Entries by Mark Simmonds

Friday IWC 62

So here are the big questions for today…

Will the humpbacks that Greenland wants to hunt after 3 years of opposition be given to them.

Will the EU be the effective arbitrator in this.

Will more whales end up being killed after this meeting.

Is The Deal dead – has its vampire heart finally been staked or will it rise from its grave again in some new and more deadly form.

Is Agenda 3 open forever?

 

Part of team WDCS in the otherwise empty early-morning meeting room of IWC 62.

Norway is Shocked.

And so the NGOs finally come to speak in the Great Hall.

The speakers start with WWF. Its African spokesman makes a spirited contribution. He names no names but he is sharply critical of what goes on here. Now NOAH comes to the microphone (this is the main Norwegian animal welfare group). She speak

s clearly and firmly of her concern about Norway being known as a whaling nation, and would prefer they were known for their good animal welfare standards. She then explains how bad the statistics are from whaling and that 50% of the UK public are concerned about this. Norway is represented here by a small and declining industry here, she says. A ‘perceived stamp of approval for commercial whaling’ would aid the industry and leave it open to develop new products.

Headlines, she tells us, in Norway on Monday stated that the ‘IWC may open for commercial whaling’. She concludes that whaling is a cruel outdated and unnecessary activity. ‘Thank you’.

 NGO speaker Siri Martinsen of NOAH

The Species Management Specialists spokesman contributes something on the sustainable use of animals and a lack, he claims, of scientific information to the contrary. He doesn’t like conservation management programmes very much and continues in a similar theme for some time. [The scribe fades out.]

A lady representing the NGOs in Latin American and the Caribbean come next. She explains all the hard work going on in these regions into whale watching activities. A wider Caribbean whale sanctuary is being developed. With respect to vote buying, this discredits the region, she says, and a thorough investigation should be made. If it can be established that such accusations have merit, then the IWC needs to take actions.

Another pro-use group follows. ‘So, where to from Agadir…?’ he asks. [Home soon many of us hope.] Various concepts follow and the scribe drifts away … cast a shadow/undermined/agreed by scientific committee/respectful dialogue…

The Cousteau Foundation comes next and reminds us of Jacques its founder. He was a great supporter of the moratorium. She goes on to highlight much of the good conservation work done by the IWC – ship strikes, whale watching, small potatoes and so forth but meetings about The Future have eaten up the time of the Commission, and its money and the work time of the Scientific Committee.

The Cousteau Society says we should make a plan and a budget for these animals. Greenpeace Japan comes next. He speaks in Japanese ‘as a citizen of Japan’. He speaks of the CBD meeting coming up in Japan but also notes Japans role at CITES in the blue fin tuna issue [a failed proposal to protect them]. There are many wrong doings – and he boldly lists some and receives a round of applause, mainly from the rear of the room.

The Vice Chair suggests that we are finished for the day but Norway calls for the floor. He is quite shocked by some of the accusations, he says – including accusations made about you Chairman and he queries who the Norwegian NGOs here represent. He suggests that a film referred to is a falsification. The Acting Chair comments that in making presentations NGOs are told not to make accusations to particular governments. Norway will take this matter up later under another item later he concludes and we stumble out into the evening sunshine.

  Sue of WDCS and a friend

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

The Voice of Civil Society becomes a whisper

Outside small red taxis are zooming around. Delegates and many non-governmental observations [NGOs] representing conservation groups and other organsations emerge from their various hotels. The smart security police line the pavements, and security guards check badges as delegates enter. Not very far away tourists of many nations enjoy the sea front, common bulbuls sing their morning songs and cats rest after a long night of ‘singing’.

We, however, are back in the vast meeting room with its randomly directed spot lights, snares of electricity cables, and small flags marking the places of each nation. We have to be very efficient today stresses the Acting Chair speaking from the podium at the front of the room, because we are very much behind schedule.

Item number 3 remains open, as requested by Commissioners and the Acting Chair says that he is still working on some ideas on how to move forward during the ‘period of reflection’. He urges people to be brief and to the point and associate with others where appropriate.

Do the NGO interventions that were cancelled from the end of yesterday start this mornings’ session, as might be logical? No. They will be at the end of this new day. [Unless presumably something more important comes up and, of course, the later in the meeting they speak the less relevant their comments will be – if at all] . The finance and administration committee will meet at lunch time, so that is something to look forward to, as the NGOs will be excluded from this. Excluding NGOs (sometimes called civil society) is popular here.

He then draws our attention to two new green documents that relate to quotas (see last blog entry).

There is then some discussion on what agenda items are open and why. This may prove to be a critical issue.

Argentina assumed that point 3 was left open and this, she says, was because we needed to work out how to handle the reflection time; but, she here addresses the Chair, you also mentioned 6 and we should leave 6.3 for tomorrow. It would not be best to put them off to the very end of the meeting, in case commissioners need to leave; we should finish them today. For 3 we understand that all that is left is the period of reflection discussion and 6 we should finish today.

Acting Chair: I am keeping 6.3 just for consultation, we have up until Friday to complete our meeting, to ensure that we maintain the [good] atmosphere we have here. I want to provide as much opportunity for consensus.

USA:  Good morning and thank you. We agree with the Commissioner from Argentina that his is very important and we support your desire for consensus. If we don’t have this discussion today we might not have as much time tomorrow. I don’t mind that you hold the agenda open but then perhaps we could have a discussion here during the day.

Mexico: the only thing we have pending is how we use this [intersessional] break; we are not prepared to consider any other proposal under this agenda item.

Chair: Yesterday I suggested a strong period of reflection and another reason for holding agenda item 3 is how to deal with this period. This is another reason for keeping this open. He seeks clarification from the US

She explains it is 6.3 she wants kept open. Sometimes the discussion in the plenary really helps us, she adds.

Australia: we received two [green] documents yesterday – one of these states it is for agenda 3 but the USA says this is under 6,3. I agree with Argentina and we look forward to your discussions. The Chairs’ Proposal document [aka The Deal] did not reach consensus. The new US/Denmark document is a proposal for amendment ofd the schedule – under our [IWC] rules it should have been proposed 60 days ahead fo this meeting.

USA: There is no doubt that everyone saw this 60 days ago. You could have it at various points on the agenda – we could avoid all business and recite the things we always to. We came here to see how to move the IWC forward and we see this as part of this.

Chair: we have a packed agenda, we need time to consult and be engaged. I don’t want to spend too much time to look at these items.

Brazil: agenda 3 should be open but only to discuss the period of reflection.

Denmark: we have two proposals – we would prefer some hours to allow consideration.

Iceland: we have two proposals in front of us; one of these caught us by surprise. He associates with Denmark.

Costa Rica aligns itself with Australia – item three is only about period of reflection.

Chair – so we will engage in consultation and engagement and now do I have your support to move on. It seems that he does as no one else speaks [and to the scribe at least this matter remains confused. There is obviously an argument that the US does not agree with, that the proposal are illegal as they were not provided in time.]

Back to the Scientific Committee

We move to revised management procedures (the device that provides catch quotas for commercial whaling) and Dr Debbie Palka, the Chair of the Scientific Committee, takes us through this complicated text.

The distinguished scientist from Belgium comments on this focusing on the importance of the RMP. He notes that additional human induced removals have now been added to the specifications of the RMP. Belgium strongly endorses this.

North West Pacific minke whales

Dr Debbie presents the report clearly and crisply. (A vast amount of work – including days of discussion at high level in the scientific committee is detailed in just a few minutes.)

Japan refers to annex G1 of something that probably only he has in front of him by way of giving Japan’s position. He is pleased with co-operation with Korea.

The Scientific Committee report is approved and we move on.

The Conservation versus Management Plans

Soon we are swimming through the report of the Conservation Committee. The distinguished scientist from France describes considerable survey work around the world that his country is contributing to.

We go to agenda item 8.2. This was part of the consensus document but the chair notes that some countries still wish to speak on this. The proposed South Atlantic Whale sanctuary was first suggested in 2002, and should remain on the agenda.

Remarkably for something that used to be the focus of heated debates, there are no further comments.

Japan reserves the right to propose a small type coastal whaling amendment to the schedule here. As item 3 is still open, he says that he may like to come back to this. [Something to look forward to.]

 We move on to that part of the Scientific Committee report that deals with special permits - the devices used by whaling nations to conduct scientific whaling. In the past this too has been a major debate.

Australia saying that he does not wish to prolong the item [probably hoping for some NGO interventions, and notes that a broad range of views remains within the Scientific Committee, even though this is only now briefly discussed in the Scientific Committee Report. He refers to a minority statement. 

The Chair tries to move to a coffee break but the dream of pastries disappears from view when Japan waves its flag and then makes careful reference to the detailed discussions in the Scientific Committee. He also refers to a paper that provides a list of published papers. There are 380 published papers; 169 peer-reviewed articles and many presentations to symposiums and many public places.

Japan wishes to submit this for the record to clarify what they have done using special permits. Australia comes back – he still does not want to prolong discussions he says again and refers again, mildly, to differences on views.

Coffee time lands.

There is lots of co-ordination occurring and … yes…. some pastries are available.

 Sir Geoffrey interviewed

Back to item 10 says Brazil, and agrees with Australia and does not support non-lethal research.

Into the Wider Environment

We move to environmental issues and Dr Debbie tells us about the work of the scientific committee in this sphere – she talks about research in the Arctic first.

Austria notes that there will be an IWC workshop on climate change and small cetaceans in Austria in December and thanks a number of nations and some NGOs, including WDCS, for supporting this.

Debbie moves on to the presentations made on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This disaster was discussed at some length.

The US commissioner notes she is jumping up and down to attract the Chair’s attention because she is rather far back in the room. She has a number of comments to make. She starts on ocean pollution – this was one reason why they were so engaged in the future process she states. Dr Roger Payne’s report on pollution is mentioned (it is to be found in the lobby, where we lobby). She then commends the work of the scientific committee on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and describes what the US is doing to monitor and mitigate. She thanks many countries for their generous offers of help.

Mexico notes that the impacts of oil spills on cetaceans are little understood, but there has been an increase in stranded cetaceans. He thanks Debbie and the Scientific Committee and accepts the Scientific Committee report.

The US comes back to the floor to highlight the threat from oils spills in the Arctic. This is a crucial habitat for a species she cares deeply about. She asks the Scientific Committee to establish an intercessional workshop to look at this matter in the Arctic context – all associated activities.

Liverpool asks the SC Chair is she has comments. Debbie says we could plan it but not hold it before the next annual meeting. The intent would be to meet as soon as possible she says. Russia support the initiative. Finland speaks as one of the 8 Arctic countries and supports the workshop. Sweden supports it too.

Others support. Norway says he does not oppose… but we should not just look at oil spills, we should look at the mandate of the workshop and look at all increased activities.

UK we too support the idea of a workshop. Iceland supports the proposal and the words of caution from Norway.

USA says again it is hard for her again to be seen and defers to St Kitts and Nevis; he says what are the implications for the ‘cool-off period’ and let us pursue this on a broader basis, not just spills. Multiple use should be dealt with and developing nations would be pleased to help draft the proposal for the workshop.

Debbie suggests that it should be discussed at the next meeting of the Scientific Committee and the USA defers to her.

SOCER BREAKS OUT

Dr Debbie updates the Commission on the State of the Environment Report (SOCER) – and many delegates are disappointed as they hoped this might relate to the world cup from the Scientific Committee which focused this year on the Arctic.

Any comments says the Acting Chair? Swift tumbleweed. None

Anthropogenic sound is approached now. This was a special focus for the Scientific Committee this year and the scientific committee made a range of recommendations, especially to do with shipping noise. Debbie describes them.

The Chair notes that the Scientific Committee’s recommendations are approved – on we move.

We move to the disease work of the Scientific Committee. Then under ‘other’, Marine Renewable Devices’ are identified as something that need more attention and a focus for next year’s work. In the SC report we find this text ‘…the Committee strongly recommends that countries co-operate to limit impacts on marine wildlife from these sources’.

The Chair rules that all recommendations are agreed.

We move to Ecosystems Modelling. Models have been reviewed; validations considered; working groups elaborated; and, generally, a good time had by all.

The Chairman acknowledges the wide range of activities being detailed here and we move on to reports from the contracting governments on environmental matters.

Heath Issues

[Here we have a small wager that Monaco will raise the issue and few others support; Norway will say something unhelpful; and no progress will be made in terms of liason with the World Health Organisation – WHO – so here we go.]

But we start with Mexico who notes the risk from biomagnification of pollution up the food chain to human consumers. Monaco asks for more action on health issues. He first spoke on this issue ten years ago and asks for IWC to make more effort to liaise with the WHO.

The Netherlands eloquently associates with Monaco; as does the Czech republic. The IWC should intensify work on this issue via a working groups she suggests. 

Others make similar sentiments.

Austria notes that the IWC Secretariat has been asked several time to liaise with the WHO; what concrete activities have happened she asks?

The Executive Secretary simply says she was aware of this but has done nothing. [No further explanation is forthcoming.]

Norway now takes to the floor. Their senior scientist tells us that pollution levels vary and there are health benefits from eating polluted cetaceans – large benefits (see report from NAMMCO, he adds) and the level of mercury is equally high in halibut and tuna. This is a varied picture and it is not correct to paint a picture of very unhealthy food.

Finland thanks the Commissioner from Monaco and agrees with him and that this is an Arctic issue and then he agrees with Norway that the issue is not clear.

Costa Rica associates notes we need to control sources.

Japan Makes Us Laugh

Japan associates with Norway and emphasises that his government is quite serious. They have had food safety issues in Japan and are vigilant. The Japanese government has strengthened food safety provisions. … as to small cetaceans, the ministry of health and safety are looking carefully at this.  We live longer in Japan than other – non-whale eating people.

Much laughter follows.

Germany says we should have close cooperation with WHO.

[Yes, that went pretty well as expected.] 

The Conservation Committee is Creeping

Now to agenda 13: the Conservation Committee reports in. Various highly endangered populations were looked at and then some small cetacean matters. It is noted that New Zealand commented that despite all the resolutions passed on small cetaceans overt the years, they have had little effect.

St Kitts and Nevis seeks clarification. He notes the use of the term ‘Conservation and Management Plan’. The Acting Chair says it is conservation and management plan. I reserve my comments he says. Can you help Debbie?

Greg Donovan (Head of Science with the IWC Secretariat) replies on the behalf of the scientific establishment. This is semantics and we just need to tighten up our terminology he intones.

 

St Kitts and Nevis thinks that much caution should be applied to the work of the Conservation Committee. It is not fully established here and its plans for collaboration with other bodies should be withdrawn. We should not divorce conservation from management… they are concerned about the creeping competency of the conservation committee here too. It should review its mandate.

Argentina thanks the conservation committee for its work, especially work on South Atlantic Right whales.

Brazil notes that by not participating in the Conservation Committee the doubts of

Switzerland says that its interpretation is that all cetaceans fall under the IWC mandate. The conservation status of some small cetaceans is in question .This is the right place to address this.

Australia thanks the Conservation Committee and she would like to echo the words of Brazil. Australia was delighted lats year when the IWC accepted Conservation Management Plans last year. This was a big step forward. They are intended to compliment and enhance local conservation initiatives. She describes here support in some detail. The Conservation Management Plan for Southern Right Whales will be an important text case.

Mexico associates with Australia and others. The UK thanks Belgium for their work in this area and associates with Australia and others.

Luxembourg firmly and eloquently taking the plenary microphone for the first time thanks the king and country for their hospitality and emphasises the importance of work on small cetaceans.

Ireland supports the Scientific Committee too.

St Vincent and the Grenadines says he has consistently opposed the conservation committee. The USA disagrees. 

The Acting Chair tries to move on but Costa Rica is waving a flag… is it possible within the Conservation Committee to raise a concern regarding the east Pacific and ‘J stock’. We would like to have more knowledge of this species. Several other Latin American countries to support Costa Rica and so North Pacific minke whales creep onto the creeping Conservation Committee.

Lunch is blocked in by a meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee – will the NGOs be making there interventions in here?

Oh no – for it is closed to them. Perhaps they could just go home and stop botherng us.

URGENT DEVELOPMENTS

The latest twist at the IWC showed that the Chair’s Proposal for compromise was not killed yesterday when green papers arrived in delegates pigeon holes in the final few minutes of the meeting yesterday. Green papers are schedule amendments – proposals for quotas.

This relates to opening up a new hunt for humpback whales in the North Atlantic – something that Greenland, via Denmark which represents it here, has been proposing for several years to add to the quotas of whales and takes of small cetaceans that it already practices.

One green paper is a joint proposal between the US and Denmark, which essentially takes that part of the Chair’s proposal that concerned aboriginal quotas and makes it a separate new proposal. This includes the humpback quota request from Greenland as if it has been already agreed.

The other green paper is an overlapping proposal from Greenland (submitted by Denmark) for ten humpbacks in each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.

What is happening here is that the US – basically to stop Japan and its allies blocking its Inuit hunt of bowheads is seeking to put in place a ten year period of quotas for the aboriginal takes – however in order to win support from the whaling nations it has linked this to the Denmark request for humpbacks and used part of the text from the Chairmans’ proposal (‘The Deal’) as a way to take this forward. This was one reason (but perhaps not the only one) why the agenda item (3) on the future of the IWC was not closed yesterday.

Certain parameters were meant to apply to the Chairmans’ proposal and associated discussions and this latest development thwarts all of them:

Nothing is agreed until it is all agreed – this is clearly a proposed agreement on only part of the proposal;

There will be no surprises – this is such;

No cherry picking

So it is that again the North Atlantic humpbacks’ fate hangs in the balance. We heard a number of southern hemisphere countries yesterday speaking up for this species in their region, will the northern ones act in the same manner? We doubt it. This last minute spin which illustrates what the US wanted from the chairs’ proposal perhaps more than anything (security for their hunt) is in the face of the long standing opposition of the UK and others to the hunting by Greenland which is increasingly commercialised, challenging the definition of aboriginal whaling as well as the lives of whales.

Some organisations here and countries are choosing to turn their back on this commercialisation, saying that they do not work on ‘aboriginal issues’. WDCS’s take is that this not one.

Lunch passes in a blur and suddenly delegates are back in the room; are they missing their closed sessions, all those romantic little liaisons with other like-minded (or not like-minded) commissioners? Anyway, they are now fully exposed to public scrutiny again and the biggest question of the day is, of course, who will win the football (and for our American reader the ‘soccer’ match). Another question is why is so much media now reporting that The Deal is dead when the agenda item is still open? Why are some NGOs celebrating the death of the deal, when it may just be sleeping. AGENDA 3 THE FUTURE OF THE IWC HAS VERY CLEARLY NOT BEEN CLOSED.

 Into the Stocks with Debbie

We move on to that part of the agenda where whale stocks are considered and Dr Debbie of the Scientific Committee takes us through the various populations one at a time and at a healthy pace. [There is a promise that some NGOs might be allowed to speak at the end of the day and much negotiation is going on between the numerous groups present about who should have this privilege.] Anyway, first we encounter the southern ocean minke whales. The two most recent surveys do not agree and the substantial decline between the two surveys is of concern says the UK. Japan is less concerned. His scientists are fairly sure that the minkes are hiding under the ice [can they breath under there?] and he makes reference to some parts of the scientific committee report that probably are not available yet but which are obviously helpful. He looks forward to solving the issue of the disagreeing population estimates in the near future and to RMPing the minkes quite soon. The report on southern hemisphere humpbacks brings some comments from a number of countries that seek to protect them, notably New Zealand and Australia. The recovery of ‘their’ humpbacks is generally slow and numbers remain low.

Then the critically endangered Western North Pacific gray whales leap onto the stage and we learn there is much concern about them being accidentally caught in nets and also harmed by oil and gas development. The scientific committee has passed some recommendations and the commission is now being asked to agree them. Japan say they have improved their domestic laws and an educational programme for set-net fishermen is in place; fortunately since 2007, there has been no incidental take. Japan will work hard to help this depleted species. The USA views this as one of the most endangered whales. They welcome the development of an action plan for this species. Their lead scientist calls for surveys before seismic survey by the oil and gas industry commence and calls for oil and gas operations to use best practise. Russia now speaks and they too realise this population needs to be protected. They are doing some survey work with Japan but he is worried about some terms in the paper. These scientists are independent but independent of whom? He continues on this theme for a while and asks for the clear use of terms. Sometimes, he says, we hear that such groups of scientists are ‘dependent of’ some companies. He refers to the conservation plan and a sentence noting a contract between IUCN and the petrol company. He says we need to be careful with formulations.

[England has scored a goal against Slovenia and there is much excitement in the UK delegation. But then Rooney has a goal disallowed. ]

Mexico is supportive of conservation work. Monaco is next to the microphone and is represented by their scientists Justin Cooke (who also happens to represent the world conservation union – IUCN - to the IWC). He carefully explained that following the probable extinction of the baiji [the Chinese river dolphin] this species is likely to be the next cetacean to be lost. The IUCN plan for their conservation has been endorsed by the IWC scientific committee and these measures appear to have born fruit as there has been no entrapment in nets in Japan in the last two years. With regards to the seismic surveys, he agrees that the survey should be postponed. Justin is beamed up onto the big screens to either side of the podium holding Acting Chairman Liverpool and IWC Executive Secretary, Nicky Grandy.

What is slightly odd is that audio and image are out of sync and his lips move slightly after the words. Korea notes it utilised this species several decades ago. It is now extinct in Korean waters and now protected. The UK is worried about the status of the species and encourages more action. The seismic survey should be considered for postponement; they strongly support the conservation management plans and agree with the US that this one may be exemplary; Austria is always, she says concerned about stocks. It goes without saying that the IUCN recommendations should be supported! Oman tries to take a reservation on what is said about humpbacks in his region. [There is an isolated and increasingly beleaguered population of humpbacks in the Arabian Gulf.] He suggests that more research is needed. The Chair of the Scientific Committee agrees and notes this is what her committee is recommending.

Acting Chair Liverpool rules that the commission takes note of the scientific committee report and agrees its recommendations. Chair Debbie ploughs in with her summarise summary of the scientific committee report. Southern rights whales are considered and permits are recommended to deal with oil and gas development off South Africa. The USA then highlights the recent high mortality of southern right whales off Peninsula Valdes. More research is needed he says. Argentina (in this case the highly distinguished alternate commissioner) supports the recommendations made for this population by a workshop in March 2010. He thanks the US for supporting this workshop and Dr Robert Brownell for co-ordinating it. Brazil also thanks the United States and Bob Brownell. They agree with the scientific committee. The Scientific Committee report is noted and endorsed.

North Atlantic Right whales and other stocks are all swiftly dispatched and all relevant recommendations agreed.

A tea break erupts.

And – horror of all horrors, the delicious Morocan pastries swiftly run out. British scientists range around the room foraging but to no avail. The whale shark on the wall is starting to look tasty.

After tea we are treated to the return of an old favourite. Japan presents a power point entitled ‘Escalating Violence against Japanese Research Vessels by the Sea Shepherd’. We have reported this many times previously – so will not bother here. Suffice it to say, many are outraged. We move on to whale killing methods and some countries report on their hunts. New Zealand says its paper speaks for itself. Norway lists a few of its actions. Greenland also provides some data. The totals truck and loss was 7% for their west Greenland minke whale (i.e. animals that were struck and not recovered – poor things). There are no comments whatsoever. And without even a pause for some tumble weed to pass through because we are now very far behind with our agenda, we speed on to agenda irtem 5.2 but there is some hesitation on the stage… no it is OK, just some pesky countries interrupting things with questions. Austria notes that we all seem to accept indigenous whaling but that it could still be improved and made more humane and countries should help this process by providing more data.

The UK is given the floor and he calls for an end to the use of the [very cruel] cold harpoon and for welfare data to be provided. A Norwegian expert them takes us through the report of the IWC’s disentanglement workshop – which considered how to get whales out of nets. It includes a long section on Euthanasia and is available elsewhere [many good bookshops?] UK and others congratulate the people who took part in the workshop and produced the report. The US supports the conclusions of the workshop Argentina very eloquently expresses its appreciation too and suggests that similar workshops should be held elsewhere too. Others make similar compliments and the commission endorses the recommendations from the workshop. The UK has submitted a paper about hosting a workshop – to clarify this would not be an official IWC workshop (oh no) but we are inviting people to participate. The paper explains the rationale for this. And they may be able to find funds for would-be attendees. Belgium’s distinguished scientist speaks up in favour of this and recommends invited experts from outside the IWC should be invited. Argentina eloquently supports. Australia associates with the previous speakers; at IWC 63 we would like the working group on whale killing methods to meet.

Norway, however, decides to spike the fun. He says that is has no objections, but he has concern with just limiting this to whaling. He says whaling is the most regulated and best documented compared to other hunts. Only 2000 whales are taken each year whereas thousands of terrestrial mammals are taken. But no one is interested and others speak to support the distinguished alternate commissioner for the UK who relaxes back into his seat and receives the important news that the UK has beaten Slovenia in the football world cup.

Later, very sportingly the Commissioner for Slovenia comes over to shake hands with the UK Commissioner. In closing for the day acting Chairman Liverpool announces that because it is late and there is a nice reception out by the hotel pool next door with fanta and snacks and Peter Garrett, the NGO presentations are cancelled until a time when there is nothing better to do – or something like that – we cannot quite hear. So now it is off to pool side for that orange fanta.

 Peter Garrett and Sir Geoffrey Palmer

More Evil Cats

Meanwhile elsewhere in Agadir on a traffic island surrounded by speeding red petit taxis there are further discussions about deal making between the predators of the town.

A small, but highly-focused group of kittens, have now joined the avian delegations’ debates on sustainability (also known as the how-many-chicks-can-we-eat debate).

Anyway the kitten team – their mewing threatening to rival that of the gulls - is now demanding their own ‘small and sustainable quota of gull chicks’! [You will recall the earlier negotiations with the kestrels went badly and someone got somewhat eaten.]

As this would be a ‘shared-quota’ with those same kestrels, the birds of prey are objecting strenuously, and emphasising that the kittens themselves would substitute perfectly well for chicks, should that prove necessary and this would be both sustainable and perfectly scientific. But the kittens are unable to stop pressing their case, their diplomatic skills are too limited.

They are too young; too inexperienced; too cute; and just too tasty; and one by one they are eaten by the falcons.

But tomorrow is another day and AGENDA 3 STAYS OPEN … let's see what else is going onto the menu.

Outside it is cloudy. Inside are the clouds parting? Delegates head to the Golden Sands Conference Centre.

Small point of clarification – we normally give thanks to Commissioners and others for their contributions at the end of the meeting. However, further to earlier references to ‘Belgian Fan Dancers’, we would like to make it clear that this does not relate to the Belgian Commissioner for whom we have the greatest regard.

His recent work on small cetaceans and ship strikes is helping to set standards for conservation work within the commission.

Small paper fans have been distributed to delegates by a group of organisations who are in support of The Deal as a lobbying tool and our vague allusions to fan dancing relate to this activity.

Romantic encounters at the IWC

The halls are again filled with delegates. Sun glasses and swimming trunks are back in the closet and suits and ties are back in fashion.

Liverpool: Welcome back everyone [he does not add that he hopes everyone had a nice couple of days on the beach or perhaps in the lobby of the Atlantic Palace hotel, but he could have.]

He makes some introductory comments, noting that for almost a quarter of a century ‘our different views have dominated’ – to resolve this will not be easy.
He states that the last two days of ‘opening’ [closed] meetings have been conducted in a constructive manner, noting that the commissioners agreed to devote as much time as possible to this work. Ten groups have consulted with each other and he explains that there have been 30 sessions over the last 2 days – some of these groups have never met in a formal but private manner before – a wide range of issues have been discussed - and this was not limited to whaling – all of the groups reported that their discussions were very useful and conducted in a cordial manner. Some reported that they came closer together and they dialogued late into the night.

It has become clear, he says, that whilst we are very close to a consensus, more work is required. These include such matters as the moratorium, numbers of whales, special permit whaling, sanctuaries and trade, and table 4 (which contained proposed quotas as part of The Deal).

Everyone Loves Geoffrey.

Japan next takes the floor. Their spokesperson notes that the situation remains complex and that they support the spirit of sustainable whaling and protection of endangered stock protection. Japan appreciates Chairman’s efforts to address problems. She expresses heart-felt gratitude to Sir Geoffrey and Chairmen’s efforts – she notes that substantial compromises have been accepted by Japan. Japan respects science – she is ‘disturbed and alarmed’ that members support management based on science but oppose takes where science says OK because of public opinion. Some members she adds think only aboriginal subsistence hunts are OK and that ‘even taking single whale is not acceptable.’

This important body needs to rise above domestic politics. Some members are unhappy with the chair’s proposal ‘unfortunately’, she concludes.

Uruguay speaks for the Buenos Aires group of Latin American countries. He refers to the statement he circulated a couple of days ago and how open they have been to discussion. They have raised 13 points which all can share.

He eloquently stresses the need to work on conservation; and given the unlikelihood of finding a consensus, a minimum consensus on future opportunities should be found.

Argentina then takes the floor and says that exchanges have shown the need to reach a balance; there is only one promise – in the future we may discuss amending articles 5 and 8 [whaling under objection and scientific whaling]. In conclusion, the proposal does not meet the needed of the countries that we represent. However, they recognise the need for dialogue – the positive results of implementing the moratorium and highlight the work of the conservation and scientific committee, including work on climate change, emergent diseases and pollution. She greatly appreciates the role of the Scientific Committee and suggests it should be separated from the Commission.

The USA Commissioner, Monica Medea, takes the floor, after nearly 3 years of discussion, it appears that our discussions are at an impasse – or at least it feels this way, she says. We have given our unwavering support to the moratorium and we have helped to refocus the IWC on conservation. Unfortunately, we have not achieved as much agreement as we hoped. We have enjoyed – I think – a wonderful dialogue; future dialogues can build on this. I am always optimistic and we can find out way out of the difficult situation we have found our way in. I hope we can continue to work in the way that we have in the small working group and over the last few days.

Australia in the form of its minster Peter Garrett, thanks Morocco and Liverpool. He does not repeat Australia’s well-known position but he associates with Argentina. He says we should focus where our views converge and build on that. Some have claimed that the IWC is dysfunctional and will collapse, but he does not share that view. Many countries have put great effort into discussions and he thanks them. The product of this process will not attract consensus support. This has been a good departure from acrimony he add reading from his lap-top. Future discussions can also take place in a mutually constructive manner.

He continues that there is a need to make sure that whale populations stay healthy and viable components of ecosystems and a further need to redefine the IWC to ensure the long term conservation of whales. The Chairs’ document has helped us move along – but we now need to close it and build on collaboration – e.g. capacity building around the world; we need to take steps to ensure that the Commissioners have time to study the result of the scientific committee – and we should fully embrace critical conservation work for example on western Gray whales, disentanglement, western gray whales, depleted populations and governance gaps to ensure transparency and enhance accountability. The future can only be assured with best practice management.

‘A Troubled Old Creature’

New Zealand in the form of redoubtable Sir Geoffrey Palmer then associates itself with the remarks by Peter Garrett on the need for cultural change [and as far as the scribe can tell no other of his remarks]. As chair of the support group [which has been working on The Deal] he makes a number of obervations – the support group is over and it should not be revived. We need to look at where we have come from and where we are going– the IWC is a ‘troubled old creature’. He lists the various well known problems – Article 8 scientific whaling; despite the moratorium thousands of whales have been killed and so forth. NZ is a strong advocate of the conservation of whales. He provides a little history: For many years we focused in the RMS – but no conclusion – in 2002, the conservation committee was set up but not everyone takes part. Matter became increasingly undiplomatic and our impasse stopped our business. After the carriage of the St Kits declaration [a resolution passed in favour of whaling] – something needs to be done to make the IWC work better; many meetings occurred ‘I have been to so many meetings that I cannot recall so many’ – he continues to detail the actions. [Does he perhaps sound a little tired?]

Now we are in a situation where no nation was satisfied. Hence, the chair’s proposal being considered here. He suggests that there was a common consensus on many matters, if ONE LEAVES OUT THE ISSUE OF NUMBERS. He acknowledges the major contributions made by Monica and US team and he also pays tribute to the Government of Japan, especially to Jogi Morshita for the diplomatic process. There can be no doubt, he adds, that Japan showed a real willingness to compromise (gentle applause). We can go no further. There is an absence of political will to compromise – but interest in the IWC has increased through this period; we now have 88 members.

He continues with the thought that the NZ point of view is one of caring for whales. Every Christmas the conflict in the southern ocean causes outrage. One of our people is even in a Japanese jail –because he wishes to protect whales. Our focus has been to remove whaling from the southern ocean but we have not succeeded.

He suggests that there are three ways forward:

we can continue to negotiate as we have – but we are weary and it would disrupt our agenda totally;

we could create a whole new process;

we could have a pause – [enjoy] a period of rest and recuperation and resume discussions at the next annual meeting. I favour this.

Acting Chairman Liverpool reminds delegates to please take their translation headsets off before speaking. [This explains some of the irritating noise during Sir Geoffrey’s contribution.]

The report provided here is not verbatim but is intended to capture the gist of what is said. We welcome corrections if we got anything wrong.

Further to these seminal contributions many other took the floor. Here we shall provide only an outline of what they side highlighting any new matters and, of course anything amusing.

India is in favour of whale conservation and he opposes lethal takes and violence at sea… he suggests a renaming of the body to the ‘International Whale Commission’.

Liverpool reminds speakers to take their headsets off again,

Mexico says very eloquently the Commission must respond to the problems of the 21st century. Discussions have been fruitful but we cannot support anything against the moratorium or catches bigger than those provided by the best science – which is the RMP.

[The man from the BBC, Richard Black, is stalking across the centre of the room. The media is meant to be corralled at the back of the room (or in their tent with the cat). Will the Moroccan security guards swoop? No.]

Mexico supports a ‘time to think’.

Spain now speaks for the whole EU (25 member states)– she thanks the hosts and highlights the excellent facilities; she thanks the Chair for his role and also Sir Geoffrey. The EU has come with willingness to negotiate – they want an effective IWC and believes the discussions have been useful.

In Praise of ‘Friendly Chatter’

St Kitts and Nevis, who it is always worth listening to (as his rhetoric is often highly entertaining) has serious misgivings about the latest turn of events that stops us from further considering the Chair’s proposal. He is sorry that we have not found a way forward… international negotiations require compromise. During the course of negotiations, positive things have come including ‘friendly chatter’; Developing nations have strengthened their roll. We, he stresses, have been subject to many accusations. People have asked, why are you here and, as coastal states, we see the oceans as vital to food security.

But, he adds, there is continued speculation about why developing nations are here. It is timely for putting a number of matters into context – we have been accused of being proxies for other countries – this is wrong. We have no choice, as developing nations, but to support sustainable development….This document [The Chairs’ proposal] represents the furthest we have reached, so we should look very carefully at this document. [There is weak applause]

Coffee follows soon after this and in the coffee area under the watchful eye of the whale shark.

The booming voice of the Pew Foundation's, Sue Lieberman, can be heard in coffee area inviting delegates and press to come and to a briefing from her organisation and some friends. Many delegates head determinedly in the opposite direction.

After a hasty coffee, various countries are waving their flags, including the UK which is finally recognised by a nod from…. from Madam Secretary of the Commission Nicky Grandy, sitting alongside acting chair Liverpool up on the podium at the front of the room.

[Dear Nicky – you would be sad if we did not acknowledge you in this way – and whilst we are having this little side-bar interlude, thank you so much for all your help and kind support through the years. Wishing you a happy retirement. The WDCS team. ]

We resume deliberations on item 3.

Korea appreciates the Chairs’ efforts and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Their commissioner loudly says that ‘the moment of truth is approaching’ and ‘the train is heading for the tunnel’.

Iceland says it is a shame that we did not agree numbers and he agrees with Sir Geoffrey, that this is because of lack of political will. He too likes Sir Geoffrey; and like the Australian minister he does not think that this is the end of the world. Dialogue has been good and a one year break will let us clear our minds and reflect on matters.

Monaco takes the floor. He is concerned about bipolarisation here – but this is a ‘caricature’. There are not two groups here – there are at least a dozen views here and this, he says, enriches us. There have been constructive dialogues. But he supports closing the door on the document … but we do not start from scratch here; catch limits should be defined by science. Various areas of work have been productive. Monaco proposes a brand new way forward – a new paradigm – we need a win-win context. Limited whaling will have to be sustainable; Norway has demonstrated this is possible he suggests and whaling could occur in limited areas. Monaco is of the view that whale stock sustainability is compromised when you harvest far from your territory; you can behave like ‘a careless tourist’ far from home. His ‘assessment after many years’ is that resumption should be restricted to sovereign waters – is there any other globally satisfying compromise to propose. At least this option should be on our future road map.

St Lucia is appreciative of the Chairman’s hot seat and gets the scribe rather lost in a story about ‘climbing Mount Difficulty’ and eating in small passage ways.

Belgium does not want a new cooling off period and suggests that the Chairs consensus document should still guide our discussions.

Panama likes the moratorium and the Conservation Committee but welcomes constructive dialogue. He calls for an intersessional meeting to review the cooling down period.

South Africa likes cooling off too.

Grenada recalls the St Kitts and Nevis Declaration (a famous resolution passed a few years ago when the whalers had the majority) and is very disappointed that we have not come to a conclusion. He speaks of science and respect for cultural diversity.

Tanzania says that we should continue to strive for as consensus, but cool off could follow if this fails.

Costa Rica eloquently acknowledges the work of the IWC in the world of whales. The Chair’s proposal was a working document and helped to identify differences, she stresses.

The new commissioner for the UK, Nigel Gooding, makes his maiden speech in the IWC plenary. He graciously thanks the host and notes that the UK as a member of the EU fully supports the EU statement. He welomes the dialogue that has taken place and which has helped to clarify matters. For the UK key issues include trade, sanctuaries, science and welfare standards are important. The UK will continue to work constructively in this body.

[He does not ask, as some had hoped for a suspension of this plenary this afternoon to allow in-depth study of the football: Slovenia will be playing England.]

Denmark calls for some salt.

Denmark is taken by ‘surprise’ when asked to speak. He suggests that Denmark maintains a position in the middle of the IWC, so it is with great sadness that he hears the interventions today – but perhaps they have been a bit more polite. He adds that we still have nations dreaming of a brave new whaling world; others wish respect for the management aspect of the organisation. He says he is in a ‘gloomy mood’ and he wants to comment on the EU – the presidency said she spoke on the behalf of the 25 member countries but really this is Denmark speaks for the Faroe and Greenland, so the claim that Denmark present is part of the EU family should be taken with a big pinch of salt.

The redoubtable German Commissioner suggests we should constructively use the cooling down period to try to work out how to go forward.

Portugal doesn’t want us to cool off either – he too wants hard work.

France confirms that Spain spoke for the 25 nations – France is especially concerned about trade and sanctuaries and points to the EU declaration.

Kiribati congratulates the chairman on rising well to the challenge and she commends able Sir Geoffrey.

Cote d’Ivoire looks for the common ground to ‘save the IWC’.

And this continues for a little while until we drift off for a ligh lunch.

Speed Dating at the IWC

We understand that various groupings of countries have been meeting with various other groupings in order to seek mutual happiness, social gratification and a long and happy life. This is happening behind the IWC’s reinforced and famously closed doors. The groups, if unfulfilled in their quest for mutually satisfying relations, then move on to others to see if they like them better. (All of which is accompanied by Belgian fan dancing and nice Moroccan pastries.) Presumably if one group of countries finds they like another enough they may spawn some lovely little amendment texts that help put a deal in place. These texts will then be shared with others (but not the public obviously). Anyway, more importantly, we all had a truly fabulous reception yesterday provided by the generous host nation in the beautiful Atlantic Palace Hotel (where most of the country delegations and NGOs are staying and where poorer NGOs come and hang out in the hall ways and watch the… football; there are also fewer malevolent cats there than in many places).

The reception was around the pool and consisted of a huge buffet of food mainly cooked in the tradition terrines used here and a literal mountain of fruit for dessert. Moroccan musicians paraded amongst the delegates. As the stars came out, we briefly felt as if we were in the set of a glamorous movie. However, WDCS does not have too much time for this kind of thing and the team was soon taken off back to the fish docks many miles away, where we are lodging, to listen to the cats sing through the long night.

Tuesday – the IWC doors remain firmly barred. A few delegates peek out from the various meeting areas. Some even bravely exit for coffee, nimbly avoiding the few non-governmental representatives still lingering there to lobby them. Five minutes walk away through the hot sun, the lobby of the luxurious Atlantic Palace hotel (deep arm chairs, cool air-conditioning, waiter-service and giant football-friendly plasma screen) is filled with delegates who have failed to skip town or who just prefer to sit here. In the middle of the day, the US delegation (or at least part of it) is meeting in one corner; its lead scientist is trying to find his colleagues but wonders off towards the pool instead. Various Belgians pass through gently fanning themselves. Huddles of non-governmental observers of various kinds are collapsed into the arm chairs, steam rising from their lap tops as they brief each other and debate who might speak in the five or so minute slot now generously allocated to allow them to address the commission tomorrow (at a time when whatever they have to say won’t make any difference anyway). A few minutes hot walk in another direction, the press core is sitting miserably in an elaborately decorated tent in the car park of the conference centre, its floor covered in brightly patterned Moroccan carpets. There is little to report today. They have tried filming the security guards, passer by and, eventually, each other. Now they pounce on anyone looking vaguely interesting and interview them – a few passing tourists have been asked for their in-depth analyses of the IWC’s Revised Management Procedure and also how they may vote on The Deal.  Evil media cat.

However, relief is in sight for the press pack. Is it a bird, is it a plane… no it is the unmistakable form of everyone’s favourite friendly giant, Peter Garrett the Australian Environment Minster. Firstly he joins the press conference back over the in Atlantic Palace Hotel organised by WSPA (and focused on Norwegian whaling) and then, with film crews trailing him, swiftly strides to the conference centre where a media frenzy follows and a petition opposing whaling with almost one million names on it is handed over.  Press Frenzy

Garrett makes some bold statements in opposition to whaling and the press pack – happy now that they have landed some film (or some text) scampers back to the media tent to beam their treasures through the air via various satellite dishes and similar.  Minister Garrett

Meanwhile behind the closed doors the speed dating continues…. And almost certainly an EU co-ordination will break out. Never mind tomorrow is another day. A street cat of Agadir has moved into the tent and is sleeping paws-up on the carpets (no doubt waiting to trip up a passing delegate). It may be interviewed later.

‘They say’, said the reporter carefully, ‘that the age of cheap oil is over’. ‘They’ being a group of invisible and anonymous experts. The sentiment, however, seems to ring true. In order to exploit dwindling oil reserves, the industry is pushing into more extreme environments, for example deeper seas and further offshore, than it would have worked in before. This raises some difficult questions. Does the escalating cost of what may be described as the ‘oil addiction’ of modern societies, now include an increased risk embedded in the deployment of newer technologies in more difficult environments? And with such an increased risk would there not be an inevitability of increased accidents; and, arguably, the deeper a well and the further offshore it is, the more difficult it may be to cap?

The latest horrify and still expanding spill in the Gulf of Mexico points to this, but we should also not forget the recent major spill in Australia where another offshore rig started to leak and also proved very difficult to staunch.

Continue reading "Oily Times"

So here is how it all began.

It was a long time ago and God was in the final stages of assembling all the animals.

Working from a large pile of pre-assembled organs and limbs, She had carefully constructed the land mammals using a similar plan for each (with some small modifications): four legs (some short, some long), two eyes (various shades), two ears (some powerful, some less so), a range of noses, tails and other attributes, and a variety of decorations (hair, stripes, scales and so forth) and brain sizes.

Then She turned to the marine animals. She quickly realized that they did not need legs. Instead she made the fish stream-lined and finned, and able to quickly cut through the dense medium of the water (something she had made earlier and which she liked so much that she filled most of the planet with it).

She briefly experimented with the whales but, after a while, took their little legs away too. They really were not needed in the watery world.

Finally, when God had almost finished, She stopped to review what she had made, but realized that there remained a pile of parts that she had not used. Many legs were left over. So she took these and using groups of five she made the star-fishes, the sea-stars and, rolling five legs into a tight ball and adding some left-over spines, she made the sea-urchins.

God looked at all that She had done, and thought that it was good. She had no idea that the difference She had made between the marine animals and the land ones would lead to so much trouble in the future.

Hundreds of millions of years passed. In the dawn of a new age, the human species (by now globally dominant and hugely destructive) was meeting to review the fate of some of the others, including several marine ones, and maybe it was the difference between the animals in the sea and the animals of the land that led to the differences in the ways that they decided they should be treated.

The meeting was the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) and it met in Doha, in Qatar in March 2010, where a variety of issues were on a packed agenda. Here agreements could be reached to protect species from international trade, and foremost in these issues was the question of the Atlantic blue-fin tuna – a large, fast-moving and delicious species. The proposal came from Monaco and after almost no debate, was profoundly defeated by a vote of 68 to 20. (It would have needed the support of two-thirds of the nations attending the Doha conference to succeed).
In fact there were thirteen proposals for marine species protection at this CITES conference (more than ever before) and all ultimately failed.

There are various tuna species. These tasty fish ultimately find their way into many human meals, from sandwiches to sushi and expensive sashimi. In the last fifty or so years, 90% of the big predatory fish (including the tuna) have vanished from the seas; the seemingly insatiable human appetite for these animals has virtually wiped them out in a single human generation. The Bluefin tuna is so prized that it can sell for several hundred dollars a kilogramme and a single Bluefin weighing in at 262kg fetched a near-record 16.28mn yen ($175,000) at an auction at Tokyo's Tsukiji fish market two months before the Doha meeting.

The proposal to protect them at the CITES conference was a last ditch stand to save them and Japan has been largely credited with blocking the proposal. Given Japan’s dependence on marine foods, its ability to corral the votes of many allied nations and its fierce opposition to protection for marine species, as evidenced by its actions concerning whales and whaling, this was not perhaps surprising.

The loosers at this particular CITES conference, in addition to the tuna, included the sharks and the corals. Perhaps even more surprising was that the polar bear proposal from the United States also failed. (The bear is very much an animal of the frozen sea, even if it has four legs, and maybe its honorary marine status helped to crash the trade ban proposal). Given the bear’s status as the most obvious and immediate victim of climate change, the failure of countries to agree to address the trade threat to its survival is all the more remarkable. This also bodes badly for other species which may have their survival truncated by climate change combined with international trade.

A few species did gain new protection: an endangered salamander from Iran and the Bolivian rhinoceros beetle were added to the lists of the protected. (Japan presumably has no interest in eating either in the immediate future.)  A proposal for a one-off sale of elephant ivory from Zambia and Tanzania was defeated and more action was called for to protect rhinoceroses, but these positive developments for the terrestrial animals stand in stark contrast to the thirteen defeated pro-conservation proposals.    

Perhaps God is looking down and wondering where She went wrong. Perhaps She is watching the tuna merchants hording the flesh of these increasingly expensive fishes in their freezers against the day when extinction will make their stores even more valuable and a tuna sandwich will become a luxury for the privileged few alone to nibble on.