing crockery around in the service passage along the side of the Great Hall. We move to the west Greenland stock of fin whales – a quota of 19 has been agreed apparently and this can run for two five year periods [that may prove handy]: for Greenland’s bowheads, the strike limit is two whales (the committee again says the catch limit will not harm the stocks); North Atlantic humpbacks: 3 females caught have been reported caught in St Vincent and the Grenadines, and annual catch information requested (a scientist from the small island nations is reported to have been sighted in the committee).

Greenland calculates its quotas based on weight of meat and other edible products and this has been the focus of much debate and a lovely colour brochure, now on the front of the IWC website. Anyway, no one cares about this very much now and the discussion about the conversion factors for edible products is short. The UK noted the hunt’s low efficiency (or much meat wasted) and Denmark described how it was improving things. Bowheads were inefficiently taken this year according to the press said the UK; and Denmark said it would probably report on them next year.

No comments follow.

We move to the aboriginal subsistence quotas and the temperature starts to soar.

Here come the green papers and the big debate about which agenda is open and why. So before we get into this, here is an explanation.

The Acting Chair did not close agenda item 3 yesterday. This is the item about the Future of the IWC under which we have been discussing The Deal. By not closing it, he has left the possibility that some aspect of The Deal may resurface and, as we already found out, a proposal for aboriginal quotas derived from the deal landed in the pigeon holes late yesterday. This now forms a proposal for all aboriginal quotas made jointly by the US and Denmark (the ‘joint proposal’). There is also another proposal – the ‘Denmark proposal’ – which asks for a new take of ten humpbacks.

The debate starts with Japan saying that Agenda Item 3 is appropriate for the joint proposal. There is commonality between the proposals he says but they should be considered separately, with The Denmark proposal considered under 6.3.

The USA says its [joint] proposal was originally under item 3, but we feel it is related to either item, it may be a technical item. We feel it fits well here and countries have had notice of this for the last 60 days and overnight and we want to discuss it today [last few words are loud]. We can be technical or pragmatic, as long as we discuss it today.

The Acting Chair suggest that he was only holding the agenda item 3 open for a proposal on future work. This was my rationale Japan for not putting it under 3.

Japan would like to hear the opinion of others and needs to have time for some internal consultation.

Argentina: My delegation was one that gave an opinion this morning about the status of agenda item 3 – this is open exclusively for future work. Now you are saying that a document submitted at the last minute should be discussed under this. It is difficult to give an opinion. We may need to await instructions from our government and talk to the Buenos Aires group.

Mexico: we also find ourselves in a quandary. Yesterday we sent a report to Mexico and we have reported back about matters requiring discussion. Agenda 3 subsistence matters are finished. We too need instructions from our government. We propose this is held in abeyance.

Chile agrees.

Iceland says we must discuss the Danish proposal today. We could not take a decision in Florida as we had no quorum. The document 62/26 [the joint one] was a surprise – we had a policy of not taking each other by surprise; so I would treat them very differently.

USA: We appreciate comments by the other distinguished commissioners but this is not a complete surprise – the idea that aboriginal subsistence whaling would be held in abeyance during other discussions here is not new. We want to have this discussed. We want this quota out of the debate; it should stand on its own; we are owed the opportunity to know how others feel. Others have said I understand your need for your quota but I might need something else. These quotas cannot be a bargaining chip. I cannot stress enough that these discussions have been a long time coming. We need to know what this body’s view is of aboriginal subsistence whaling…

Acting Chair: I suggest a private commissioners meeting.

[From which civil society will be excluded]

Do I have your support. I see no objection…

Japan: I just question the procedure. We are prepared to discuss the Denmark proposal [not the joint one.]

USA: we have had private time; there is no reason to fear having a discussion here. Let us have a civil discussion here. Our work should be done in the open. A private commissioners meeting is not the way to do this. We seek to speak today.

Acting Chair: I wanted the private commissioners meeting to discuss how to handle the document.

Israel speaks for the first time and thanks the host. There is no harm in the delegations who submitted their proposal describing their proposals. We don’t need to take a decision, let us just hear from them.

The USA agrees ‘whole-heartedly’. This is not completely new ground; we are not asking for a decisions today

Vice Chair: so let us begin our discussions with a presentation

But Brazil says he has the same concerns as Argentina and Chile. We will not have time to take a decision. We are willing to listen but we will not be able to take a decision. We will not be able to get a decision.

Vice Chair: USA seeks discussion not decision; do I have general support?

Mexico: we shall listen carefully, but my delegation will not discuss content; we reserve the right to discuss later.

Acting Chair – so we have a presentation on 25 and then only a discussion on 26.

Japan – I don’t wish to be difficult but we need time for consultation.

Acting Chair: so we proceed with presentation

Denmark: we have been in this position before; it can be no secret that our patience can be found on a very small plaice… please respect scientific advice. We need to put this into context – firstly our minister and we request that the vote takes place tomorrow. The Minister thanks Monaco for the hospitality in her language and makes a statement. She is here to underline her country’s commitment to international dialogue. She is concerned that the IWC is being violated; this has been ongoing for too many years; everyone must keep up their principles. I have advocated for increased sustainable use of living resources in Greenland. We much listen to each other and respect each others differences. Seals and whales are the biggest competitors with our hunters.

She continues: We are also affected by EU politics – the EU seal ban has effectively destroyed our seal market. For self-governance we have to use all material available to us and we need to limit the importance of western food and lower carbon output. Our traditional food has been evaluated by health experts and they are healthier than imported food. Shared stocks should be dealt with by the appropriate international body. We have fulfilled all the requirements made of us but some keep trying to find new ways to block our request.

Some parties and groups question the use of money… no one can become a millionaire from whale hunt in Greenland….

The minister is followed by someone from the Greenlandic hunters association and then another spokesperson.

At the end, Japan thanks Greenland for proposal, and announces that he has finished consultation. I would like to be helpful, says the Japanese alternate commissioner, and we agree to listen to the [Joint Proposal] by reopening agenda 3.

[This leads to a sharp intake of breath all around the Great Hall of Agadir and protest from several Latin American countries led by Costa Rica and with Australia agreeing].

Fortunately France has thought of something else that we can do and speaks to say we should now listen to the NGOs. He is supported by Sweden and Monaco.

Sweden – we support France.

But the battle over agenda 3 continues – it I still open insists Norway.

New Zealand agrees and says lets get on with the substantive matters and not this legal wrangling.

Iceland also agrees with this and wishes to hear the NGOs.

The Acting Chairman says he is looking for a consensual way forward. He says he has been indulging Japan. As a form of compromise is needed, let us have the document by the USA presented and a discussion.

Cameroon speaks to support Iceland.

Iceland – I only propose we hear the US proposal.

USA: we will be brief. We need to get through our agenda items by doing them.

Argentina reiterates that they are willing to listen to the proposal but not under item 3.

Acting Chair: there is a willingness to listen to the proposal. I propose that we allow the US to make the presentation but not under a particular proposal.

Japan: we can accept that [it is as if they speak for many because the US presentation starts almost immediately.]

USA: we understand that commissioners wanted aboriginal whaling separated from the rest of the proposal. We are one of the four countries that has aboriginal peoples; we do not wish them used as a negotiating chip ‘by both sides’; this is used for whatever is wanted at the time. The indigenous peoples have worked constructively even though they have been treated as a pawn. Aboriginal subsistence is well managed; this extends to the relevant bowhead stocks. It is industrialised whaling that brought these whales to the brink of extinction. So we propose here to give some sort of relief to these peoples, whilst this body seeks an end to its long standing problems. She refers again to pro- and anti-whaling nations using the hunts as a bargaining chip. We urge all the members of the commission to take a legitimate need off the table. I can only take it from the earlier discussion that many governments mean to keep it there.

The USA will have to decide if its indigenous hunters will get a fair shake from this commission. I know many countries wish to take things home for their own interest. We need to know this; we need candour. I understand that it is late and I would like to hear from commissioners.

Mexico – I thank the US commissioner for this presentation. It is difficult for me to digest. Through you Chairman, I ask the US Commissioner to provide us with the written presentation, so we can study it in detail.

Acting Chair says that the interpreters will kindly allow the presentations of NGOs. [Thank you.]

WWF speaks first and amongst other things is concerned about the failure to allow NGOs to speak more fully here. A fisheries group, says that conservation NGOs are to blame for the failure of the process. It has been a rare opportintry to end all the acrimonious debates… and he continues on similar theme.

[A few bored people are wondering around in the margins, photographing other peoples computer screens – we chased a few of these away earlier. What do they do with all these photos? What is this strange fetish?

What will the NGOs say? Does anyone care? Will there be dancing with fans? Commissioners settle into their seats for a little entertainment.]

We remind gentle readers that this is not a verbatim report but we try to capture the gist of what is being said and something of the experience of being based here and we welcome corrections.

Sue of WDCS and a friend