WDC Blog - From the Front Line

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.

Following the remarkably heavy rains of the end of last week, the weekend has been bright and sunny here in Jersey. Many delegates have been able to escape from their various co-ordination meetings and joined the bustling streets of St Helier. The town boasts all the usual chain stores found in European cities but also some speciality retail outlets for the produce of the Channel Islands. There are also many art galleries and alongside the pastoral views and seascapes, the Jersey cow with its friendly and expressive face features strongly.

Sunday will be busier for everyone, with many high-level preparatory and co-ordination meetings happening ahead of the IWC opening tomorrow. But this has been an IWC of two parts this year and let us look a few weeks back, when the IWC’s Scientific Committee held its annual meeting (for the first time for many years this was not back-to-back with the main Commission meetings).  At the invitation of the Norwegian government it was held  in Tromso in the Arctic north.  The report of the Scientific Committee remains confidential until the opening of the main meeting (another of the IWC’s old fashioned and secret procedures); but we can report that Tromso was a pleasant venue –a friendly town on a small island nestled amongst many fjords, snow capped mountains (even in June) and so far north that night never comes!

It is a beautiful part of the world stunning in its detail – a thousand waterfalls and a burst of Spring time flowers and amongst them the reindeer and elk wander freely.

Meanwhile, back to Jersey. For comparison, here we have the famous eponymous local cow and an indigenous bank vole. The locals also have some sort of unusual preoccupation with their local toad (referred to using the French word ‘crapaud’). Monsieur Crapaud is so revered here that there no less than two statues of him in St Helier’s main squares. In one the crapaud is flanked by several life-sized jersey cows in the other a huge toad is mounted on top of a column. We shall be further investigating the significance of this in due course.

There are also some less appealing wildlife. A late morning survey of the somewhat suspiciously sticky streets sees the slow and shy emergence of some very strange creatures indeed. Red-eyed and big of belly, they appear to be primates of some sort. Are they perhaps escapees from the local Durrell institute for Conservation menagerie? Certainly they have some primate features and possibly even a rudimentary form of language – high in expletives and low in general vocabulary. They appear to be mainly nocturnal. In the daylight, odd specimens can be found propped up in coffee shops around the town gently re-hydrating and going bright red in the sun.

They belong to the family of lower primates more frequently seen in Mediterranean resorts where alcohol is cheap. They are the fabled British Booze Hounds.

The wildlife in and around the immediate vicinity of the meeting hotel is otherwise quite limited. Here we find severe warning notes about the “aggressive” local gulls and the terrace of the hotel onto which in fine weather the hotel’s one café extends, has a fine network of nylon lines strung high overhead to try to keep them off. The gulls appear to have worked out ways through these nearly invisible lines and parade shamelessly amongst the delegates eyeing with interest their soups and salads. Indeed the obvious puzzle-solving abilities of the gulls, combined with the intelligent glint in their eyes, raises a question as to whether or not they might be included in the group of animals that are regarded as sentient. There has been much interesting and important discussion about which animals qualify as having this attribute in recent years. From a casual study of the behaviour of the local wildlife, this observer at least feels that the case is appreciably stronger for the herring gull than the British Booze Hound. 

We are now in the last couple of days before the opening of the 63rd meeting of the International Whaling Commission. Workshops have been running behind the closed doors of the meeting halls in the Hotel de France in St. Helier, Jersey, in the Channel Islands and the Commission will finally open its doors to the public and the press on Monday.

So, how do we come be in Jersey? Well, when no country invites the IWC to town for its annual meeting, as was the case for at least the main IWC meeting this year, the IWC Secretariat (which is based in Cambridge, UK) has to find a venue based on the budget that it has available. The last time this happened was the meeting held in Hammersmith in London. This time the Secretariat has brought us to Jersey (for which we thank them). Strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are not part of the UK, but they are part of Britain and thanks to some interesting quirks of local history, here the royal toast is to ‘Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Normandy'.

The Islands are self-governing and steeped in their own rich history which is strongly coloured by some five centuries of battles between the UK and France for their ownership. There is still a strong French influence visible, for example, in many place names here. It seems that allegiance to the British crown was achieved because it allowed self-governance. Another strong local influence is the legacy of the years of occupation that the islands suffered during World War II when they were the only part of Britain to be occupied by Nazi forces. Early in the war, Hitler issued instruction that the islands should be fortified and many remaining structures show how efficiently this was achieved. There are also many monuments to this time. One stands just outside the main bus station – the Liberation Station - on the quay in St Helier (the Island’s capital). Here a joyful group of people are depicted waving a giant Union Jack (the British flag) in the air. It was never clear during the War that the Islands were of any strategic significance. They were too far away from the UK coastline for that and, for example, played no part in the evacuations of cornered ally troops from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk. However, Hitler’s orders were rigorously followed and although many islanders escaped before the occupation, many were also trapped here.

It would be inappropriate to make a comparison between those times and the meetings happening here now at the Hotel de France. So we won’t. However, July 2011 sees a meeting of nations – potentially as many as 89 if all the member nations of the IWC show up – of some significance, not just for the whales but also for how the international community conducts itself because key issues on the agenda this year include the ‘governance of the IWC’. The old Convention that established the IWC was agreed in 1946 and includes many elements that more modern treaties now clearly avoid. Most famously there is the ‘scientific whaling’ clause which allows nations to issue quotas to themselves for ‘scientific research’. Then there are the various veils of secrecy that affect many issues and meetings. Hence the report of the scientific committee (which we can reveal met a few weeks ago in Tromso in Arctic Norway) remains secret as do the meetings that happened this week – until we get to Monday. Then there are arguably lesser, but still important, matters relating to how the IWC functions such as the fact that countries can turn up and pay their annual dues (and secure their right to vote) during the meeting and in cash. These and a host of other issues need to be updated to make the IWC fit to face the 21st century. The UK has a proposal in play – as can be seen on the IWC website - (in the form of a resolution – the usual way that the IWC makes decisions) to address some of these issues. In many ways it is a modest proposal, but it is still a step in the right direction if it goes through.

Other key issues include how the IWC deals with requests for ‘aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas’. Quotas to provide subsistence for certain indigenous peoples who have a nutritional and cultural dependence on whales have been permitted by the IWC for decades. However, concerns have arisen in recent years about the conformity of some hunts with those longstanding principles, in particular the growing commercialization of whale products in Greenland beyond those who depend on them for subsistence, including sales to tourists. More of this later. There is also much work to be done to protect whales in the 21st century from modern threats such as climate change and marine debris. We are encouraging the IWC to step up and take these matters urgently in hand. So please look here for updates from the WDCS team at the IWC to see how these things are progressing. The main Commission meeting (when it opens its doors to the public) starts here on the 11th and runs until the 14th.

The BBC is reporting that engineers at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant have suspended an operation to clean contaminated water hours after it began due to a rapid rise in radiation.  The BBC reports that some ‘110,000 tonnes of water have built up during efforts to cool reactors hit by the 11 March earthquake and tsunami. The contaminated water, enough to fill 40 Olympic-sized swimming pools, has been at risk of spilling into the sea.’

Recent data indicates that radioactive contamination has entered the ocean food chain with both fish and cetaceans already contaminated to a greater or lesser degree.

So what does this mean for Japan? If we can look beyond the immediate catastrophe, we could ask what does the way that Japan has handled this tragedy mean for the whale and dolphin conservation debate?

Over the nineteen years that I have been at WDCS one of the major issues we have encountered is the failure of all but a few journalists of the Japanese press to question the position of their Government. All statements appear to be accepted as gospel, and all comments of those who question the Japanese pro-whaling stance are either deemed ‘erroneous’, or according to some, to be dismissed because they are the ramblings of ‘cultural imperialists’.

For years the Japanese public have appeared to accept the statements of the Japanese Government and civil servants with respect to the safety of their nuclear industry. That dogmatic acceptance of everything that the Government deemed worthy of sharing with the public has now come to a crashing halt.

The Japanese public have begun to question the output of their government and those who seek to control their thinking. Maybe the same will happen with the whaling industry. Maybe the Japanese public will begin to see through the propaganda that the Japanese Government churns out to support their subsidized whaling fleets and will begin to question why, at a time when the country is struggling to tackle the costs of the triple tragedies of 2011, it’s spending money on maintaining a dying industry and its team of allies at the IWC?

You may have mixed opinions on the Wikileaks US cable releases, - whether they are in the public interest or just publicly interesting - a concept responsible journalists wrestle with all the time. However, there have been some 'revelations', or confirmations to some of us, of the true negotiating positions of several country delegations.

Of particular note is the backroom negotiating style of the US Government. It appears that the US, in trying to appease Japan into accepting a 'deal' that would allow for the legitimising of commercial whaling, sought to trade northern hemisphere humpback whales for Japan's compliance.

Despite being fully aware of the increased commercialisation of the Greenland hunt the US was willing to campaign for the killing of humpbacks in the northern hemisphere.

The US was desperately trying to get Iceland to reduce its self-allocated quota and was looking for issues that may engage Japan to ‘help’ deliver a deal.

The Cables report that Japan stated that there were factors outside the current ‘Future of the IWC’ [the deal] negotiations that would influence Japan's negotiating position and that the ‘First, a negative outcome in the vote at next year's [2010] IWC intersessional meeting on Greenland's proposal to catch ten humpback whales could derail the work of the Support Group. …and another rejection at the IWC plenary meeting could make the overall compromise being discussed impossible.’

The US IWC Commissioner appointed by President Obama, Ms. Medina, is reported in the cables to have said  that ‘she hopes to work out differences with the EU on Greenland's proposal on humpback whales prior to the March 2010 IWC intersessional meeting and include the issue in the overall agreement.’

Indeed, as the IWC meetings then revealed, the US played an important role in driving through the final Greenland whaling quota that included humpbacks.

What is also striking on reading the cables is that the US appears to have been mistakenly staking its negotiating position on the fact that Iceland was the only blocking player in their campaign to achieve a resumption of commercial whaling and  Wikileaks reports that the US requested of the ‘MOFA [Japanese Fisheries Agency] State Secretary Fukuyama and Fisheries Agency Deputy Director General Yamashita to press Iceland to lower its proposed quota for whaling in order to facilitate an overall agreement on whaling’.

The US negotiating position was that for a resumption of whaling to be achieved, all that was needed was for all countries ‘to take [a] reasonable approach’ - very different to their public anti-whaling position.

The US negotiations with Japan about Iceland appear to have been predicated on the argument that Japan could not absorb all the whale meat that Iceland was taking, not that the hunt was irresponsible and should stop.

Whilst we welcome the recent moves in the US that may result in the USA certifying and sanctioning Iceland, one must question why the US, which has been publicly opposed to resumption in whale meat trade, appears to have been willing to open up discussions on trade, and we have to ask, were they implicitly ‘agreeing’ to accept future trade in whale products? Indeed, the US is reported to have said that it ‘did not recommend Japan take any measures to restrict trade’.

Humpbacks, future trade, one must question what was the US was not willing to negotiate away? Read the cables and see what you think.

THE Voice Of The Two Hundred

The sixty second meeting of the IWC in Agadir, Morocco, closed on Friday afternoon. It was a remarkable meeting. It opened amidst accusations of high level corruption and with two large, highly controversial and complex issues to consider:

Firstly the ‘Chairman’s Consensus Proposal’ (also referred to as The Deal in the WDCS reporting from Agadir) which included the setting of commercial quotas, despite the global moratorium; and

Secondly, a proposal for a new ‘aboriginal’ hunt in Greenland of ten humpback whales. (Aboriginal is here in quotation marks as there is ample evidence that whaling in Greenland is significantly commercialised.)

The Greenland humpback proposal has been fought over for four years and if it had of been voted on at IWC 61, it would probably have failed, but the then Chairman of the Commission deferred it for further intersessional consideration.

IWC 62 opened and closed very swiftly and was highly pressurised. Despite the many days of closed meetings ahead of what should have been the open IWC plenary session in Agadir, including the two day workshop in the days immediately preceding (all dedicated to The Deal), the powers-that-be felt that it was important to again exclude everyone but the official government representatives once more. Hence, all non-governmental delegates (and many others) were locked out of proceedings for two more days. After this, the Commission was forced to go through its proceedings at a great pace.

Eventually, the Chairman’s Proposal was declared dead for this meeting (it may of course be resuscitated in some form in the future) and the moratorium remains safe for the moment. However, Denmark was finally granted its humpback quota aided after much remarkable manoeuvring and greatly aided by the countries of the EU who evidently found successful co-ordination more important that the fate of the whales.

It is difficult to see during or after an intense meeting like this what factors affected the debates the most – especially with so much of the important discussions (including those of the European nations) occurring out of the public eye and ear.

However, one contribution was widely reported, received by all Commissioners and may well have helped sway the debate and maintain the moratorium. This was the petition provided by marine scientists and other experts. It was first circulated to the IWC Commissioners from all nations via the kind help of the delegation of the United Kingdom in the days running up to main meeting. At this time some 140 experts from some 30 countries had signed on. By the end of the meeting, when it was circulated again, over 200 experts had signed on from over 40 countries.

The petition was launched at the end of May by Mark Simmonds and Sidney Holt and mainly gained support by simply being passed from colleague to colleague. It would probably have gained far more names if it had been started sooner. It should also be noted that many whale specialists working within the context of the IWC did not sign either because they had been so instructed not to or, possibly, because they feared this might complicate their working relationships with others.

Despite this, the voice of the 200(+) marine scientists and other experts is still a strong clear statement of concern. (The list was closed in the last session of IWC 62.)
Sidney and Mark are grateful to all those who took the time to consider this matter and lend their names to this statement.

Sidney adds the following: ‘Thanks to everyone who signed up. The story is not yet over and we shall have to work during the year to ensure there is no backsliding. We'll be in touch’.

Sidney’s further thoughts can be found on his blog site HERE

Paul Spong (another signatory to the expert’s petition) has also been running a helpful blog commentating on developments in Agadir and this can be found HERE

Links to some of the press resulting from the petition of the 200+ are given below. These are merely some of the English language articles, and we know it also crossed the language barrier and was reported in many non-English speaking countries including Iceland, Japan and Norway.

AFP: HERE; BBC: HERE; DW-WORLD: HERE; FRANCE 24: HERE; SCIENCE MAG: HERE

Marine Scientists Petition To The IWC

We the undersigned marine scientists respectfully call on the member nations of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) not to undermine the conservation achievements of the last few decades by again endorsing commercial whaling at their next meeting.

We are aware that at its 62nd meeting in Agadir, Morocco, June 21st- 25th, the IWC will consider a proposal to grant catch limits to the three member nations of the IWC – Japan, Norway and Iceland - that continue to take whales for commercial gain, using well-known loopholes in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The proposal will even permit whaling in a Marine Protected Area (“sanctuary” in the terminology of the IWC) created specifically to protect whales in large parts of their ranges. We believe that to do so would be highly inappropriate and untimely and would again risk the future of the whales.

Whilst aware that some whale populations are showing signs of increase in the absence of whaling pressure, partly as a successful result of the global “moratorium” on commercial whaling adopted in 1982, and partly from application of the management procedures agreed in 1975, such increases are not a sufficient rationale to justify the IWC endorsing commercial catches. There is no evidence that any of the few populations and species known to be increasing have reached, or are anywhere near, the levels that might justify non-zero catch limits under the IWC’s existing management and conservation policies and procedures. Furthermore, whales inhabit marine ecosystems that are now increasingly impacted by human activities ranging from oil spills to the effects of persistent pollutants, climate change and increased ship traffic and other hazards; these provide further rationale for providing these remarkable animals of the global commons with the highest possible levels of protection, including protecting them from commercial takes.

The lessons of the past show that commercial whaling has always been intractable to sustainable management, and we see no changes in the attitudes of the industry which continues to favour extracting monetary value from the whales as fast as possible and, in the process, evading and obstructing efforts to ensure full compliance with international regulations and transparent supervision. The long-lived and slow-breeding whales are also difficult and expensive to monitor adequately. We are also growing increasingly aware of the complexity of their population structures, behaviour and societies.

Given the risks involved and that commercial whaling meets no essential human need, we call on all the IWC governments to abandon experiments in the lethal use of whales and instead refocus their efforts on the conservation of whale populations, on understanding their roles in the marine ecosystems of which they are important parts, and promoting, where appropriate, responsible non-lethal uses of them such as whale-watching.

Signatories:
1. Sidney Holt D.Sc. Adviser to charity Global Ocean, Italy
2. Mark Peter Simmonds, International Director of Science, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, UK
3. Professor Hal Whitehead, Dalhousie University, Canada
4. David Suzuki, Canada
5. Sylvia Earle, USA
6. Erich Hoyt, Senior Research Fellow, WDCS, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Scotland
7. Paul Spong, Director, Orca Lab, Canada
8. Mike Bossley, The Australian Dolphin Research Foundation
9. Bernd Würsig, Texas A&M University, USA
10. Alexandra Morton, Canada
11. Craig Matkin, USA
12. David Bain, USA

Read the full list of signatories.

How often do we want to meet?

So after a rather miserable lunch – we return to the Great Hall for the final session, which is administrative. Donna the Australian Commissioner now takes the microphone and takes us through the report of the Finance and Administration (F&A) report. It is now 16.10 and she goes at speed through a number of matters.

UK delegation in reflective mode

Then we return to a substantive manner. F&A left the issue of whether or not the IWC will continue to meet every year (or ever other year) hanging.

The USA says this is linked to their proposal for the Joint Aboriginal Quotas which has not been discussed yet, although their spokesman says he has a reasonable idea of how this will go and would prefer annual meetings for the next couple of years.

Various views are expressed. Australia says that there is important work to do following The Pause and they prefer annual meetings, but moving to biannual in the future.

St Lucia reminds us that the aboriginal quotas are up for review in 2012.

France likes biannual meetings, as does the rest of the EU.

Brazil says keep them annual for now but the work of the Scientific and Conservation Committee should continue.

Russia would prefer a biennial arrangement when aboriginal quotas are set for ten year period. (Did the Commissioner just grin?)

The Acting Chair asks the Chair of the Scientific Committee where the quota reviews stand. She says it would be difficult to do this in 2011.

Australia says let us meet for the next two years and then biennially thereafter.

France wants to make sure that the Scientific Committee meets every year

So, says the Acting Chair, shall we meet for the next two years and revisit this next year? It is agreed. (Nothing changes.)

We move on through F&A and amongst other things we come to the fees for NGOs. In the future, each NGO will pay £520 for its first delegate and then £260 for others. Interpreters are free.[Bargain – get me some of those.]

F&A finishes and we return at 16.54 pm to Agenda No 3. This is to allow a number of things says the Chairman vaguely, but one of these things is a statement from the US now found in document IWC/62/31

An Inuit whaling captain then greets us. He says it is difficult for people from moderate climates to imagine life in places like Barrow. He explains that they have been able to live for generations because of the Bowhead. He notes that Agadir has many things to offer that he does not have back home and adds that the relationship of his people to the bowhead whale is at the core of his culture. He says that they have met every standard and requirement requested…. He is concerned at how his people are being treated here.

The Alternate US Commissioner comes to the floor. He is pleased that the Commission reached consensus on Denmark, but he is aware after further consultation that we may not reach consensus although all members here ‘profess’ support for indigenous whaling, and he withdraws his proposal.

So remaining in front of us is ‘a proposal from the chair on the way forward’.

The Vice Chair says that a period of reflection does not mean inaction.

He then presents a detailed proposal. It has two key elements:

Firstly that ‘member nations continue to work together to take initiatives on particular matters of importance but which have not received general support; and secondly an agreement to minimise plenary discussions on certain contentious matters for which it is clear no progress will be made. There are four points under each heading.

Some amendments are offered by Iceland and others.

The Acting Chair, at 17.29 pm, notes that this can stands as a proposal, a guide from the chair and will just issue a chair’s statement at the end of the meeting.

Spain thanks him for putting his ideas on paper but that it is bit too long for a decision, we would need to find better language and shorten the text.

Iceland says he is free to make proposals.

Australia thanks the chair for his proposal and as she understands it correctly this is not something that we have to agree. This is not approved and the previous Chair’s proposal is also not agreed. This should be clear and in the record. The spirit of the proposal is to give us time for a pause.

Spain says we must be clear in the record.

Monaco says that we have had recent problems with you [the Vice Chairman] making a statement on your own behalf and this being confused with something issued by the IWC; care needs to be taken, he stresses.

Korea makes a short statement – the gist of this is that they phased out commercial whaling after the moratorium came into place. But they still want whale meat. They think the RMP is best way to manage whaling and look forward to it being completed for the North Pacific.
Australia recommends decoupling the Scientific Committee from the Commission from 2011.

Any views? Chile supports Australia and so does Norway.

USA asks about the budgetary implications.

Australia: there is some extra work involved in running meetings in two different places.

The Executive Secretary notes that many member nations see many benefits but we do not have venue next year and this may put us under strain.

Austria and Japan say that we should not take a last minute decision on this.

But ‘this is a good idea’ says Brazil.

Norway says he could solve this by not separating the meetings but moving both to September and looking at this then. He is supported by Iceland.

The USA supports in general and 'further to the last two commissioners we would not move the timing of the Scientific Committee.

Australia thanks everyone for their comments and suggests we discuss this early at the next meeting.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer is then thanked for his efforts and he announces his retirement from the Commission.

Cherry Alison lists infractions for us. There are quite a few.

South Korea explains in detail how those found guilty of illegal whaling will be punished in Korea. In 2009 the Korean government detected 16 illegal whales.

The Great Hall

Where shall we meet and will Simon wear Nicky’s shoes’?

We move to agenda 24; date and place of annual meetings. The Acting Chair says there are a number of governments interested in IWC 63 but none have confirmed this.

If by September 1st 2010, there is no confirmation, the Secretariat will have to host that meeting.

Nicky Grandy will be leaving us after ten years announces the Acting Chairman. New Zealand is enthusiastically waving his name plate.

Dr Grandy we salute you, says Sir Geoffrey. Nicky has give us distinguished service and given help to the whales and supported 88 members with highly divergent roles here. She has conducted her role with cheerfulness. Nicky we are all grateful to you and we know previous commissioners from New Zealand have had robust exchanges with you and he apologises for some of the language used then.

St Lucia speaks of the Alice in Wonderland world of the commission. When she first arrived we wondered if this small woman could deal with the reins of two teams of people. [She returns to talk of Mount Difficulty for a while but the scribe fails to follow.]

The US Alternate Commissioner thanks Nicky too.

The African group of countries give her a present.

Then Korea thanks her too. He proposes two new agenda items for this year – i. decision on sustainable use of Nicky Grandy or ii. Consensus decision on Nicky Grandy.

Some laughter follows.

Japan says he feels the same way. IWC has had a very difficult and challenging time. He too has a gift – it is a doll and he tells a story: a fairy came to fishermen; to stop her leaving they stole her clothes and to get her clothes back she had to dance. This is a traditional story. I feel like I would like to take away your gown to keep you in this organisation he adds.

A deputation from Japan now approach the stage and the doll is handed over by the Japanese Secretary of State.

The Doll

Spain notes that the coordination on this issue is the easiest she has had. She wishes Nicky well from all the EU nations.

The longest serving commissioner, the Russian Commissioner, is now called on to speak for all the Commissioners.

First Mexico speaks for the Buenos Aires Group – he recognises Nicky as neutral and professional. How will Simon [the new Executive Secretary] wear her shoes? he asks And he thanks her for her good nature. ‘We shall miss you dearly’.

The Russian Commissioner then hands over a gift and speaks in English: 'do not forget IWC – we shall sing one song for you; are you ready to hear?', and he sings the old Elvis number: ‘love us tender, love us so, for our Nicky we love you,… love us tender too, love us too, for Nicky we love you, and we always will.”

Something is unwrapped on the distant stage.

Nicky thanks everyone for the gifts. This is turning out to be quite a roller coater ride she says. She is grateful for the improved atmosphere in the Commission. She hopes this may be her legacy. She makes a special comment about her excellent staff and singles out Greg Donovan for special mention. She does not know how he does what he does. I used to be so frightened at the call of ‘Point of Order Mr Chairman’; but I have been grateful for the opportunity of meeting such a diversity of people.

The Acting Chairman thanks all the Commissioners and he makes a special mention of the interpreters and also the technicians. He finally welcomes Simon Brockington [the Executive Secretary nominate] and thanks Morocco and Agadir

It’s over.

And so we leave the Great Hall for the last time. (One of us has been in this building for every day but two since May 30th, will he be able to function in the wider world? Could he function before. He cannot remember.)

WDCS would like to express its thanks in particular this year to Australia for being an inspired champion of the whales, including its team in the scientific committee. Buenos Aires Group thank you for standing so firm and, Argentina, congratulations on many fine interventions.

We are also very grateful to our colleagues representing the UK, Luxembourg, Belgium and Austria. Thanks also to our good friends in the Scientific Committee and our sister NGOs, especially (but not only) HSUS, AWI, WSPA, EIA and Prowildlife.

We salute Monaco for his independent thoughts (and reserve the right not to always agree with you).

We (again) wish the executive secretary, Nicky Grandy, a happy retirement from the IWC and thank the IWC secretariat for their efficient assistance through this difficult and complicated meeting.

Welcome Simon and good luck in your new role.

Our thanks also to the kind people of Agadir; we are not sure about the small camels made of camel, or the street cats that sing so copiously in the night, but we like the red brick promenade and the wonderful tolerant mixtures of cultures found there, especially of a Sunday evening.

Finally, we hope all the fledging kestrels that had their nest in the palm tree at Maxwell’s restaurant have a long and happy life in this bustling urban environment. We make our way back up the red brick road for one last time – back towards the fragrant fish docks where we live.

Alexander of Belgium demonstrates the famous fan.

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.