For those of us based in Europe these are difficult days. The Euro crisis is not only incapacitating the EU in implementing EU environmental legislation (see the recent web postings on Morgan), but it’s also allowing what may appear to some as ideological attacks against this very same EU law and policy to go unchecked.
In the UK, the Coalition Government has put us on notice that it will not allow EU wildlife legislation to stand in the way of economic development. Gone are the days of the UK’s Prime Minister cuddling huskies and now in comes the might of the Treasury with a flame-thrower to the very protective measures that have brought some respite to our increasingly devastated oceans and wildlife.
We are, to say the least, in shock that the Coalition Government is considering reviewing the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives in England simply to create less of a burden on new developments. It is almost as if some ideologues are taking this period of uncertainty and austerity to pull down all the legislation that they have felt stood in the way of exploiting the marine environment for the last few decades.
In his Autumn Statement the UK’s Chancellor stated “If we burden [British businesses] with endless social and environmental goals – however worthy in their own right – then not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer."
The Chancellor denounced the burden of 'endless social and environmental goals' on industry and went onto say, "we will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like Habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses."
The UK’s Habitats Regulations, which implement the EU’s Habitats and Species Directive, were brought into place by a Conservative Government in 1994 and have been a foundation stone on which protection for whales and dolphins and other marine life has depended. The UK is already the most lax implementer of the Directive and any dilution of the current law can only mean more loss of marine habitat and the diminishing number of whales and dolphins around the coast.
But maybe we should have seen this coming. A few weeks ago we saw the Liberal Democrat Minister Chris Huhne give permission for the start of exploratory drilling in the Atlantic Frontier, despite the fact that the EU has suggested that stricter environmental controls should be considered after the spill in the Gulf.
WDCS understands that Defra are now to undertake a review of the Habitat Regulations but we are greatly concerned that this will allow for every Tom, Dick and Harry with a grudge to bear to get their knives into the legislation. At a time when oil companies and other developers are arguing that they should not be facing restrictions, this will be a field day for their lobbyists.
WDCS believes that Defra now have a responsibility to champion the environment and show that the long term value of protecting our marine and natural environment is as important as the short term gains that come from opening up these last few frontiers to exploitation.
Link to the Defra review
For those of us based in Europe these are difficult days. The Euro crisis is not only incapacitating the EU in implementing EU environmental legislation (see the recent web postings on Morgan), but it’s also allowing what may appear to some as ideological attacks against this very same EU law and policy to go unchecked.
What makes a good opening ceremony for a multi-lateral environmental organisation’s Conference of Parties (COP)?
Is it speeches that inspire?
Is it a good sing-along?
Is it a suitably prestigious and impressive venue?
Is it a welcome from the hosting hotel manager pointing out the emergency exits and the main toilets?
Stand by because we are about to enjoy all these things.
Delegates fill the big meeting hall. There is an excited buzz and much meeting and greeting and then this suddenly stills as someone takes to the main stage.
It is the hotel manager. Delegates listen seemingly in awe as he identifies toilets and the exits. Then he exits. Then someone comes to sit at the grand piano which is central stage, and he is joined by a ljovial lady with red hair ady who sings to us.
Apparently ‘Birds and Bees do it’ and ‘even the Fins do it’. (It seems a little unfortunate to single out one member nation in this way, but there you are.)
The song is the old famous Cole Porter standard with the famous refrain:
And that's why birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love.
And another Party is identified in the lyrics with ‘the Dutch do it’!
Anyway, the gist of this is that the Parties are entreated to fall in love with each other. We will report back on how well this goes at the end of the meeting.
Then Toots sings to us one of her own compositions and asks the delegations to join in with the chorus which is ‘La la la la la’ x c30’. (It doesn’t matter what your language is she says, you can join in, and we do!)
The other lyrics go something like this:
‘Allow yourself to let it in… I’ve seen more of what you are… … weak makes you strong… the truth is bizarre.’ Followed by many lalalalalas.
There is warm applause.
Prince Bandar Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia is then announced as the master of ceremonies and some tables are rearranged, name plates added and carefully placed, and then the prince comes to the stage.
Prince Bandar welcomes everyonea and says we shall decide the future of CMS and the future of migratory species here and he calls for all parties to provide much needed institutional support. Ladies and Gentlemen the CMS family is growing… we are facing increasing challenges. More and more transboundary species are faced with extinction.
He describes the core strength of CMS as the support that it receives from its Parties and he hopes this will expand in coming years. He also calls on non-Party states to accede to the Convention and recalls that we are in the run-up to Rio + 20 (the key international environmental meeting).
He thanks the people and Government of Norway for their hospitality and the CMS Secretariat for their high quality arrangements for this meeting and wishes everyone constructive deliberations and a fruitful outcome.
Lisbeth Iversen a Commissioner of Bergen Municipality takes the microphone next. She welcomed everyone to historic Bergen and shows an aerial photo of the city, which was founded in 1070. The sea was the highway to cooperation with others she comments, and despite the fact that Bergen has been ravaged by fire many times, the history can still be read in the streets.
Uncertain weather conditions are now affecting the city; uncertainty is now the normal situation. Bergen is the second largest city in the country and surrounded by green and fertile mountains… she mentions the funicular railway, the birds in the city… and stresses that wildlife belongs to all of us and we belong to it. Bergen tries to have sustainable management of its biological diversity which they try to register and map.
With emphasis she concludes that ’We are all grown ups, we need to look to the future and work with children and their open hearts. In Bergen, the children have adopted our lakes and river systems. They take samples for the Universities and they help measure and monitor the trees. She hopes that we have come here with warm hearts to change the world. Good luck with your important talks.
More warm applause.
The UNEP Deputy Executive Director, Amina Mohammed, speaks next. She too extends greetings and thanks. The theme of COP10 - networking for migratory species - could not have been agreed at a better time she states and adds that we must agree synergies between international treaties. She lists the key international treaties: CBD, CITES and the RAMSAR convention.
Biodiversity is a product of years of evolution… and yet by our actions and activities, we are allowing erosion of biodiversity, at a time when our dependence on biological services and diversity is increasing rapidly. This is the UN decade of biodiversity and all countries should keep up the good work through the UN. She then echoes Ms Iversen; they all belong to us and we to them, she says. We need to invest in the conservation and sustainable use of species and she mentions the relationship between this and global poverty. An issue that must be addressed consistently.
Elizabeth Maruma Mrema comes to the microphone next. She is the Executive Secretary of the Convention for Migratory Species and she congratulates Norway on its outstanding environmental work. She could not have wished a better host for this jubilee meeting. Her speech is halted by applause for Norway.
She then gives a personal perspective: in her previous role as the lawyer for UNEP and responsible for its many treaties, she had thought that she knew CMS. But, she says, she discovered she was responsible for a most complex family of treaties and she refers to the daughter agreements and MOUs (memoranda of understanding). She was impressed by how many agreements were run from the small CMS secretariat – one for small cetaceans (ASCOBANS) another for gorillas and so forth. The small team and its small funding had to look after not only the main treaty but its ‘many babies’.
At the last COP she reflects, Parties tried to work out how to deal with all this work and she notes the many players involved in the work of her convention, including those in the field and in civil society. She considers the case of the Saiga Antelope in Russia. Acute decline was caused by poaching. No mammal has ever declined faster, but it is now recovering and, ultimately, it is the many people in the range states that made this happen.
She also mentions the other international bodies dealing with conservation and the importance of joint work – as agreed yesterday in the Standing Committee meeting.
The NGOs and civil society have continued to assist. ‘Your hard work in partnership with CMS and independently continues to be important’.
She notes that the convention has been locked into a review process (the Future Shape Process which we shall be hearing much more of over the next few days) and that many potential new agreements were put on ice whilst this has been running.
She praises Tanzania (her own country) for its recent decision not to build a road through the middle of the migratory route of many wild animals across the Serengeti. We must go from here with a clear way forward! We must also explain to the rest of the world, why it should care!
She is applauded.
Some small, and rather high tables, are now added to the stage and the senior administrators of a range of conventions come to stand alongside them with Elizabeth Maruma Merema. They include CITES, RAMSAR, ITPGRFA (The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture) and Peter Schei (the representative of Norway and a CMS Ambassador).
They are invited to profile their conventions and have an ‘interactive discussion’
The CITES Executive Secretary, John Scanlon, speaks up first. We enter our convention like CMS ‘through the lens of species’. We cannot meet our objectives by working alone he says – he lists a number of bodies CITES works with including Interpol. He says the relationship with CMS is strong. CMS and CITES have become very specific. How do we help our parties address listings under both conventions?
The Saiga antelope decline was a lot to do with illegal trade – a CITES issue. In addressing this Mr Scanlon says we brought together the originating states and the consuming states and good results came with good cooperation between the conventions. Then he points to the gorilla depicted on the banner on the stage (Rhingo), another species that needs us to collaborate and adds that CMS and CITES need to go on being specific.
We need to look at ecosystem services but also individual species. Some forests are already empty. We cannot only look at ecosystems services. We mush maintain the species focus.
Nick Davidson of RAMSAR (the Convention for Wetlands) agrees with the CITES executive secretary and then throws numerous acronyms at the assembly. (Acronyms are not an endangered species.) Migratory species may be international sentinels of global change he stresses and notes that here we are speaking to the converted. We need to reach out urgently to others (and he identifies in particular the absence of the energy sector here). We must also recognise the hairy and slimy species, not just the birds. He calls out for outreach to CBD (interestingly not apparently represented here).
Shakeel Bhatti of ITPGRFA speaks next. He is committed to working with the other environmental treaties. He sees a link in the ‘wise use’ or ‘wise management’ of species as identified in the CMS treaty with the work of his treaty.
We now come to the tall and distinguished figure of Peter Schei. He is not only a CMS Ambassador but since 2004 BirdLife International's Chairman. Before this he was International Negotiations Director for Norway and was based at the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, where he had been Director General from 1989 to 1995.
CMS and CITES are specific and related to species he says. The species level is represented in CBD but they focus more on the ecosystem level. They look at the drivers of extinction. We are indeed focusing too much on speaking to ourselves. He agrees that we need dialogue with others in the other sectors, including the extractive ones. They have been striving for this in Norway.
Mr Schei does not like the fragmentation of governance coming from many different conventions. It is good that the biodiversity conventions are talking; but this is easy. They are more or less the same people. We need to speak to the climate people. They are not so interested in biodiversity. We should talk to the World Trade Organisation and seek ‘horizontal integration’ between ministries and sectors. We need to restore the ecological infrastructure on the planet. It is not so strong now and it will be important for adaptation to climate change. Science is also important. BirdLife works closely with the CMS Secretariat in this regard, he adds, we need the best advice and the government of Norway has long been focused on the best science for the implementation of conventions.
Elizabeth is then invited back to the microphone. She highlights the Biodiversity Liaison Group established between the international bodies. There needs to be more liaison at national level too she urges.
Fernando Spina of Italy, recently appointed as the Chair of the CMS Scientific Committee – and resplendent in a duck-decorated tie – gives the penultimate speech. He reflects on the last COP (which was in Rome, and yes we were there too).
Whilst we meet and talk, many animals are going about their business anyway. He gives various examples including the fact that majestic gorillas are unaware of crossing borders in their shady forests and gigantic whales are following their mysterious underwater track ways.
He then formally hands over from COP9 to COP 10. There is applause and he is thanked by Prince Bandar who introduces Erick Soheim, Minister of the Environment of Norway (he is also the Minister of Development Cooperation). He is the last speaker and he is invited to now open the meeting.
It is not a coincidence that we are here in Bergen. This is the most international place in Norway. Once the language here was German and grain flowed in and cod out. Bergen was once the main city and people in Bergen still believe they are far superior to other Norwegians. There is laughter.
He continues: Norway is built on migratory species. Why did people first come here? First they followed the reindeer. Moving here from south France, but why would they leave the more beautiful (as some would say) women of France? They also discovered the migratory salmon. They were once so common and big and fat that the peasants once begged their overlords to have just one salmon-free meal a week.
The most popular song in Norway is about migratory birds. Yes they spend some times overseas but as Norwegians, we see their home here (not in Spain or Africa.) They return in the Spring and our society blooms then too. We are never happier than in April and May. He emphasises this by noting that more babies are born in Norway in January because of this. There is more laughter.
Norway knows now that to protect its bird life it must protect them in all their habitats around the world. Actions are taken in Norway but there must also be international cooperation.
One road could affect many wild beasts. Here we are focused on action to address the electrocution issue. Our transmission lines are killing hundreds of thousands of birds. Marine Litter was covered by a conference here last year. We have seen all the plastic in seabirds. We cannot continue to use the oceans as a litter bin!
He emphasises that we need to outreach to people. Probably only ten people in Norway understand what ‘CMS COP 10’ understands, and they all work for him, says the minster laughing. When you use all these acronyms it makes life hard. In his ministry he only allows 2 acronyms – UN and EU (and sometimes USA). There is more laughter.
We need people to understand the beauty of nature and not impair this with jargon.
He is rewarded with applause.
He goes on to speak about the relationship between palm oil and the destruction of rain forest. Here is a conversation that has happened with the relevant industry. They are ready to use degraded land in Indonesia if this is possible and there would then be no reason to use prime forest. This industry is substantial to the budget of Indonesia and this has to be recognised but it has started.
We need to speak to all ‘tribes’. We must uplift the one billion people living in poverty; we cannot achieve conservation separately from this.
We even have one tribe looking at Climate Change and another focused on biodiversity. These tribes must be brought together.
What other arguments would people understand? Across religions there is a common philosophy that calls for the protection of nature. The bible – the holy book of Norway - begins and ends with the beauty of nature. We cannot take it upon ourselves to be the one species destroying nature.
The second argument is the ecosystems argument. Destroying one species can have enormous impacts on the rest. The third argument is the economic one. Species can have economic potential and not only for tourism. We need to send a message to the climate change meeting in Durban in three weeks time (some delegates already seem to be looking at a draft message, so something along these lines is already being progressed here).
Norway’s main contribution, says its minister, has been to address deforestation working with Brazil and others. Brazil has reduced deforestation by seventy percent. Tremendous progress and it shows you can combine conservation and development. He also mentions his support for gorilla conservation.
In conclusion, this will be an important year for conservation. There are several important meetings. We must combine our efforts to make this successful. This conference is an important step.
He steps back and the applause is enthusiastic. He has impressed the COP.
The Prince thanks him, especially for stealing many of the remarks that he wanted to make! Environment to him is the most important thing. It is holy, our life, our home, our food, we are part of it. A human being is a custodian as it says in his religion. Our forefathers did look after it but, in the last 100 years, we have destroyed more than ever before because of our technology and increase in population. Ignorance and greed are the reasons for the destruction of the environment. We need to reach out to governments and non-government groups and agencies all over the world.
Once there were only seven bald ibises in the world. Two crossed Saudi Arabia. One was shot by an ignorant child and this made the Saudis mad. They then initiated a new protective regime and the next year the birds passed through Saudi without incident.
All countries in the world have migratory species – we had problems in Saudi Arabia with CITES implementation but now we have come a long way. We have explained now to our people the need and that implementation on a local level is so important.
Every country must join in and Prince Bandar concludes by thanking the host nation, noting the role of Norway in helping to protect the biodiversity of the world.
[Please note that what we report here is not verbatim but we try to capture the gist of what was said and welcome comment and correction.]
Some images from the opening ceremony.
Okay, so now I have seen everything.
Japan, devastated by the tsunami and earthquake, reeling after Fukushima, is going to spend even more money on subsidizing its whaling fleet. ABC is reporting that around an additional 2 billion yen will be put into the overall support (some estimates put it at the equivalent of Aus$40 million) for the loss making fleet.
And the reasons reported for this. Japan does not wish to loose face in being seen to give into opposition to its whaling policy.
So Japanese people will suffer, areas of Japan will be rebuilt later, just because Japan cannot get over a cultural hurdle? What is so stupid is that the disasters of the last year are the perfect excuse for Japan to save face and get out of this preposterous business once and for all.
But no, Japan's pride in its unnecessary whaling is so important, that it must be put before the safety and future of millions of Japanese, many of who care little about whaling or are unaware of the global opinion about Japan's renegade whaling.
Yep, now I have seen everything.
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?
One the last resorts of the proponents of whaling is that it’s a defence against moves to eliminate cultural diversity, or that it’s a form of ‘cultural imperialism. For the real hardcore moneymakers in the whaling industries, it’s a small step to accuse people of racism, and I can assure you that some are happy to do so at the drop of a hat.
Well, the actual history of whaling puts paid to most of those arguments (its quite modern in most places and opposition comes from all types of people, including those living in Japan, Norway and Iceland), but I also think that this formulaic defence of the indefensible is just downright wrong, and seeks to confuse the public debate from the real arguments.
If you want to read a rationale discussion on the issue of Icelandic whaling that avoids the stereotypes, please read Katharina Hauptmann’s blog on Iceland Review - Insightful.
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  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.
KNR The Greenlandic Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that the Danish Foreign Minister Lene Espersen has a parliamentary majority in his pocket to allow Denmark to support a proposal to the International Whaling Commission, IWC, for commercial whaling for ten years.
And, or course, so deliver Greenland its demand for 10 humpback whales a year by the back door, but suffer huge fines from the EU in Denmark?
More from KNR
It seems that the NZ Foreign Minister Murray McCully has not read the WDCS report on future whale product trade.
He can't have because he would not be making the gamble he is taking on the lives of thousands of whales. He seems to think that if he can persuade Japan that 200 whales in the southern hemisphere is acceptable, that they will have signed their own bankruptcy notice in that he feels that 200 whales will make Southern Ocean whaling uneconomic.
Well if that's his strategy it seems that it is odd that he is telling Japan openly, and it would also seem that he has no idea where future profit will come from, thinking only of whale meat sales.
Maybe this is NZ preparing the home audience for the fact that NZ is willing to capitulate to some whaling in the Southern Ocean having said that none would be allowed. So Minister McCully now says 200 whales is actually the same as zero.
So Mr McCully, does that mean you are not really willing to offer Norway 600 whales, but actually, hang on let me work this out, if 200 = zero, then lets guess 400 = 1 and 600 = 2 whales. Heh! that sounds great.
Unless of course you can actually do math. Something the NZ Government seem to have forgotten about.
Former Commonwealth Secretary General Sir Shridath Ramphal called the decision by the OECS to lend its support to Japan a travesty.
Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada, all members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), also belong to the IWC.IPS News reports that Sir Shridath said, '"It's a great sadness to me that some of our smaller countries…a significant number to make a difference in the world's Whaling Commission, are in fact joining with them (Japan) in perpetuating the slaughter, and in the end the extinction of these mammals," he said.
Good for you Sir Shridath!
World Oceans Day, 8 June 2010. Eulogy for the Gulf of México. Let us now remember and celebrate the life of what was one of the most species diverse and productive corners of the world ocean: the now beleaguered Gulf of México, its brilliance long to be stained by the reality and the legacy of one of the world’s largest ever oil spills.
Supposedly now being contained on the north side of the Gulf, the spill was last compared to the size of Luxembourg but that doesn’t account for the three-dimensional penetration of the mile-plus water column.
The human addiction to oil — and corporate greed shouting out in its willingness to take extraordinary risks for profit —has much to answer for.
Of course, the Gulf itself is not dead. But sadly the world will now think of oily destruction whenever they hear “Gulf of Mexico”. How long it will take the Gulf to get back to “normal”?
For now, the bodies pile up: seabirds, turtles, fish, dolphins. The fishing boats lie rusting in the marinas. The beaches are near empty. And all over the world, the people who trusted the can’t-miss blue chip BP with their pensions and investments, will suffer, too. Even the oil workers on other rigs in the Gulf have been choking on the fumes, and many have been evacuated. Spare a thought for those species that have nowhere to go but to try to live, and sooner or later die, in the mess.
Let us now remember this sea of gold. Please remember the gold was never the oil; it was the fish, shrimp, dolphins, whales, the sea itself. This golden sea will long be tarnished.
Let this at least be a warning to those who may become similarly blinded by the promise of false gold beneath the sea, eager and willing to risk our future, and our children’s future. We can’t let it happen again.