Humpbacks to be killed for 'voluntary' reduction of fin whales

The EU has just proposed amending the Greenland proposal to 178 minke (that's down from 200 in current schedule, but already proposed by Denmark), 10 fin (down from 19) and 9 humpbacks.

Denmark has asked for five minute break to discuss with the EU.

The meeting resumes, with Denmark speaking and says it wishes to make 'small changes, some are substantive.

Putting 16 fin whales instead of ten, but with 'voluntary reduction of fins to 10 whales a year'.

There is some discussion of what footnotes actually say, but time is running out for ten humpbacks.

Costa Rica speaks of the value of whale watching and regrets this proposal.

Australia speaks that its support the principle of ASW, but the Danish proposal raises lots of concerns

Brasil endorses concerns of Costa Rica and Australia.

Iceland says there is only two forms of whaling, sustainable and unsustainable and therefore support

St Lucia speaks up for the proposal, attacking those who have problems, and then quotes the Sci Comm report and ASW report. St Lucia of course, chooses to ignore any of the concerns raised by countries on commercialization and non use.

St Lucia sounds like that the reduction of fin whales down from 19 fin whales is not appropriate? Now argues that IWC is ignoring the Scientific Committee. The spokesperson notes that Greenland is covered by ice and cannot grow food (thats not quite true actually - see latest edition of National Geographic with article on climate change and the growth in agriculture in Greenland - limited but, growing - ed)

Argentina agrees with Costa Rica.

St Vincent is convinced of the arguments. There is sound science involved for humpbacks. Many interventions from delegates that support ASW and they support the amended proposal.

I am now going to leave this to my able colleague above who is reporting this subject much better than I.

Sorry back in as some interventions now important -

Russian federation speaks passionately for the proposal

USA speaks in favour

Monnaco, says there are two criteria for it, science, wish it feels it is okay, and the second is real need, noting Greenland's highest indigenous income, rich fishery takes, and take of 4000 small cetaceans and therefore cannot rely on 20 year old 'needs statement' - asks withdrawing of last line of table of humpbacks, ie 90 tonnes of humpback will ham people, it seems totemic attempt to add tasteful whale species. We should look to proper regulation and need real needs statement, and Monnaco is not enthusiastic to support - clap from room.

Ecuador supports last speaker and other Latin countries.

New Zealand notes that this issue was put off at the last meeting as  debate would be highly divisive and would prejudice the future discussions, and so intersessional was held. The people of Greenland have travelled a long way and we owe them to give them the quotas. (NZ speaks for killing humpbacks - ed). NZ is supporting because we follow the EU on this issue. 'Purity and absolutism cannot be the guide for an international organsiation that will work' - clap from pro-whalers (pro-whalers - ed?, yep! -ed 2)

St Kitts associates with NZ.

Chile associates with Ecuador and Latins (I think )

Kiribati supports the proposal

Korea pleased to support amended proposal

India: respects ASW, but are of view that IWC should work to reduce dependence on whales in a controlled manner. India maintains that there should be monitoring for use of whale products so to ensure only used for indigenous peoples.

Costa Rica: associates with Latins and notes Monnaco's comments.

sorry, missed one intervention

Nauru supports

Palau supports, and complains that commissioners want to protect animals over people.

Norway: says that Greenland may well leave if not given quota (sorry I thought Denmark spoke for Greenland? ed)

Marshall Islands: associate with support for proposal

Chairman: sums up. I feel we better agree this if we want to progress the discussions on the future of the IWC, and asks countries that are not in favour should not block efforts to pass by consenus? Asks if silence means agreement

Brasil: speaks and asks for ten minute break. break agreed

All back into the meeting

Brasil: Brasil remains committed to the future of the IWC, and appreciates the mutual understanding and that this could prevail. We note that we have asked for the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, we would like to see an undated statement of need from Greenland and fully understand ASW and respects cultures and will not block consenus

Australia: we support IWC regulated ASW, but we need a more work (as noted by Brasil) for needs statement and in spirit of cooperation Denmark does deliver, will not break consensus

Denmark, we have heard much today and from those who don't like the proposal. We are willing to consult wth range states in run up to 2012 negotiations, in two years. We shall consult at home on needs statement, having done so in 2007.

the humpback has been hunted in Greenland for a very long time, and therefore is part of culture as well as food supply. we have concentrated on need statement in tonnes as this is what we thought people wanted.

Mexico speaks: asks for its intervention to be recorded in Chairman's report

Monnaco: will not block vote on grounds of the wider debate

St Vincent: some countries patting themselves on their back for not standing against this. Greenland has absolute right to these whales and the 'condacending reluctance' of countries, they are not heroes for not standing in way of Greenland.

Chairman: I will note all views in my report, considering all views, proposed schedule amendment asks for adoption by consensus as revised by EU.

Proposal is adopted. Humpbacks will now die

Denmark says that discussion was acrimoneous, but thanks all. Grreenland Minsiter for hunting and fishing speaks: thank you, this now shows work of Sci Comm respected, and that there is no difference between certain groups of people and certain groups of animals. It is my 2nd time at IWC, and what I find out shocked me, thatt domestic and election issues put before our needs as indigenous peoples, and I strongly, strongly suggest that if IWC is going to work it should follow science.