IWC 63

Wednesday Evening at IWC 64: in which Russia declares war on India and everyone appreciates Simon.

Aboriginal Subsistence

Joji Morishta of Japan rapidly reads the report of the sub-committee meeting on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling held last week. He pauses at one point in traditional style and the Chair asks is anyone has any comments. India makes an intervention at great pace (and gets through it with ‘just 6 seconds left’ notes the Chairman with a smile). The gist of what India said is that it should be the objective of the IWC to work towards reducing the number of whales killed within Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling and to help the relevant communities to identify alternative food resources.

Morishita-san continues and works steadily through his report. Mexico speaks of the excellent work done by the Eskimo in protecting the whales, studying them and managing their hunt. He regards them as exemplary and would like to see the same things done by Greenland.

Austria is aware that St Vincent and the Grenadines are not here but notes that data and samples had been requested from them last year and she asks the Secretariat to approach them for these things.

We plough on through the report and Morishita gives thanks to Greg Donovan, The Head of Science, for his hard work in the Scientific Committee on this theme.

Can we approve this report says the Chair hopefully?

Russia takes the floor to agree with the adoption of the report. He thanks Morishita for his excellent work but notes that he was not there for the meeting last week. He is surprised by the scientific knowledge of India and that India knows better than Scientific Committee the knowledge of Aboriginal Whaling, and we will return to Moscow with this information and we will be asking India why it took this position.

Denmark agrees.

India says he did not understand Russia and ‘this thing’ [presumably his headset] is not working properly.

Russia, in turn, missed the question. Sorry he says? [Gentle laughter]

Repeat your intervention please says the Chairman. The Russian Federation is astonished by the scientific knowledge of India and that they said there was a need to reduce the aboriginal hunt. He hopes that is the position of the delegate not the country. They will report to Moscow and ask for a response from the Indian Government to explain the statement. Thank you!

India: we did not use the phrasing suggested… it will be advisable on the part of our colleague to understand what we really said. We did not say that the quota should be reduced but there was a need to systematically reduce the need of communities… and this is the Indian Government Position. We do not have a separate position.

‘Russia? Says the Chairman with an ominous tone.

Russia: Now we understand what is said by India and a response will be requested by the Russian government.

The USA now introduces a working paper proposing an ad hoc working group on outstanding issues relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling.

Is it still daylight outside? Will we ever get out of here… not even a biscuit!

Sweden supports the US – and says this is in agreement with updating our 60 year-old rules, which in his country is ‘retirement age’. Needs statements need to be updated. He was surprised at how these were used for the Makah tribe. We also need to take into account various new legal instruments.

Norway says that they generally support this proposal and that it should make things easier for aboriginal people. Although the management procedures are different and have to be different for both types of whaling [commercial and aboriginal] both are safe and ensure sustainable catches. The work of the scientific committee should follow similar rules (for example phase-out rules) for both forms of whaling. We do not support taking discussions on aboriginal subsistence outside of the usual forum… and he notes that such work is ongoing in NAMMCO. Hence he cannot support the proposal. [Blog editor – you say he supports it in the first sentence and then he doesn’t in the last bit. Which is it? Pay attention, and no more bloody giraffes!]

Switzerland supports the rights of indigenous peoples. Like Sweden (who he is sitting next to) he stresses the importance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Indigenous People. He wishes to join the working group.

Argentina thanks the proponents. He comments on the issue of ‘unresolved  issues’ and suggests that other issues could be of interest, including the conversion factor between whales and tonnage of meat. He is also interested in animal welfare, as is the rest of Buenos Aires Group. He lists other scientific matters and then says that he has ‘no problem’ … [cut off]

Herman  turns his microphone back on.

I would like to ask the proponents what the size of the group is that you [USA] are thinking of, he concludes.

Iceland supports whaling in any form, he says again. There are only two categories of whaling sustainable and not sustainable and he associates with Norway.

Mexico agrees with Argentina – we need to standardise the ‘needs statement’. Perhaps Greenland can help us.

[The needs statement is a document provided by a nation in support of the claims by its indigenous people for an aboriginal whaling quota.] 

Portugal associates with those supporting the working group.

Spain agrees with what was said by Sweden. This is a critical issue here and Spain would like the working group to bring us up to date.

Colombia associates with the proposal – obviously we agree with Argentina and Mexico, she adds.

St Kitts and Nevis supports the working group.

The Chair says that I have two countries speaking against this. Norway and Iceland will you block consensus on this? 

Norway: we have made a statement and we support normalisation. We will not stand in the way.

Iceland: ‘Ditto’. [laughter]

The Chairman says can I close the item?

Argentina says I am sorry but I asked a question. How big is this group.

The USA says 8 = 4 ASW + 4 not ASW

 Doug Demaster Alternate Commissioner for the USA

Argentina: Thank you. We would be willing to join the group and the Buenos Aires Group would like to have two members on the group.

Russia: The USA mentioned four countries, Switzerland agreed to participate and we have talked to countries – Austria and Japan will take part; if Argentina would like this would make four, so this closes the list. We would like to do the work and deliver, so really small working group! We request Argentina discusses this within the Buenos Aires Group and represent them itself.

Argentina: This was discussed within the BA Group and I would like to discuss it with them.

Can I close the item says the Chairman hopefully.

Chile associates with Argentina and would like to talk more with him.

The USA says that we would like at least one person from the Scientific Committee and mentions the name Nick Gales.

 Here is Nick Gales.

The Chairman says shall we keep this open?

And so the item of 'Nick Gales' is kept open.

The USA says lets us close it except for membership.

The Russian Federation supports the USA and says that a discussion with the Buenos Airs group can report later.

The Chairman says we have 15 minutes left and there are quite a view items left. Japan?

We move on to Small Type Coastal Whaling.

Japan says that the importance to Japan of Small Type Coastal Whaling is well known. This has been a part of the ‘future of the IWC process’ too. At the beginning of this meeting I stated that we would like to propose this matter for consensus or other means. We know it will not get consensus. But we see the very positive consensus by EU/UK issue. We do not bring up something contentious. I would like to see further consensus and cooperation for a good dialogue.

The chair opens the floor for comments. There are none. Can the Chairman close the item. He can.

The next item is the IWC in the future. So, some science fiction coming up maybe: whales in space. These are the journeys of the Star Ship IWC. Its three year mission is to boldly go where no multilateral environmental agreement has gone before.    The USA says that they do not need to present their resolution but hope that all will strive to build trust and consensus. She looks to other governments for their support. It may be possible to put some language into your report and if other governments are supporting – today was evidence of this in spades. Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you for letting us talk… [She is cut off}

The microphone is turned back on but she is finished she says.

Sweden support this resolution because he thinks the IWC is dysfunctional and he reads from the Convention the text stating that the body is concerned with the ordelrly development of the whaling industry.

New Zealand does not support quite that, but he supports a process.

Iceland supports the resolution.

Russia supports the resolution mostly.

India: We are of the view that the IWC should work on threats to the whales and he gives a long list of threats. He adds considering the diverse role that the Commission has to play we should rename the body as the International Whale Commission.

Argentina says she has some problems with the draft and the resolution and he is grateful that the USA expressed a view that settles this concern. This would not be a resolution but words in the report and we would like to see these words and we would be prepared to consult to help with this.

Japan supports the forward process and the content and spirit of the resolution, and he like the flexibility of the proponents of the resolution. He too is flexible in this regard.

Spain supports the resolution in the terms presented by the USA. Portugal likewise.

Colombia associates with Argentina; so does Chile. The latter adds that we should not be afraid of taking a vote.

Australia associates with New Zealand, Argentina, Chile and others.

The Chairman and the Executive Secretary have their head together up on the stage.

Can we accept that the resolution is withdrawn, but it will appear in the Chairman’s notes. Item four is closed. Our last item is visas.

‘Good evening everyone!’ says Simon Brockington brightly beaming out across the room. This is our report on visas. He points to a paper. It was produced in a quick manner and if you may see errors; bring them to me and I will produce a revised version.

He adds that his principle contact is DEFRA, which is where the UK Commissioner is housed. They passed the question to their Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We helped where we could. Problems seem to be principally the inflexibility of the online visa system. We identify here some measures that we can use to learn from this.

The UK thanks the Secretariat. The commissioner speaks to this concern – 8 states were identified in a note from the Secretariat as potentially having problems. One delegate has arrived and visa applications for others cannot be investigated without further details. He too wishes to learn from the lessons.

Mexico thanks the Secretariat for his work.

Ghana notes that letters to the governments need to go to the Commissioners themselves as ‘letters get lost’.

Antigua and Barbuda congratulates the Secretariat. And congratulates those who ‘actually made it’ here.

Japan thanks Simon. Next year if we decide to go to Panama [which has invited the IWC starship to land there next year] we will probably need to go through the United States and I will be required to carry a visa for transit. You may like to keep this in mind. If some of my colleagues do not have an embassy in the relevant countries this can be ….

Not far away a room full of food is quietly spoiling.

Our heart-felt congratulations to Simon for his work, says Monaco. To avoid a reoccurrence of this kind in the future, it is useful to make the arrangements as soon as possible for this.

Ecuador says I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the UK hosts many multi-lateral agreements. Delegates from outside the UK and EU always have problems updating visas. Multilateral Organisations need to find a way to facilitate entry.

Russia associates with Monaco. He is not satisfied with the response from the UK. Half the nations were not allowed here.

Thank you personally Simon for the great work and also Julie who has done her best.

Iceland thanks Simon too for clarifying the issue. The issue has short and long term aspects, We need to prevent this from happening again. The short term aspect is that we need to continue to work at this meeting using consensus. There should be no other decision-making.

Simon thought it was a really constructive discussion and he will be meeting with the Foreign and Commonwealth \office shortly.

An NGO delegate from the Save the Food group rushes to the front and the reception is announced.

Some small time later a shuttle from the Star Ship IWC lands at the Royal Hotel and the transporters beams a range of delegates into the remarkably enjoyable NGO reception. Here many delegates celebrate ‘one small step for Jolyon Thompson (and friends ) but one giant leap for whale-kind’.

Tomorrow – the final curtain and does anyone care about marine debris?

 Mrs Lonsdale of EIA and Mr Perfect of the UK take 'tea' together.

Will the NGOs have their reception? Will anyone come? Will the EU resolution survive?

Whilst we wait let’s have a look at a new paper that has arrived in the pigeon holes:
‘Information Note on RMP tuning and Catch Limits Calculated by the Scientific Committee’ submitted by Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Monaco, New Zealand and United States.’

It provides a more detailed explanation of the discussion yesterday and adds a comment to clarify this in the Chairman’s summary. In particular it notes this ‘Discussions and comments on Monday afternoon in relationship to questions relating to the North Atlantic Fin whales may have left some delegations with the impression that the catch limits for different tunings had an equivalent scientific basis. Such an impression would be incorrect.’

17.06

Conservation and Welfare NGO delegate are running around trying to save their planned reception this evening. Can the food and drink be brought from the Royal Hotel to the Hotel de France? (How much Tupperware have the NGOs between them.) The latter hotel agrees – so far so good - but the former has a health and safety issue with the food making its way down the road on its own. This is not unreasonable.

There is a fifteen minute walk between the two hotels. Will delegates be given long enough to get there, get fed and watered and canter back, before something exciting happens? Or will harassed delegates, go there, not get enough food and get back just after a key vote?

Ok and we are back in the room.

17.16.

The Chairman says – we are nearly ready. A revised version of the document is brought into the room and a lone but fast-moving member of the Secretariat armed with a stack of lime-green papers can be seen moving across the floor of the meeting hall. No wait, a second member of secretariat staff is here too. Then a third: Redoubtable old Bernard is whizzing around too. ‘Excuse me’ calls out the European Commission ‘As I did the typing, can I have one’!

Soon all the copies are exhausted and none have reached the NGO benches. But we don’t care: For we have tables and water and we can read emails and watch You-Tube and have our own co-ordinations and irritate each other and so forth.

17.27

The co-ordinator of the informal drafting group (New Zealand) is called on to report back. A small group met over the last few hours and will now take everyone through the document.

He lists some changes and gives some of the explanations behind them. You can find the amended document on the IWC website here: http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC63docs/63-8rev%202.pdf

Paper copies start reaching the NGO benches at 17.31.

New Zealand ploughs on through the changes. Here is a key part ‘unless the payment has been made and the Commission is satisfied that the delay in receipt is due to circumstances beyond the control of the Contracting Governments’. This is new.

The Chair opens the floor for comments.

There is a pause… are there none?

The USA says that when get together with a consensus for working together progress can be made.

The UK states that the text was modest before but they are content and commend it to other delegates for adoption by consensus.

Iceland thanks the Commissioner for New Zealand and the other participants and he is pleased that his expectations were met by working together to find consensus in the small working group.

St Kits and Nevis: Thank you Mr Chair. Thanks to the distinguished Commissioner for New Zealand and the members of the group and commend them, including myself [laughter]. There seems to be a will now to reach consensus and I hope this is a test of the way forward.

Palau is pleased with this too and Japan says it is a ‘fine piece of work’ and asks for one more thing. Assuming this is accepted as an adopted adopted by consensus is should be seen as a resolution that is an achievement for this body as a whole. It is not a victory of one party over another.

Ghana says let us carry this consensus on to the end. He feels more comfortable this year than last.

The UK Commissioner too feels that it has been a good day and he sincerely hopes it is adopted by consensus and we Some of us would have liked to have gone further on observers. We have all had to show willingness to compromise. So I would also like to pay tribute to all the people involved and in particular my colleague Jolian Thompson (the UK Legal Expert.) He echoes Japan is saying that this is a win for all of us here.

Can we adopt by consensus.

Pause. There is a whirring of the air-conditioning. Sea gulls cry far away. Even further away giraffes roam.

This document is adopted by consensus.

Loud applause.

Vicki, who has earlier been off for a swim with a Norwegian animal welfare group, is startled by the action, stands up and appreciatively wags her tail.

A private Commissioners meeting is called. In which ‘the only matter of business’ is the order of business.

The Executive Secretary announces that the NGO reception will go ahead in the Royal Hotel from 7pm. 

Meanwhile it is not raining on the Belgians and Luxembourg has had a significant hair cut.

There is a pause.....

The Chairman returns to tell us that Commissioners will have two minute interventions and then be cut off by the technicians. We will finish F&A, then Aboriginal Subsistence, Small Type Coastal Whaling (where Japan usually asks for a relief quota) and so on.

But no clue on any dinner break. Somewhere some food is being prepared and many NGOs are running around to prepare a Reception that seems unlikely again. 

Attack of the cyber men. 

A lengthy coffee break occurs. Some delegates have difficulty accessing the toilets because of an impromptu EU co-ordination breaking out in the way.
 
The clock ticks on. The air conditioning roars quietly in the background and squirts a cold breeze on the US delegation. They dispatch their distinguished scientist to get it fixed.
 
Elsewhere, non-EU delegates chat happily and sip their coffee. There is still no sign of a single biscuit. The States of Jersey great biscuit shortage continues.

We resume. The Japanese commissioner is worried about a cyber-attack if his contact details are published on the IWC website. They have suffered this in the past and they also raise some concerns about the clause in the UK proposal that relates to the appointment of alternate commissioners. Antigua and Barbuda has also been subjected to cyber attack. Iceland associate with Japan.
 
Cameroon has ‘just come into the room’ and congratulates the Chairman on his excellent work which he has not been able to see because he was not here. He speaks against the proposal from the EU/UK on the designation of an alternate commissioner of an email address etc.
 
Chairman: Let’s move on.
 
But the UK is waving and jumping up and down again; and wishes to speak to the points made. Their legal expert calmly explains their reasoning: we need a contact point for the Secretary he explains again. We are trying to move into the 21st century … and in fact a contact point could be a postal address. 
 
Japan now replies to this revolutionary idea and there is a discussion between them over the details which the scribe misses because of a technical malfunction in his work space. (In fact, an avalanche of debris (sweet wrappers and the like) has spread from the adjacent desk of the WSPA delegation and is threatening to drown him.) 
 
Over the next hour, the debate features a series of issues raised almost exclusively by what might be called the pro-whaling block of countries. The UK replies via its legal expert to each issue raised carefully and patiently.
 
At some point the UK commissioner swaps seats with the senior representative of the European Commission and EC representatives can be seen sweeping around the room.
 
This debate is long and detailed. We will give only a flavour of it here.
 
St. Kitts and Nevis would like to know the definition of the word ‘delegate’. Both governments and NGOs are referred to as delegates.
 
St Kitts and Nevis: this is an organisation of contracting governments and although I agree all text should be made available would like to propose an amendment to remove the word ‘delegate’ and replace with ‘duly authorised government representatives’.
 
Cameroon: we are a little embarrassed about the proposal of language, amazed that we go backward. We have struggled to make French a working language and now we hear that text must be in English, don’t know if we who are not English-speaking should not have the chance to appreciate this text.
 
Antigua and Barbuda does not like ‘the fluff’ here.
 
St Kitts and Nevis is concerned about situations of natural disaster.
 
Vicky sleeps soundly as one delegate after another raises an issues and the UK replies thus usually starting with the phrase ‘Thank you to the distinguished delegate from….’. The debate is also characterised by its slow delivery of criticisms.
 
Is the Union Jack drooping; will we go into evening session?
 
Will the evening reception which would have been hosted by the conservation and welfare NGOs be cancelled?
 
We hear at one point from the Head of Science. He notes that SC report previously went out in printed form and now the report can come out quickly. The report of the SC is the report as agreed by the SC. The Commission's job, he stresses, is not to change the SC report but to endorse it – if it should so wish (or indeed if they so get the chance). Japan notes that the scientific committee report is already distributed to the very wide public (really?) but stays confidential until the first day of the commission. He asks to remove the word ‘preliminary’.
 
The proposed rule reads ‘The preliminary report of the Scientific Committee should be made available to all Commissioners and posted on the Commission’s website by the opening date of the Annual Commission meeting or within 14 days of the conclusion of the Scientific Committee meeting.
 
 A Caribbean country agrees with Japan.
 
Outside muscular herring gulls are throwing the crockery around and the snails are reflecting on their key messaging for tomorrow.
 
Korea questions the intention of this change.
 
The UK thanks Japan for improving the clarity of what was proposed and accepted the removal of the word ‘preliminary’. He explains that the intention is that the Scientific Committee meeting in the future will be held in advance of the Commission meetings and this is to allow for this. He also agrees to add the word public in front of website.
 
St Kitts and Nevis wants the wording ‘the official report of the Scientific Committee’ added.
 
 The Chairman notes the time and that he will continue until we are finished with this document. It is one o’clock and the clock ticks on. Will there be any discussion about whales and conservation at all.
 
The debate tumbles on and on…. Some matters that were previously discussed are returned to again. St Kitts and Nevis returns to bank giraffes [Blog Editor: I have warned you about this… It is ‘bank draft’ – please pay attention.]
 
When he goes to the bank he has difficulties and the financial situation is acute and he cannot see a way forward. Antigua continues to be concerned about this and says so at length. The reality for developing countries is that they face certain realities. She continues to talk about how companies work …. Rigorous…. Transparent….environment … articles of incorporation… board of directors… good standing … legal enquiry … laws … legislators… ABC…. Vagaries… tomorrow may be a different story… transition situation… realities other than you own… flexibility….
 
The Chairman says can I just notice the differences and can I ask countries still seeking the floor to support one of the proposals. Lots of you are still looking for the floor… some of you have disappeared (he has a series of lights of front of him on the podium showing who wishes to speak) but some of you remain, he adds sadly.
 
The clock ticks on.
 
More interventions follow. Mexico says he is very ignorant about banking measures but he understands from what he has heard that bank drafts can be problematic to the secretariat. We should speak about bank transfers.
 
Iceland says something about terrorists. [Is he on the correct agenda item?]
 
There is a low chanting in a remote part of the room….’Vote, vote, vote…’ but it is not yet audible to the national delegations.

Last night the Australians hosted a fine reception and their minister, Tony Burke, made a Rousing speak which can now be found on YOUTUBE. The Australians have been funding a major and of course non-lethal research programme in the Southern Ocean.

After lunch we return to hear an announcement from Chairman Oosthuizen that the EU has asked for more time for co-ordination and the meeting will reconvene but as a private Commissioners (only)meeting. There is a loud outcry from the floor and, shortly after this, crowds of angry delegates are seen surrounding the stage.  

And, even worse, Vicky has run out of pooh bags.

Stop-press: At 16.43 The Chairman announces that we shall reconvene in twenty minutes.

A good night for snails.

The sun is shining. Delegates from lesser hotels around St Helier make their way up the steep steps leading to the Hotel de France, home to IWC63. A medical centre has been built conveniently adjacent to these steps to cope with those that do not quite make it.

One small delegate is seen heading determinately in the wrong direction having arrived without the badge that allows his entry.

Many snails have left their shining trails across the steps. Is there a message here, can anything be read into the shining loops and zig-zags sprawled across the concrete? Does if spell ‘Save the Whales’ or ‘Stop the Bloody Whaling’? Probably not; perhaps the snails don’t care.

Fortunately the many conservation and welfare NGOs gathering now inside the great hall care greatly. Many have devoted significant parts of their lives to this issue and for them, each year the Moratorium survives – for all of its flaws – is a success and those of us that work inside the halls are no less committed, no less engaged and feel no less passion than those that serve the cause by protesting outside.

Here are the big questions for today:

1. Which animal welfare organisation or distinguished scientist will be tasked with walking Vicky today.
2. Did the Commissioners resolve the issue with the UK/EU resolution in the never-ending coffee break yesterday?
3. How many members of the EU are actually here?

The Chair calls for order and we are off:  I don’t want to restrict speaking rights. Keep comments brief.

UK Commissioner: My distinguished colleagues will talk through the proposal. He then lists all the countries that are cosponsoring it. If we are to have a real prospect of modernising the IWC we need to work together. We need a common goal of putting the IWC reputation behind us. Put the time that we wasted yesterday behind us. These matters have been discussed in the F&A committee last week, here yesterday and in the private commissioners meeting. I should reinforce the message from my minister that the package presented here is the bare minimum.

The Commissioner passes the microphone to his legal expert who takes us carefully through the revised proposal on governance from the UK and EU. He comments that after yesterday’s discussion and confusion on the sponsors that should have taken only a couple of minutes; we have submitted a new proposal with the co-sponsors. … and he list the nations of the EU who are signed on.

He repeats that these proposals are the modest and the bare minimum and accepted elsewhere. The interest generated in this proposal says much about this organisation

The Scientific Committee regularly updates its procedures and we have reflected this. We also ask the SC to continue their good work in reviewing their practices. There is a proposal about developing countries (as proposed by the Secretariat yesterday) – we all support the need to support developing countries and we should support such a system here, which the Secretariat should look into further.

There is a new paragraph on observers. Originally we proposed the participation of observers in plenary debate. Having heard the debate in the F&A committee, we have removed all the previously proposed amendments relating to this. We regret this. Instead we have put in place a working group to look at this matter and report back next year..

On the issue of the designation of alternate commissioners: The idea is to have a constant point of contact with government. Buy we have heard that this might cause difficulties and so we have increased the flexibility in this. Now we propose an alternate, focal or contact point – the latter could even be an email address. This allows for great flexibility in this.

We propose a change in decision-making and we had a good discussion on this in F&A. Essentially this is designed to allow texts/decisions that we will adopt to be shown on a screen. This will help ensure that all know what we are adopting. This was supported by the secretariat. The authentic text of any decision will be the English version.

Concerning voting rights – suspension applies until fees have been received. We have clarified that rights will only be available to those that have paid their dues. [There is some vagueness in the existing rules that this could in some circumstances be waved.]

Concerning the public website: here we make it clear that the website is part of the Executive Secretary’s duty.

In new clause 4.B: this is a provision for scientific advice. We have heard that the Scientific Committee could hold its meetings in good time ahead of the Commission meeting. With this intervening period – say 100 days – we need to make clear that it is Scientific Committee advice from the SC that we need to consider.

Another new rule asks for decisions to be posted on the website in good time.

Communications from the Secretariat will also be provided to observers and published on the website with some exceptions of confidential issues.   

He goes on to detail the proposed financial changes. This includes the new rule that cash, cheques and credit cards will not be accepted. And payments will not be accepted until funds have cleared. He stresses the need to regularise payments and put the organisation beyond reproach. Our proposal is modest, simple and should not be controversial and we should all be able to agree this by consensus.

Finally, he notes that previously the UK had suggested changes to rule of debate to allow improved participation from observers. These are no longer there.

The Chair says that he will take comments on the various amendments in term.

Costa Rica supports the financial changes but regrets the loss of the section on observer participation.

Japan appreciates the efforts made by the UK or EU to be flexible. His delegation has a series of questions and some procedural proposals. He will just handle the resolution part at this stage. He asks for some amendments in the operative part of the Resolution.

St Kits and Nevis joins with the last speaker and graciously congratulates the United Kingdom. The proposal has ‘some merits’ and will help this organisation. Some provisions in this proposal need changing and he provides some details.

The Chair says we are only looking at the resolution now.

But St Kitts and Nevis gently continues to make a series of comments across the whole proposal. … He thanks the Chair for allowing the debate yesterday. He would not call it time-wasting; it allowed us to ensure that our rules are steadfastly adhered to by all parties. He thanks all the delegations who worked tirelessly on this to ensure that we all work within the rule. Any international organisation must seek to improve its transparency. We must work by consensus. He continues on similar theme for sometime. Whatever we agree must not be discriminatory or punitive, he stresses.

The UK calls for the microphone to clarify some points. Their legal experts points again at the relevant paragraph and carefully addresses some of the other points raised. In terms of meeting the abilities of contracting governments, he believes that all countries here (there are 89 members) should be able to make a transfer.

Mexico regrets that the observer clauses have been lost and believes that NGOs often help with knowledge gaps. He supports the revised resolution. Argentina makes similar sentiments. The Buenos Aires Group supports the participation of all observers. For security reasons, money transfers should be by bank transfers.

Germany emphasises that what is at stake today is the reputation of the IWC; concessions have been made and we regret these. Germany would be very reluctant to postpone any arrangements here to next year… we need to rebuild public confidence.

The Commissioner from the USA says she will be brief. The US is glad that this organisation has a diversity of members from around the world. They too are disappointed about the withdrawal of the clause of the speaking rights of observers. She strongly supports the changes to the financial rules but wishes to discuss further some aspects of bank transfers. We need to discuss this further and patiently work through this.

Sweden is happy to be a supporting country and the proposals are completely in line with their views.

France is also supportive and Colombia feels we need to reach agreement on this for the good of the IWC, and supports the UK.

Brazil wishes to broaden the participation of civil society and regrets this has been lost. We are here proposing to make a ‘small step’ and we need to keep working on these proposals in the future. However, we need to allow for countries that cannot get their payments in before the meeting opens but bank transfer only needs to be accepted.

New Zealand speaks for further work to resolve the fundamental disagreements between us.

Poland stresses this is a modest proposal and Monaco thanks the UK and everyone for sponsoring the resolution. He has nothing to add There is nothing and he recognises that the UK had to make many sacrifices and he calls for more work on transparency.

Chile thanks the UK and the EU; they too preferred the first version. But ‘perfect is the enemy of the good’ and he knows that compromises had to be made.

Iceland now comes to the microphone. He thanks the UK for putting the proposal in order with respect to form and for their substantive proposals. He can go along with many of them but will need to make some changes to reach consensus. From the private commissioners meeting he took it that we would work on the basis of consensus. Iceland has seen on its own skin the special circumstances where back payments may be difficult and so we need to arrange for special circumstances.

Equador thanks the UK and associates with the Buenos Aires Group.

The Chair asks if anyone wants to comment on the resolution part of the EU Resolution and Antigua and Barbuda wants to amend some clauses. She has 3-4 suggestions and the Chair asks if the UK wishes to reflect but they are waving and wish to respond now.

The UK says that they accept the earlier suggestion from Japan to ask the secretariat to report to the Commission 100 days ahead of the next meeting. He accepts some of what A & B proposed, but not all.

Is this acceptable? Says the Chair.

St Kitts and Nevis comes forward. He has always been concerned with the motives of this resolution and if we are moving towards consensus we need to refrain from the pointed accusations here – some of the language here is disrespectful and “almost discriminatory”– alluding to vote-buying – we will not be able to join in any consensus.

Iceland: I think it is important that we are favourable to amending some matters – he wishes to remove the word ‘environmental’ in the preambular text, so it just refers to multilateral agreements; he identifies some other possible changes.

We break for coffee and the Chair asks the UK to meet with a few countries; so no coffee break for them!

Monaco is speaking. He wishes for a little nuancing. We should not all wear the same uniform he says.

Out of the corner of one eye we see Argentina kneeling beside the Spanish commissioner. Many European delegates are roving around the room meeting and greeting each other.

The next item from F&A, says Donna, concerns financial reforms, including a proposal that payments must be via bank transfer. Her committee was particularly concerned about large sums of money being given to the Secretariat in cash when‘overseas’.

Chair: We will deal with the UK-now-EU proposal shortly (he is perhaps being a little optomistic here - we shall see).

St Kitts and Nevis asks for a point of clarification on procedural matters. When will we go back to agenda point 21 he asks.

Agenda 21 appears to be the report of the F&A Committee, which is what we are dealing with.

But the Chairman wisely knows that he means the issue of voting rights.

The last point of the day says the Chairman gently.

I beg your pardon?

The last point of the day

We will defer voting until tomorrow

You do not understand me; do you want a debate on the F&A report?

We are only taking debate on the F&A report?

Ghana then congratulates the Chair and, as a musician, he cherishes the black and white keys of the piano some countries here are endowed he adds cryptically. When we come to financial matters, we need to be careful how we develop transmissions of money. Some countries here are well endowed he says again. Some countries get their money at the very time that they have to comply. We should do this case by case; not just those who can afford.

The Chair then says: St Kitts and Nevis do you look for the floor again.

St Kitts and Nevis: Yeah. I associate with the problems of handling large quantities of cash when you need to cross borders… why a giraffe of your government is not acceptable? Why only a bank transfer. Some countries are having financial problems now. At the last moment money may be available. The transfer may take 2-3 working days.

He describes a scenario where he apparently cannot go to a bank with his giraffe. In the spirit of transparency, he declaims, we need some accommodation for bank giraffes. The issue of a giraffe should not be contentious.

[Editor Note 124: Apologies – we now understand St K and N was saying ‘draft’ as in Banker’s draft and not referring to the fabulously long-necked ungulate of the African plains.]

The Chair does not thank him for his comment but turns to the Secretariat. Bank statements can already be paid for by bankers draft explains Dr Brockington. The voting rights will under be allowed once the bankers draft has cleared. This is the proposal.

Antigua asks for the floor. She appreciates the clarification. There is a need, she says, to put oneself in the shoes of another. She joins fully and unreservedly with everyone here who wants to see transparency. This should not be a free-for-all. It implies that procedures and methodologies conform to a standard and probity and scrutiny. We must allow for special circumstances.

New Zealand thinks we can all come together on this. He is disappointed that it is causing divisions.

Does Iceland mean to support him? No Iceland says there may be special circumstances and at the time of economic crises we need to have at least the possibility for special circumstances.

The Chairman asks is we are finished… no

Togo says in May the Secretariat wrote to his country asking them to pay. They communicated with their department of finance … the payment was undoubtedly sent but when he got here the balance needed to be paid. £600 was outstanding and he had to use his own money to redress this; to ensure that he could vote.

The Chairman moves on to other matters recommended by the F&A committee. Annual arrangements for the meetings are discussed next and one proposal is the option of appointing an alternate commissioner.

This is accepted along with almost all the other proposals – one issue outstanding is from this part of the F&A report is how the Secretariat receives payment.

We try to move on but a point of order is called. St Kits and Nevis takes the floor. This document was circulated within 60 days as a document from the UK. He is searching the rules of procedure as the document now comes from a totally different source. He is very confused and he needs clarification.

The UK’s legal expert replies. In terms of EU process, the Delegate is right in that it was circulated within the 60 days deadline. The proposal now comes from Poland on the behalf of the EU and this is a resolution that is not only the UK but the UK and all the other member states of the EU. I believe it is allowed for co-sponsors to join a resolution he resonantly concludes.

Is the distinguished commissioner for St Kits and Nevis still confused?

The Chair says that a point of order has been raised. No one else can speak and I am making a ruling. My ruling is that the resolution can be submitted by the EU.

But St Kitts and Nevis is not mollified. It is a shame that we are going back to the acrimony that we are known for ‘out there’. This document is not in order. I do not see the name on this document. EU is not a member and we may have to go to a challenge. Perhaps we can meet with the EU and UK. It is a simple procedural matter.

The Chair moves to a five minute break.

EU nations race to co-ordinate around the room. The UK minister makes his way to the front. Vicky strategically blocks the gangway and watches quietly as delegates bustle around her.

The Chair moves back into his seat and speaks. Does anyone challenges my ruling? [No one does.] Please go ahead.

The Polish Commissioner hesitantly starts again - This has never happened to me before, she says and thank you for your help. There is some banging in the room around the fringe of the Russian delegation. What is happening? (People banging their heads on their desks possibly.)

Poland is interrupted.

There is a point of order; this time from Russia.

The Russian Federation thinks that we cannot discuss this document . It should be taken out of discussion. It includes amendment to the rules. It is not in accord with the rules. We do not recognise the EU; they are not a member; not an observer.

[Most certainly we are say loud voices from the Commission bench.]

Russia cannot hear them or perhaps does not care and he continues. The document cannot be submitted without clearly representing the countries. He makes an analogy to the World Boxing Federation. It should be withdrawn until all countries should be identified properly. Otherwise we should move to a vote.

Chair – so you want to see the names of all the members of the EU on the document?

Yes.

Ok, says Chairman Oosthuizen very practically, let us take some coffee.

The meeting stops again and the Executive Secretary now speeds across the floor to consult with the UK. An angry minister is now roaming. The Chairman can be seen bent over the desk of the Russian delegation. The minister roams and some people go for tea,

The World Society for the Protection of Animals  leaps into action to take Vicky for a wee.

In fact this is a tea break potentially without end as the meeting does not resume .... but a private commissioner's meeting is called to try to resolve the issue of whether the EU proposal should have all the countries listed on it or not.... some might say this is just filibustering but would could not possible comment.  

Many Commissioners leave the room and we look up to see the British minister and the delegate from St Kitts and Nevis deep in conversation over the UK's desk.

It is raining on the Belgians!

We move towards the popular issue of the participation by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the Commission meetings. Examples of NGOs dear reader would include the World Wide Fund for Nature. The International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and so forth.

However, Morocco wishes to say something about the visa situation. He suggests that the inability of some delegations to come to host countries is not just a handicap but discrimination by the host country. He asks that the host country commits to all the arrangements that will ensure the participation of all contracting members.

Vicky, who has now been returned to the great hall, has pricked her ears up at this.

The Chair leads us back to the participation of NGOs

This has been discussed for years says Norway. Three years ago NGOs were given trial participation and it was also on the list of issues to discuss under the Future of the IWC process. The Future of the IWC process was about normalisation and we have still not achieved this - it is still not an organisation that is able to fulfil its basic management mandate – it still needs to be ‘normalised’.

The blog scribe is pleased to recognise the return of the previously popular mantra of normalisation and efforts to normalise the IWC and its inhabitants.

Anyway, the Norwegian spokesman continues that under  these circumstances it does not make sense to increase the number of voices –and his experience with NGO participation is not entirely positive. With this background, he is reluctant to endorse the idea of NGO participation.

Chair: do you agree we go ahead with the proposed way we have discussed? Norway nods in reluctant agreement.

The UK (in the form of its minister, Richard Benyon) now replies on the visa issue. He states that there are clear instructions on the IWC website for countries to apply in good time for a visa. There is no attempt being made to block applications and there is no evidence that there are visa problems.

Nonetheless, St Kitts and Nevis takes to the floor to state that this matter is of significant importance to those countries who were not given the opportunity to be here and it is of significance to countries who would normally engage in discussions with those countries. He is very disappointed with the way the secretariat wants to move forward on this issue – this is urgent but the secretariat says we have to wait until tomorrow. The explanation given has not been adequate and this issue is not being treated with the urgency that it deserves. He appeals to the Chair to indulge us in this discussion now.

The Chairman says that at the private commissioners meeting it was agreed to discuss this tomorrow!

But Antigua disagrees - the issue was raised and the secretariat said he would need a few days but we did not agree to this. This is a regrettable way of handling this matter. A number of delegations will be affected by decisions made here in their absence and they are absent for no fault of their own. The UK Minister’s response lacks compassion and empathy and has a certain terseness that is inappropriate in these circumstances. I was not intending to be here in Jersey but then decisions were made by my government that meant I had to be here in place of Antony Liverpool – these are the kind of circumstances we must be able to anticipate and deal with. We do not expect this from a country such as the UK which prides itself as being the centre of democracy and rules and is the head of the commonwealth. A significant number of West African countries have been denied the right to participate in discussions on key and critical issues that are important to them. The silence that penetrates this room since Sunday demonstrates a lack of humanity. We have been at a cross roads, valiant efforts of many to normalise [the Commission] have been met with fierce resistance – to continue to conduct this meeting in this current atmosphere and in the absence of key constituents would be a travesty of justice, this body should take a decision to postpone decisions and discussion on issues which will impact delegates who are not able to be in this room through no fault of their own. He She concludes by asking the secretariat to bring us the information on this by the end of this meeting today.

The Chair reveals that  he has suffered visa difficulties himself (but presumably not on this occasion). We must try to get everything done by consensus, he adds hopefully, and says that he will try my best not to have to go to voting.

We move to the report from the Finance and Administration.

The Russian Federation is not happy with F&A. If the decision goes to the vote we cannot wait on the Secretariat report.

The Chairman says the report will come this afternoon and then we will discuss this. We should not point fingers but look to the future. There will be no votes or decisions today. He tries to move on…

Australia starts to make the report from the Finance and Administration Committee (F&A) Committee which was chaired by their commissioner. This is a long and complex report and we will only give some highlights here.

Timing of the annual meetings is discussed. The F&A Committee recommends a separation between the Scientific Committee and the Commission meetings. It also recommends holding the Commission meeting itself biennially (although some concerns were raised about this); the Scientific Committee would still meet annually. 

Apparently the great hall is now leaking. The Belgian delegation – at least on its scientific left flank is getting wet. We will be offering umbrellas later. Outside protestors are now behind the barriers by the busy road in the pouring rain. The skull and crossbones is flying there and passing cars are hooting their support.

Iceland, New Zealand, Colombia and others wish to take part in a working group to look at the details of separating the meetings. Japan wants to be involved in the meetings too.

The proposals from F&A up to this point are agreed

We move on to the development of the website. Monaco is particularly pleased with a section for children that is planned. (‘How to kill your own whales for the underfives perhaps’.) It seems all are pleased with what is proposed.

We move to the issue of the review of the financial arrangements of the Commission. This includes the rules that cover cash payments made to the Commission by member nations. This is where the key UK proposal to this meeting comes up. This also extends to the use of scientific advice.

The UK proposal is a package stresses the minister. Included is the issue of NGO participation, including speaking rights. Other IGOs allow NGOs to speak at the discretion of their Chairmen/women. A dedicated NGO session was attempted last year. Some countries spoke in support of these changes during the F&A meeting, others opposed. No consensus was reached.

A document based on the UK proposals has now been tabled by Poland on the behalf of the whole EU.

The US reaches for the microphone. Their Commissioner takes a moment to thank Donna (the Australian Commissioner for her work on F&A). The USA supports the presence of observers in F&A but also that it can go into closed session if necessary. We need to evolve our practices on speaking rights, she adds

The Chair next reads out a long list of speakers who are interested in the issue of observer participation.

Argentina thanks Donna for her report. It has been said many times – as in the opening statement from the Buenos Aires Group (BAG) of countries – that we need to improve transparency. Israel too would like to bring the IWC in line with other organisations.

Iceland – we represent civil society in our country. It is often said that we do not here represent civil society but we do. We are not in favour of support NGO participation in the meetings. Various countries speak in a rather predictable manner in favour or against NGOs. A selection follows.

Colombia wishes to hear from all players.

Denmark says that we have seen this morning how fanatical some NGOs can be. They are not accredited NGOs here but this is the reason for treatment of NGOs here. We need to be convinced; a revision such as the one you have here – 3 points with 3 sets of NGO interventions would be acceptable.

Monaco has been looking at the division of time here and says that we are offering only some 2.5% of time to civil society; let us offer a fuller participation.

The UK minster respects the Chairman’s decision to take the EU proposal later but this issue needs to be taken as part of a package on governance… it is essential to adopt this package as a whole. On the issue of NGO participation this was part of our (UK) original proposal, now modified. Our package is about governance, not whales and we hope that our proposal attracts support from all members. The proposals here should at least bring us into line and EU proposals should be accepted by consensus. I have made these changes to allow for this and I am grateful to colleagues from the EU to allow this. We have been willing to compromise but the package is still the bare minimum. We need to show the world that the IWC is a functional body.

Ghana: shall we speak here about paying contributions.

No says the Chair, and he stresses that he has ended the list. The F&A report has concluded that there was no consensus on observers and there was already considerable debate about this in that committee. Meanwhile it is still raining in Jersey and in Belgium.

We next enter that part of the F&A report that deals with subscriptions from developing nations. Several countries stress how important this is to them.

But first a little light lunch and lobbying in those famous margins.

Just a reminder, as we start day two of blogging from the IWC annual meeting, that our reports are not verbatim but generally paraphrased. We endeavour to give the gist of what was said and strive for accuracy. We welcome corrections and comments. Readers will also notice that blogs often get revised as we go along.

The day starts dull and soggy. Delegates living in hotels with lesser numbers of stars pass by those breakfasting in the Hotel de France.

Even the gulls – normally pristine in their white plumage – seem a little bedraggled today, but they linger outside the meeting hoping for the odd wayward snack. There are no protestors outside yet but significant crash barriers have appeared on the road that leads towards the meeting hotel.

The issue of voting rights continues to be in play here. Who will be able to vote and is there really a problem for some getting visas?

Inside the meeting room the technicians are once again rehearsing the Japanese video about ‘violence on the high seas’. This was previously rehearsed during a coffee break yesterday. (In effect this means delegates coming into the room are getting a sneak preview of what will follow. One slide describes the tactics of the ‘SS’.)

In the pigeon holes we find a paper labelled ‘IWC/63/12 ‘Proposal to Establish an Ad Hoc Subsistence Working Group, Submitted by Demark, Russian Federation and the United States. The paper gives draft terms of reference for the group and an instruction to the Scientific Committee to provide advice to the next Commission meeting on ‘revising the current 5-year period for adopting’ the aboriginal quotas. We shall come back to this.

There is also a rather nice colour leaflet from WDCS in circulation entitled ‘Marine Debris and Cetaceans – a important role for the IWC’ (we apologise for the grammar slip in the title; someone was tired but the leaflet is otherwise jolly interesting).

There is a very brief delay in the opening of the meeting as Chairman Oosthuizen has misplaced his spectacles. Meanwhile European nations are notably whizzing around the floor co-ordinating their positions. Eventually the delegations settle, and the Chairman introduces the promised presentation on Sea Shepherd (SS). The presentation includes some audio of people shouting and the quiet voice of the Japanese Commissioner cuts in to describe the ‘violent activities’. Slides show the various boats being used and one details the ‘Harmful Assault Weapons of the SS’ which include ropes and cables to entangle propellers claims the Commissioner. The Animal Planet camera crew is also identified in the images. Despite the earlier rehearsals, the audio with the footage drowns out some of the comments made by the Commissioner. Amongst other things, Japan describes how the projectiles from the SS have penetrated nets and cloths used to try to protect their vessels.

Unfortunately one of the two giant screens at the front of the meeting fails part way through the presentation. The Japanese delegate goes on to name individuals involved and concludes with an invitation for people to contact them for more information…

No sorry, not concluded: another delegate explains that Japan’s research activities had to be truncated and that no lawful nation could condone such acts.  Five activists are now on Japan’s international wanted list and arrest warrants have been issued for them.

Sometime later, Russia takes the floor to ask the two countries that Sea Shepherd is registered and flagged to, to comment. It is important to work with mass media and National Geographic that made the documentary about SS. He adds that we did not see in the [documentary] films the actions of violence shown here today.

The Netherlands states that this item should not be on the agenda of the IWC but on the agenda of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). They support peaceful demonstration including on the high seas. Safety at Sea must never be jeopardised. They have had several bilaterals with Japan in which they have stated these views. Safety of human life at sea is the higherst priority.

There is also concern this morning that Vicky may have been thrown off the UK delegation for bad behaviour (perhaps associating with the wrong NGOs), as she is nowhere to be seen. Several NGOs have offered to take her onto their badges, if this is the case. It was notable yesterday that she was playing a significant role in the proceedings as virtually all delegates stopped to pat and stroke her.

Kiribati congratulations the Chairman on the assumption of his role and supports the position taken by Japan.

The Australian Minister speaks: Australia shares the same safety perspective as Japan. He stresses that the IMO is the appropriate forum for safety at sea.

Korea regrets hearing these kinds of reports over and over again. We last had a resolution by consensus on this in 2007. We all recognise different views on whaling and the right to disagree. As a student of international law, he sees the issue as one of utilising marine recourses… from a legal point of view he must agree with Iceland that as long as it is sustainable from the view of science it is OK. He continues for sometime, getting increasingly loud… every NGO and contracting government must comply with the rules of the IWC and the use of force or violence is strictly prohibited under international law and cannot be condoned….

The Chairman notes that he needs interventions to be kept short. He then reads out a long list of those wanting to speak and repeats that Japan wishes to speak on this. He will close the speaking list after Iceland (and before Japan).

Here we will now merely note who speaks and who they associate with. Morocco associates with Japan’s concerns. Mexico basically associates with those saying that this should be considered by the appropriate bodies and countries. New Zealand takes safety at sea very seriously.  Norway expresses its unconditional sympathy for the Japanese scientists and stresses the legal and moral responsibility of the flag and port states.

The USA says that safety is a high priority and associates with Australia and others.

Portugal says that whilst many believe that the research programme does not conform to international standards, safety at sea is still important.

Our focus should not be on the terrorist organisation being discussed but on the flag and port states. He is disappointed by the statements coming from those nations.

Chairman: So Japan why do you wish to keep the item open and do you have any response to comments from the floor.
 
Japan says again that violence must not be condoned but condemned and this is relevant to the IWC and we should ask the relevant countries to take action. The IWC has carried out various measures but the terrorist activities continue and are escalating. We are working on a message that we might all agree here so please give me a couple of days to work on this.

The Chair will keep the agenda item open.

St Kitts and Nevis asks for the floor and ‘asks a pointed question’ for the flag and port nation…

Chairman: The speaking list was closed.

St Kitts and Nevis. But the matter remains open, perhaps we can seek comments from them when the matter is next discussed. The Chairman agrees.

Stay tuned.

Into the dense machinations of the Scientific Committee

So where were we….

Ah yes, lunch on day one of IWC 63, in St Helier in Jersey.

So lunch was occupied by a presentation on welfare and some nice sandwiches, both kindly provided by WSPA. The presentation by Professor Donald Bloom was entitled ‘The Science of Animal Welfare and its Relevance to Whales and the IWC’.  

We return to the increasingly hot and windowless hall to hear the Chair of the Scientific Committee talking about southern right whales. Apparently they have their own catalogue.

There are no comments from the floor and the Commission Chairman notes that he is being slow as there seems to be a slow response from his new buttons!

The alternate commissioner for Argentina thanks Jersey for hosting the Commission and the Scientific Committee for its hard work. He notes a new conservation plan for these animals.  These conservation plans are a new initiative for the Commission and the right whale plan is the very first of what may be many to follows. There are less than 15 mature individuals in the southern-Chile population of right whales.

The Scientific Committee chair moves on to give those parts of her report dealing with other whale stocks. The SC has grave concerns over certain small stocks of whales. The Chair of the Conservation Committee notes that the endangered right whales were also discussed in his committee and Chile then goes on to underpin the significance of this population and the need for recovery.

We are now on item 5.7: The North Pacific Research Cruise. Debbie’s microphone has ceased working and so she joins the Chairman and the Executive Secretary on the podium. She explains that the cruise plans were aided by an intersessional workshop. The Scientific Committee is very grateful to Japan for providing a research vessel for this research. The research will have three objectives – sei whale abundance; biopsy sample collection and photo-ID and biopsy sampling, especially from the rarer whales.

Korea encourages the research as does Japan. It is a great pleasure for the latter to contribute to these research activities. They have been providing a research vessel and a crew and some interesting insights have already come from the work, adds the Commissioner, including a helpful estimate for sei whales in the research area.

The Chair tries to move on, but the US delegation is jumping up and down and calling out for his attention. Their microphone is not working.  They are swiftly given a hand-held one by an increasingly harassed-looking audio technician. The US now notes that they have a scientist on this cruise and are very much looking forward to sorting out some issues relating to CITES (export) permits with Japan.

We move to the report of the Whale Killing Sub-Committee. This met last week. The Chairman presents this and rattles through all the items considered, including the low success rate of the American Inuit hunt this year.

Also included is consideration of a report of the UK’s recent welfare and ethics workshop. This was obviously contentious as, in the minutes of the meeting is a rather predictable and lengthy criticism from Norway, and a response from the UK.

When the chair opens the discussion, Germany (after the usual compliments) calls on all the whaling nations to report killing data to the IWC – and in particular he calls on Iceland in this regard.

Australia takes the floor for the first time and thanks the States of Jersey and then thanks the Chairman for taking on his role. She also thanks the UK for its whale welfare and ethics workshop and she also thanks WSPA for their work on this. She notes that welfare has been contentious in this forum but she still believes the Commission is the relevant body for the welfare data to be considered. Some other organisations may wish to consider such data but the IWC is the correct place for it she firmly states.

Mexico liked the report and thanks the UK and WSPA. Argentina expressed similar sentiments. Mexico hopes that an ad hoc group might help to clarify some of the concerns raised by Norway.

The UK Minister speaks again. We all agree here he says that welfare needs to be addressed and we have developed terms of reference for an Ad Hoc group to look at this. He refers to a document circulated earlier by the UK. He hopes his intervention does not spark a debate like those seen here previously. He is prepared to agree that welfare is a difficult and divisive issue, but we need to make progress on it….

But here comes Norway; very quietly at first and then building in volume; their welfare expert notes that when he looks at some of the comments written about this body it would appear that whaling is practiced by people who did not care about welfare. This might have been the case in the past but he says Norway has contributed much research and data on this issue and goes on to detail this. He continues that various governments and organisations have misconstrued this information.  He continues on this theme for some time and the room slowly warms up further.

Japan agrees with Norway. Iceland agrees with Norway and Japan.

When the attention of the blog scribe drifts back to the room he find the Russian Commissioner noting the expense of the killing methods involved in their hunting.

The UK Commissioner has listened carefully, he says, and the proposed terms of reference for the ad hoc group show flexibility he says in how the group will be taken forward. but he can see there is no consensus. So the UK will seek to take forward the work with countries that spoke in favour of in their proposal.

Intersessionally? says the Chair

Yes, says the UK

The US then starts waving again, as they wish the Chairman of the Eskimo Whaling Commission to present on improvements in their hunt. Eugene Brouwer takes the floor and the lights dim for a power-point presentation.

Some pictures show the rapidly moving ice that the hunters have to traverse. Other images include the skin boats used. Mr Brower emphasises the problems caused by the shifting winds, ice and polar bears that ‘can go anywhere they want to go’.

Moving images show the skin boat launched from they ice aimed towards a passing whale a few metres away. A harpoon is thrown into the whale and in this case the whale died in four seconds. Further images show the whaler giving thanks to god for the kill. Then the community works together, using a pulley and tackle to haul the whale ashore. The whale is butchered and distributed amongst the community via a community potluck

The primary killing instrument is shown (each costs $4,000 and combined with transport this costs over $50,000 year) the secondary killing weapon, which is all brass fires a black powder projectile.

Mr Brouwer stresses that they have great respect for the environment and that ‘the whale is the greatest animal that God ever made’.

A tea break without biscuits breaks out.

We return to find Debbie Palka describing some of the more arcane and difficult aspects of the scientific committee report – issues relating to the mystical Revised Management Procedure or RMP (the IWC’s agreed mechanism to calculate quotas.

Here we find Debbie talking about a wide range of highly technical matters, including what we things she called Whaling Simplification Trials.

Anyway, somewhere along the way, we drift back into consciousness and realise that the lead Norwegian scientist is complaining that the Scientific Committee is not doing what he wants quickly enough. (For those of you who really want to know the details he is complaining that the CLA – further to proposals made by Norway in 2004 – has not been more swiftly amended. He expects next year that the SC will progress this matter.

Western North Pacific Bryde’s whales then pop up – they have apparently been ‘implemented’ and Japan has decided not to provide a new research proposal but new information on stock structure will be forthcoming. We hope that is all clear.

North Atlantic Fin whales follow and suddenly the room goes rather tense. Debbie tells us that Iceland wanted to pursue an RMP  ‘variant with research’; good progress was made on the development of the research programme and we received an analyses of research data, implementation simulation trials are pending. With a review in 2014. It seems that all is going well…

But Monaco is concerned that we are not paying enough attention to the scientific catches of Iceland. 120 fin whales were taken in 2009 and more this year. If and when whaling takes place, he says firmly, it should take place under the advice of science. The previous catches were way above the reliable limit of 48 and this is endangering to a stock already considered endangered by IUCN. Have a look at the size of the animals – they are one of the largest whales and they deserve attention … we should advise our friends from Iceland to be precautionary. 

Iceland says that is not that clear that the scientific committee has recommended a number. To his knowledge, the SC has never recommended any such number. There were a series of numbers mentioned last year in discussions and 48 might have been the lowest number mentioned then. But NAMMCO work based in that of the IWC, he adds, support us. Our numbers are conservative and support the maximum sustainable yield. Maybe we could have a comment from the Chair of the Scientific Committee.
Nor does he agree that the fin whale is an endangered species. The fin whale has a world-wide distribution. To call it unscientific is quite unscientific. This stock of fin whales is quite healthy and close to pre-exploitation size.

UK (Commissioner): I would just like to support the comments from Monaco.

Chair: Does the Head of Science or the Chair of the Scientific Committee wish to take the floor. Debbie does. Several figures she suggests have been talked about of which 46 is one – and this is given with a tuning level of 0.72. This is the stock structure hypothesis that does not require any research. A higher value come when the stock structure requires research. This is why we are waiting for the research, she adds.

Mexico: Do the levels of take by Iceland not exceed the tuning level of 0.6?

Debbie: A value of 155, which is above what was being caught – under one scenario is safe under another it is not.

New Zealand. The fin whaling by Iceland is highly problematic and has caused enormous concern. We cannot allow the impression to be given that we are comfortable. This is risky behaviour and in our view illegal.

Monaco: my remarks were based on last year’s small group calculation. All takes should be under rigorous advice.

USA: we would like to associate with Monaco, Mexico and New Zealand. Australia agrees.

Iceland: So we are having an interesting debate on the legality of whaling. We note the comments and we have a legal reservation in place and so our whaling is fully legal and we are also conducting our whaling on a scientific basis. There are 20, 000 fin whales in the N Atlantic – we don’t even need to go into details to make the case for it being sustainable. We have compared our fin whaling with the bowhead whaling in Alaska. We support sustainable whaling. The categories aboriginal, commercial or scientific do not matter. All that matters is it is sustainable!

Debbie ploughs on with the trials conducted on the North Pacific minke whales

[There is much activity visible in and around the UK delegation at this time and Vicky is taking care that she does not get trodden on.]

Korea notes that they have enforced a total ban on taking minkes and suggest that the local minkes have recovered. He says we understand that more information is required by the Scientific Committee to reduce uncertainties

UK – On a general point relevant to all discussions under this item, the last written specification of the RMP was published in 1999 – there have been a lot of modifications, and several amendments have been adopted since the last published version. The Scientific Committee agreed that the RMP and its specification should be published in the last supplement [of the IWC journal] but it was not published – please publish in the next journal supplement!

Japan. I would like to acknowledge the tremendous support of our scientists and the whole scientific committee engaged in this process. It is regrettable that there is a delay of one year but this is not because of the lack of effort of scientists. He looks forward to more progress.

Mexico speaks up to agree with the UK and notes it could be published on the website as well as in the journal.

Chile asks for clarification of what the Commission has accepted in terms of a period between surveys and why the scientific committee has changed what is doing.

Chair: Head of Science or Chair of Scientific Committee would you like to reply?

Debbie says you can read it yourself and she has extensively tested it. It did not seem a big deal to extend it as we have already tested it. She calls on Greg Donovan, Head of Science, as Editor of the Journal. He says last year we recommended a number of changes, and he wanted to publish the final version, not the earliest one.

The USA takes the floor and sternly comments that the approaches for the management for subsistence whaling and commercial are different. It is inappropriate to use the SLA [the aboriginal quota calculation mechanism] for commercial whaling. We developed management procedures for each case. For example aboriginal hunters are allowed to take from depleted populations.

Monaco speaks ‘to fully support the statement made by the US’. Mexico agrees, as does Equador.

We are now cooking in the great hall. It may be that the air conditioning has failed but, many delegates are shedding clothing.

The Chairman moves to close the meeting and the Executive Secretary has some house keeping matters. He asks delegates to stop breaking the microphone wiring and notes that Jersey and the Hotel de France will provide a reception in 20 minutes time.

Delegates start to get up – Vicky is up and alert; but Japan suddenly takes the floor again and state that protestors blocked the road to the hotel and were hostile and unpleasant to them. They did not touch us but some of us were harassed very strongly, adds the Commissioner, and some of our delegation could not go out from the hotel. This was a serious incident from our point of view.

The Executive Secretary says that he is sorry to hear this and notes that two members of one organisation were already ejected.

We move carefully out towards the reception.

The Opening Session – Welcome from the ‘hostile’ people of Jersey.

And who is ‘Flex’?

One of the big pending issues here has been who will actually Chair the Commission meeting. The Chair of last year’s meeting and the Vice Chair are both unavailable. So who do we see heading for the raised podium at the front of the room this fine morning?

Delegates start to settle in their chairs and, finally, cutting through the milling throng comes a small procession led by Simon Brockington, the Secretary  of the Commission. He is leading a beaming Herman Osterhausen, the South African Commissioner, who has been asked, he reveals once seated in front of his microphone, by yesterday’s day-long, closed-door Commissioners’ meeting to chair the Commission.

He takes his seat next to Simon and introduces, Alan Maclean, Senator of Jersey. On the behalf of the States of Jersey, the Senator is delighted to welcome us. He gives a brief overview of the island’s interesting constitution. We are we not part of the United Kingdom, he stresses, and explains that in 1066 the Channel Islands were part of Normandy. Later, King John lost Normandy but the Islands stayed loyal to the king and in return for this, successive English kings allowed self government of the islands. Hence Jersey and the surrounding small islands have had their own legislature since 1650; 800 years of autonomy under the English Crown! Mr Maclean stresses that Jersey is not a colony but a crown dependency.

He is also notes that Jersey is considerably larger at low tide than high (there is gentle laughter in response to this comment) with a 12 meter spring tidal range. He tells the Commission that tourism and commerce are important to the island and goes into a little more detail.

Chairman Herman then moves to the issue of opening statements and new members of the Commission, of which there is one and the new Commissioner for Colombia, flanked by her excellent scientist speaks of her country’s support for the non-lethal use of cetaceans and commitment to strengthening the national conservation policy. Colombia hopes that the IWC will maintain its moratorium on commercial whaling and noted the importance of whale watching as a source of income to coastal paper. When she concludes there is warm applause from many parts of the hall.

The Executive Secretary reports on credentials. Some countries evidentally do not have the correct documents in play yet and the credentials subcommittee will meet this evening to review this. There is a significant list of counties that have their voting rights currently suspended because of non-payment. Dr Brockington then advises us on which country, in the event of a vote, would be called on to vote first. This turns out to be rather amusing as he explains that one country after another is either not here or not paid up. He goes through a surprisingly long list until he comes to South Africa who will start the vote. IWC Chairman Herman, smiles and pleads “no votes”.

The Chairman now explains that he will give NGOs the right to speak on some agenda items and he asks to meet later with representatives from two sides, which he describes as the conservation groups and the sustainable use groups.

Simon Brockington now explains that there is new technology in play in this Commission meeting – Commissioners no longer need to wave their flags to attract his attention (we shall miss this little ceremony), and instead by simply pressing a button he will be able to see a list of those wanting to speak in front of him. The Commissioners do not then need to again press that button but await their turn and their microphones will automatically be turned on (and presumably off).

Outside black-shirted protesters are threatening the security of the meeting by playing guitars and singing. They have evidently breached the first ring of security and are in the hotel grounds outside the huge windowless shed housing the commission meeting. They cannot be heard inside the Commission meeting. 

We move on to consider the meeting’s agenda.

This is often an interesting debate, as it may help to identify the key issues which typically those that do not like them may try to manoeuvre them to the end of the meeting. The closed Commissioners meeting on Sunday evidently made some agreements on this but…

St Kits and Nevis takes the floor. He is worried about when the credentials of nations may be clarified and also suggests that some countries have been having difficulties getting their visas for travel into Jersey. (The rumours circulating around the Commission are that it is being suggested that some countries have had problems getting visas – although this would be the standard UK visa requirement – for those countries which need such a thing - and which was well advertised by the Secretariat some weeks ago).  Any resolutions should be delayed until after Wednesday, the Commissioner for St Kitts and Nevis suggests.

The UK Minister speaks up. The matter is being investigated by the UK’s Foreign Office and no irregularities are apparent at this time. He notes that we have several very important matters to discuss and that we should get on with this.  Monaco expresses similar sentiments

The Chairman suggests that we look to the report from the Finance and Administration working group on this (tabled later) and we proceed from there. This seems to be acceptable to all.

 The new Chairman is introduced to the new microphone system.

Japan notes the importance of the agenda item ‘Safety at Sea’ to them and that this issue will be looked at on Wednesday. He calls on his Commissioner to make a short statement. The Japanese Commissioner is grateful for the many messages of sympathy and offers of help that Japan has received subsequent to the Japanese earthquake. He noted the devastation wrought on coastal communities and that this makes it even more important to promote sustainable use.

Then, shortly after the Executive Secretary has explained the new microphone system, the meeting is then disrupted by an electric roaring noise. Has the new microphone system been jammed by forces unknown?

The meeting breaks for 15 minutes and harassed technicians move swiftly to identify the problem.

The meeting re-opens and the chairman wishes Japan the best with their rebuilding processes.

We move to whale stocks and the Chair of the Scientific Committee, Debbie Palka, finds her microphone. She points to page 24 of the Scientific Committee report (which as of the opening of the meeting is no longer secret) on Antarctic minke whales. [The issue here is why are the various circum-polar estimates so far apart and whether or not this indicates that there has been a decline. This is an area where Japan hunts them.]

After her report, Mexico thanks Jersey for its hospitality and expresses solidarity with Japan further to the tragedy there. He notes the concern of his government that the estimates of minkes are low in some areas, and this could be a true fall in population numbers.

Japan expressed his gratitude for the balanced and succinct presentation of Dr Palka. He notes that the gap between estimates is very close and he looks forward to a resolution to this. Concerning the substantial decline in some parts, we all need to understand this. The Scientific Committee is still struggling to understand this and why it has occurred in one part of the Southern Ocean. This is as if the population of Tokyo has decreased by 50% over night… but scientists have never seen large scale mortality and during this same time and other species, like humpbacks and fins, have been seen. The equivalent would be seeing many people from outside Japan in Tokyo. [He is perhaps making an allusion to potential competition between whale species – but if he is it is very subtle.] He is ‘very happy’ that data from JARPA 2 (the Japanese lethal research programme) is being used in the calculations. He notes that his research was interrupted by NGOs and that this was a substantial loss of research to this organisation.

The Scientific Committee (SC) report is endorsed and we move on to southern humpback whale stocks.

The USA takes the floor, their Commissioner speaking for the first time thanks the Bailiwick of Jersey for the warm hospitality and the IWC Secretariat for making the arrangements. She has her own Jersey and this one is different! She notes that some of the research was conducted by a US member of the Scientific Committee and that this research showed greater structure and lower recovery than some other populations.

The SC report is endorsed.

Blue whales next hove up. Debbie makes the report on the status of studies into their populations. Chile takes the floor (in Spanish) and thanks Jersey and congratulates the Chair; she notes that the blue whale is emblematic for them and notes the support from the government of Chile for research. He is concerned that this population is smaller than those elsewhere, and this means they need to be carefully monitored.  The SC report is endorsed.

Gray whales swim in and Debbie notes this was discussed in the Aboriginal Whaling Subcommittee that met (behind closed doors) last week. So she will be brief on this topic. However, she tells the short story of a13 year old male known as ‘Flex’ who left the Okhotsk Sea and took an unexpected trip (way outside of what might be expected to be its usual migration route) to a location within 20 miles of the Oregon coast where the tag failed. This movement from the Sakhalin (Russian) feeding grounds came as a surprise. Despite this movement and some photo-iD and genetic matches, it is clear, she stresses, that more information is needed to clarify the relationship between the small western gray whales and the far more numberous population on the US Pacific coast.

Debbie stresses the importance of the SC’s research programme into the relationship between these populations and the need for data to come from the oil industry which is very active in the Sakhalin breeding grounds.

Korea takes the floor. Further to the customary expressions of gratitude, he notes that western whalers have reduced the gray whale stock. He also tells the story of Flex

The US also watched Flex’s travels with interest and noted that the USA funded photo-iD work to help this year’s meeting and that they would be conducting further research, including tagging; and support the SC’s recommendations.

Russia thanks the host, the government of Great Britain and the government and citizens of Jersey Islands. The citizens are nice and ‘hostile’ people. There is laughter and an apology – ‘Sorry’ says the interpreter. ‘Very nice people’. More gentle laughter. The Russian commissioner comments that only one specimen was tagged and notes the collaboration involved in this. Twelve western gray whales will be tagged this season and biopsied. They hope that Russian scientists get their Visas in time and he goes on to thank various people and notes that

The Mexican commissioner remains concerned about the status of the western gray whales and the ongoing oil and gas development in key habitat.

UK: excellent committee report. He notes the critically endangered status of gray whales and that industrial activities threaten it and welcomes Russia’s activities in this regard. He notes that small numbers of whales may have other threats along their migratory route and we need to understand this better

Japan: he is grateful for the ‘wonderful’ and excellent presentation on the gray whale and he too is concerned about its status. From 2008 Japan has strengthened its domestic law… and prohibited all forms of take of this species.

We break for lunch and a WSPA hosted event on welfare featuring Professor Donald Broom from the University of Cambridge. Here we find the Norwegian lead scientist clashing again with Siri Martinsen a Norwegian veterinarian. 

 British Minister Richard Benyon MP

The opening of IWC 63.

Monday 11th of July.

The hall of the annual whaling Commission looks much the same as ever as delegates gather. Some are moving into place to sit behind their national flags and name plates. Others are milling and chatting in the aisles. The NGOs are vying for seats at the back at the room but (and this is very exciting) this year they have tables, water and electricity sockets (thank you Secretariat). The seats at the further back being the most popular as no one can read your emails and skypes over your shoulder (well not directly from the screens anyway).

Note books are poised, lap tops precariously perched on laps (and tables), and outside the raucous calls of gulls high overhead punctuate the muted rumble of the traffic on the streets of St Helier.

Press interest has been building over the last few days and scattered around the hall are a handful of reporters (recognisable by red badges), many of whom know this forum well and what to expect. Indeed, there are many people here who have been attending the IWC meetings for years, in some cases even decades. But there are new faces too. Several of the European Commissioners are new, including the UK’s Commissioner, Richard Pullen, today flanked by his minister, Richard Benyon MP. Perhaps this year the latter will get to speak. Despite coming all the way to Agadir last year, because the Commission rapidly went into secret session for three days, he was not able to say anything, although of course a ministerial-level presence from the UK was noted.

We are also pleased to welcome a new canine delegate. Following hard on the paws of her distinguished colleague Giles, the guide dog who used to accompany the UK’s previous Commissioner, the formidable Richard Cowan, comes Vicky. She will be assisting the UK’s legal expert. Hopefully Vicky will be less mischievous than the redoubtable Giles and especially when in buffet areas and receptions, where Giles’ loyalties were clearly sometimes torn between attending to his master and answering the call of his stomach.

Anyway, we are now under ‘starter’s-orders’ and further to the preceding months of preparation and closed meetings, we wait to see if anything will change this year.

And they are off… stay tuned.