WDCS Fieldwork Blog

Day 2. Just 33 minutes of open meeting.

The doors are firmly closed. The Commission this Tuesday morning in a cloudy Santiago is again in secret session. The matter they are discussing is the ‘future of the IWC’… so nothing of any great importance; nothing that the wider world might like to hear the discussion on; nothing that we might have views on.

Outside, for the first time this meeting, there are some protestors. There are banners and chanting but they are kept far from the meeting hotel. Their voices will certainly not reach behind the closed doors.

So we cannot tell you about anything happening at the IWC at this point and instead we will tell you some more about a feature of the city instead.

One year ago the IWC was in Alaska and we were exposed to fascinating city wildlife as the Spring raced into town. We shall long remember the moose intent-on-no-good hanging out on street corners. There are plenty of wildlife here too but mainly beyond the city boundaries, including fabulous condors souring over the Andes. However, another, animal dominates this city:

For this is the

‘City of Dogs’

One of the striking things about Santiago is its dog population. Hardly a street corner in this busy town is without a canine ‘attendant’ or two, although (very sensibly - their density falls when it is raining). Much of the time, small packs of dogs of all possible shapes, sizes and colours, bustle around, going mainly quietly about their business alongside the human inhabitants with seemingly little interaction (with one major exception).

For many foreign visitors this has been difficult to interpret what is going on with these animals. Most look hale and hearty, although a few look a little old and stiff and a few have squints but, for the most part, these are certainly not the unhappy mangy and diseased dogs seen running wild in some cities. Local friends report that many are fed and, to some extent, cared for but that they are also allowed to range around the streets. Many it seems are cared for as puppies but as their cuteness fades, so they increasingly have to find their own way in the world.

At least in this part of town there seems to be plenty of food on the streets and, in the evenings, many dogs can be seen foraging around the bin bags left outside homes and cafes. We have also spotted a few ‘dog nests’ – places where some like to curl up at night and sleep, although it is not always the same dog in the same place and sometimes dogs nest together.

Their seeming indifference to people by is only broken by their road crossing needs! Dogs will careful select passers by that they somehow inherently trust (it is interesting that they will not just do this with anyone but often seem to wait patiently for just the right person) and walk with them across the busy roads. Frankly, this is obviously a major survival skill here for the dogs because the roads are very busy, the cars move at high speeds and a dog on the streets without this skill will certainly not survive. The odd doggy squints and maybe some of the stiff legs may be testimony to how some learn this lesson the hard way.

There are rumours of occasional round-ups of the city dogs by the authorities but these are very unpopular with many local people, who see the city dogs as part of their way of life.

______________________________________________________________

Eventually after a long coffee break we are allowed into the meeting for a full 33 minutes until the long lunch break.

Chairman Hogarth announces that we are now 81 (no it is not a birthday), Tanzania has joined (and a few days earlier the Democratic Republic of the Congo also came to town).

Uruguay now gives her opening comments, stressing new relevant regulations in her country including relating to whale watching,

The Chairman now takes us back-to-the-future… of the IWC – a new document has been produced and ‘agreed by consensus’ in this morning’s meeting behind those closed doors.

Despite this consensus, Korea, China and the Russian Federation voice some concerns about the costs of one aspect of this, which relates to translation to two new languages, French and Spanish. But this is just a detail and many more parties speak up to celebrate the provisions in the future document.

_________________________________________________________________

We pause here to note as we always do that our reporting from the IWC is not verbatim and should not be taken as such – we try to capture the gist of what is said and we are pleased to make any corrections if we have interpreted any matter incorrectly.

___________________________________________________________________

The meeting closes almost as soon as it has opened with the chair calling for a round of applause for a great reception hosted by Chile last night.

[Delegates were taken to the reception elsewhere in the city last night in a flotilla of coaches with police cars with flashing lights to the front and rear. Motorcycle police outriders surged ahead and stopped the traffic at every junction, so the coaches full of VIPs (and ourselves) could sail by. Rarely have coaches moved more swiftly and efficiently. Out of the window we see one gentleman on the pavement making elaborate bows as we pass, obviously in acknowledgement of our celebrity.]

So what is in this document about the Future of the IWC?

There are three parts – reforming the working procedures of the IWC [perhaps they will give some consideration here to its seemingly increasing secrecy]; the terms of reference for a small working group that will go away and think some more about the Future of the IWC; and also terms of reference for an intersessional group on ‘issues related to the Scientific Committee’.

Amongst other things the document calls for greater consensus within the Commission, it calls for Resolutions [one of the main ways that the Commission makes its views known and for example calls countries to action or account] to be submitted 60 days in advance; the small working group has a list 22 elements/issues to look at, including Climate Change, the Conservation Committee, Ethics, Whale watching, “Coastal Whaling (i.e. within EEZ)� and so forth. 24 countries are in this ‘small working group’, including the UK, Japan and Iceland.

And what will the intercessional group on the Scientific Committee be thinking about? Possibly separating the Scientific Committee from the Commission meeting, so the former occurs long before the latter; also ‘communication with the Commission’, confidentiality and many other matters besides. It will be a busy group!

And now to lunch. Outside we hear some dogs howling.

The afternoon starts with some quiet consultations at the front of the room – first the alternate commissioner to Japan and then his equivalent from Brazil can be seen consulting with Chairman Hogarth. The Argentinean delegation at the front of the room, seems to have greatly increased in size.

The governor of an Argentinean district is ushered in. He talks about the right whale – how rare it has become, how all the things that we previously took from it we can find elsewhere. He speaks of its slow recovery (the translator insists on ‘bow whale’ but an accompanying video shows the southern right whale). He eloquently describes the development of whale watching in Patagonian seas. The governor also comments on the emotional bond that can develop with whales.

There is warm applause but also some grumbling from some delegates.

The Chairman thanks the govenor for attending and notes that we shall come back to whale watching in due course.

Another minister now takes the stage – we must move away from our 1950s function says Peter Garret from Australia, and he adds we also need to embrace civil society. Australia’s views are well known and the primary problem is special permit [aka scientific] whaling. … now is the time for fresh thinking and he refers to several papers that Australia has brought to describe a way forward.

Brazil congratulates Argentina on its exemplary work on whale watching. He then returns to the issue of the ‘future of the IWC’ and thanks the IWC Chairman for his work on process.

Finland speaks for the first time and thanks Chile for hosting. Finland supports all the three documents and supports finding consensus. He suggests that the small working group is indeed representative of the views in the Commission.

Equador mentions mutual respect for sustainable development. Iceland thanks the Chairman for his work and the initiative he has taken. However, what we are doing is a start and not an end… he calls on everyone to cooperate. It is good that we all want to see that the IWC will have a future but we have to recognizes that we need to work hard…

Ireland tries to take the floor but the Chairman cannot read his name plate at this distance Where are those binoculars? Eventually he is recognized and comments that ‘a good start is half the battle’, that he believes that ‘the IWC is the only game in town’ and ‘the prize at the end of the road’ is worth the effort. Ireland he adds has ‘put its head above the parapet’ in the past.. it did not work at the time but hopefully it will do better this time. [He refers to an effort a decade ago to reach a compromise within the Commission between the whalers and the anti-whalers and which was known as the ‘Irish Compromise’.

Aboriginal Whaling starts and suddenly stops.

The Chairman now tries to move the agenda on. Denmark asks for a power point presentation to make his proposal and stresses that they request that there should be no discussion or decisions today. He asks for just a few minutes.

The Chair whispers to the Secretary. Then, convivially, he agrees to this unusual arrangement – a short presentation but no discussion. The clock says 15.04 pm.

The Greenland representative notes that she will present the views of the Scientific Committee and works her way through a series of slides. The bowhead she says has been protected since 1938. They accumulate in Disko Bay at a time when no others are available to hunt and people there she says have been in difficulties because of the whaling ban. Results of tagging and aerial survey studies are presented. Inevitably she concludes that a take of bowhead whales is ‘sustainable’.

A similar presentation follows for humpback whales. The stock she says is almost fully recovered at some 9% per year – the proposed take of ten humpback whales is ‘sustainable’.

Greenland’s deputy minister for hunting, fishing and culture then speaks. She refers to last year’s paper on this matter provided to the Commission (a paper that very few appear to have in front of them). She too emphasizes the results of the Scientific Committee.

With respect to minke whales off west Greenland, she suggests that the Commission should come back to this next year but that their request has not changed.

Delegates are now looking at document IWC/60/23 rev – the schedule proposal (an earlier version had several curious mistakes).

There is a loud rumbling in one of the secret corridors that flank one side of the big meeting room. A few delegates grip their tables and consider popping underneath in case it is an earthquake.

Meanwhile the Greenlandic minister is talking about changes to her laws and showing pictures of the activity. She states that methods have been improved since the 1980s. She introduces a whaler in her delegation and says that we are welcome to ask questions [although obviously not today]. Some delegates are taking pictures of the slides showing the whaling activity.

15.23pm

She goes on to talk about distribution from the various hunts, including that some meat is sold to the one and only processing plant, owned 49% by the home rule government

Greenlandic whale meat ‘needs’ used to be 670 tonnes, their new minimum is now 730 tonnes; and apparently their needs have never been met and the number of Greenlanders has increased. Even worse, takes of other marine species have declined because of new legislation.

She concluded with reference to the Scientific Committee’s helpful advice.

She requests that the take of 2 bowhead whales should be confirmed and a new take of ten humbacks added.

15.27pm

She refers to a definition of aboriginal subsistence whaling in the 56^th meeting Chairman’s summary. There are similarities and differences in whaling around the world, including in... and she starts to list whaling communities and includes Norway and Japan [which are, of course not, aboriginal hunts]. She finishes.

15.33pm

There is applause. Hesitant and first and then it builds… the chair allows it.

The Chairman reminds the meeting that this is a presentation from Greenland and does not reflect the EU position.

Then, rather alarmingly we suddenly lurch from hunting whales to whale watching.

Watchable whales.

Arne Bjorge notes that the Scientific Committee has found that whale watching can have long term affects on some whale populations. The Scientific Committee plans longer tern studies. He details some other aspects of the report from this year’s meeting.

The Australian minister leaps in and stresses the importance of live whales – 100 million people have watched whales. In Latin American 900,000 people now annually do this. It can raise public awareness and aid marine conservation.

He also notes that whale watching does need to be managed and that the IWC is the relevant body to do this. [A whaling nation delegate yawns luxuriously]

Germany also speaks up in favour of whale watching.

The Mexican commissioner congratulates the Scientific Committee on its work and agrees with Australia that we need to seek 'best practice'.

Whales are favoured as live animals and people are prepared to spend money to get close to them says the UK Commissioner. He too speaks of this mysterious 'best practice'.

The US Commissioner, redoubtable Dr Doug Demaster, says it is important that WW should not have adverse affects on whale populations and commends the SC and the Conservation Committee for their initiatives on this issue.

New Zealand reaches across a relatively narrow strip of sea and associates with Australia. She notes the growing economic benefit to peoples around the world, including the Maori with their sustainable whale watching activities in Kairoura.

Argentina refers to a 12% increase in growth of WW in Latin America and an excellent new report authored by Erich Hoyt and Miguel Iniguez entitled ‘The State of Whale Watching in Latin America’. [The report was launched this morning here in Chile and was published by IFAW, Global Ocean and… ah yes, WDCS].

Brazil is also enthusiastic about whale watching. Costa Rica stresses its importance too. Whales are worth more alive she emphatically states.

Norway supports an ‘experimental approach’ to studies of whale watching [why does this sound somewhat sinister] and, as usual, notes that in Northern Norway both whaling and whale watching take place alongside each other.

Spain mentions its new legislation – a mobile protection zone around whales.

We break for coffee – one delegate at least hastens to the 21^st floor of the San Cristobel tower part of the hotel where there is a small cafe with an extraordinary view... and sometimes food .. search of a biscuit. But he fails.

Back to the meeting: China calls on the Scientific Committee to do more work on the negative impacts of whale watching.

Iceland associates with Norway, these activities [WW and whaling] are not mutually exclusive and there has been rapid growth there in whale watching. [He fails to comment on the paper from his own scientist reporting their lethal 'research' on whales that was presented to the scientific committee and which suggests that they avoided whale watching areas at least to some extent.]

The Chair thanks everyone for their comments and whale watching closes.

We move with alarming acceleration to the RMP (The Revised Management Procedure] – the mechanism for quota calculation for commercial whaling.

The Scientific Committee Chair details this highly technical issue and picks his way throgh the relevant parts of the complex report from the Scientific Committee.

Mexico mildly queries the meaning of one part of the report.

The Chair of the Scientific Committee asks the Head of Science for advice as he actually took part in the survey. The Head says that he agrees that the report should be clearer and they will try harder next year.

The SC Chair ploughs on through his report.

We move very swiftly to the RMS (The Revised Management Scheme) – the management scheme for commercial whaling.

The Chair notes that work has been done on this for some time. No one has anything to say…

But no. Australia brings us back to marine debris which is mentioned in the part of the SC report we were just discussing. They are worried about marine debris which is ubiquitous in the oceans including large accumulations in some places. An important area of SC work she suggests.

The Chair thinks it is important too and notes that the US has been looking at it.

Then, suddenly, we are looking at the “Report of the Scoping Meeting for a Workshop on Welfare Issues Associated with the Entanglement of Large Whales�. This met a few days ago. The Head of Science works through this until his microphone gives up and a hand held microphone is raced in. The agenda for the planned workshop includes looking at

• The key species involved
• Identification of the most critical interactions
• Types of entanglements
• Damage and wounds caused
• National data

The suggestion is that a 4-5 day workshop is needed, perhaps just ahead of the next IWC meeting.

Norway stresses that this is an important welfare topic. They are pleased with progress as is Dr Gales the chief scientist for Australia. He adds we may need a further workshop looking at HOW TO AVOID ENTANGLEMENT in the first place.

The UK urges that terms of reference clearly include how to release whales and not just how to euthanize and cook them.

[Sorry, he did not say that bit about cooking.]

The meeting closes.

Two competing conservation NGO receptions now erupt. The first breaks out loudly in the foyer of the Sheraton blocking the way of air flight crews trying to leave and probably causing departure chaos in the international airport down the road. Co-hosted by the team from WSPA, their redoubtable leader can be seen chasing the waiters out from the kitchen area where they were apparently malingering with food and drink.

The noise continues for some time and then suddenly ends and delegates are encouraged to wonder off into the dark to a separate reception hosted by WWF somewhere near by. Let's hope they make it back for tomorrow. Let's hope that they bring bring biscuits from the outside world.

Monday. Part Two.

Southern Hemisphere Humpback Whales

After the long lunch in the long country, we find Arne Bjorge, the Scientific Committee chair reporting on the complex stock structure of the southern hemisphere humpback whales. Many NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) are glad to be back in the room to have the chance to sit down and rest having either spent the lunch break either running into town to find vegetarian food or whirling around the meeting hotel having lots of swift meetings.

Sir Geoffrey of New Zealand thanks Dr Bjorge and notes the contribution made by his own scientists on this matter. He comments on the genetic distinctiveness of various humpback populations and that whilst some are recovering from previous hunting, others are not. ‘And we don’t know’ why.

Australia then tells us about a non-lethal method highlighted in the scientific committee report for aging whales.

Southern Hemisphere Blue Whales.

The Scientific Committee chair next guides us through his committee’s assessment of the remnant population of the world’s largest animal in the southern half of the planet. A maximum annual population growth rate of 8.5% has been suggested for them, although he stresses that ‘more work is needed’ to confirm this.

The most recent estimate of abundance for this heavily hunted species is only 2,280 – incredibly this is still less than 1% of its population size before hunting began.

Australia then highlights not only this small population size but also the threats posed to these animals by climate change.

Costa Rica encourages more research.

Russia refers to the use of 'politicised terms' – something he says that the commission agreed not to do – he refers to language in Annex H (the report of the relevant Working Group of the Scientific Committee). He asks for this to go in the record. [It is not clear at least to this observer what he means.]

Other Small Stocks take the stage.

The SC Chair stresses the small population size of the North Atlantic right whales. Similarly he has little information about North Pacific right whales but the population may be less than 100.

West North Pacific Gray Whales

Some progress in research is noted but 5 whales have been found dead on the coast of Japan in the last year. There is a high risk of extinction by 2050. In January 2008, Japan introduced a new law to help protect this species and was commended by the Scientific Committee for doing so.

The Scientific Committee also called for urgent conservation action and noted the potential disturbance to western grays from oil and gas development near their feeding ground in Sakhalin.

Mexico notes the importance of declaring sanctuaries. He notes the imperiled status of the western gray whale species. He calls for full collaboration between US and Russia.

The distinguished commissioner for the UK also emphasizes concerns about the western gray and makes reference to earlier IWC resolutions about this species. He draws attention to a panel established by the IUCN (the World Conservation Union) to help address this problem – the population is estimated at only 250 individuals and he stresses that all anthropogenic stresses should be removed. The UK believes that the IWC must learn from the extinction of the Baiji [the Chinese River Dolphin] – we must take all practical measure to avoid human induced losses including takes in nets. He too welcomes the new law in Japan.

The US associates itself with the UK and Mexico and Australia does likewise. She adds that this population might have some chance of survival if human impacts are removed. She also comments that Australia will be introducing the concept of conservation management plans to this meeting and that these might provide a helpful framework. [So more of this later!]

Japan says he is firmly committed to the recovery of this species. The relevant law in Japan makes the possession of gray whale illegal; he adds that all other range states should also take measures… there are many anthropogenic activities along the migration route. He refers to his impression of unhelpful competition between groups in the case of the now extinct Baiji and agrees that we should learn from this.

Russia then speaks to comment on his concern about the intensity of research on this population. He calls on the Scientific Committee to look at this issue in its next session.

Southern Hemisphere Right Whales.

The parade of whales continues. Many papers were received in the Scientific Committee on this issue this year. One stock of this species – that in Chile and Peru was reviewed at a workshop ahead of the Committee meeting. There is considerable concern about this stock.

The Austrian scientific advisor speaks to raise concern about environmental perturbations and their effects.

This concludes ‘stocks’ says the chair – bringing down a metaphorical gavel on a vast amount of scientific committee work which has been considered here at some pace.

Killing Methods.

Now we come to whale killing methods. As have had no working group this year, this matter will be considered exclusively here in plenary.

Papers are presented from New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Denmark/Greenland and the USA.

Norway stresses the progress that it has made. He adds that concerns have been raised about IWC criteria – based primarily on immobility of whales – however, this he suggests applies exclusively to a cold harpoon (no longer used). In the case of a detonating grenade, a matter that he has been looking into since the last meeting, he believes immobility is actually likely to under-estimate the numbers insensible and dead.

Australia welcomes the report from Norway. She urges other parties to provide similar reports.

Russia says it has long said that humane killing is not in the mandate of the Commission but on a voluntary basis it provides information. He details some of this referring to the use of darting guns, harpoons and rifles; the numbers of whales killed and struck and lost [what a terrible phrase that is] and also how many were ‘inedible’.

Denmark/Greenland says it is difficult to follow Norway’s expertise but they welcome questions to their report.

USA notes that it provided its report earlier – i.e. to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Workshop last week. He provides information about the expanding use of penthrite harpoons in the aboriginal hunt (the more humane option).

Lord Rooker, the UK Minister who is present here, comments that the continued absence of any welfare data from several contracting government is of great concern – welfare oversight and reporting must be part – we are disappointed that the working group on whale killing methods did not happen this year. This he stresses is essential for the next meeting.

High pregnancy rate of minke whales taken in Japan’s Antarctic hunt is referred to. He asks Japan what measures are taken to ensure humane death of fetuses.

The Chair is squinting down the long room to see who else is calling for the floor. (At least Luxembourg and India are doing so but really he needs a telescope or similar optical device.)

India starts by thanking the host country. He suggests that the Commission should have a strong mechanism to monitor welfare issues.

He supports the UK on a whale killing methods mechanism and workshop and urges better welfare controls.

Luxembourg speaks up to also support the call from the UK for a welfare-focused working group and workshop at the next meeting. (He also thanks Chile for their kind hospitality.)

Japan says they too are interested in reducing suffering; we can talk about conservation; we can talk about welfare but… we cannot talk about animal rights here. We have provided extensive data. In olden times we engaged in quite constructive discussion – we have improved our hunts but we have a very unfortunate situation where most extreme cases only were reported. Japan’s data he suggests was handled differently to other countries; so we now submit our data to other fora. It is important to us to achieve normalization and mutual respect.

A coffee break occurs.

The Netherlands supports a working group on welfare matters (few people are here because many are still outside (possibly scouring the building for biscuits).

Argentina also eloquently stresses the importance of this topic.

Korea says that animal welfare is an important question but in the view of this country it is largely outside of the mandate of the Commission. He suggests that high technology is already used and it is difficult to collect information in the field.

St Lucia takes the floor for the first time – she says we must be cognisant of the fact that we are talking about hunting. She commends the hunting countries for the extensive work that they have done. We also have to be cognisant of the safety of the hunters… sometimes it is more valuable to loose a whale, than loose a human life, she adds.

Bill Hogarth notes that last year we agree to hold a workshop on whale entanglement; this was meant to be held this year but was replaced by a scoping group meeting. He calls on the IWC Head of Science, Greg Donovan (a senior member of the IWC Secretariat) to report on this scoping meeting. The report is coming in the next twenty minutes and he suggests we look at this later.

We move on to the reports from observers from other organizations – these are within an annex to the Scientific Committee…. Delegates seem little interested.

However the Secretary of the Commission, Dr Nicky Grandy, now speaks of liaison with IMO (the International Marine Organisation) which oversees shipping activities. IMO met last week and it has given approval to IWC having observer status. [This is potentially important because of the issue of ship-strikes and whales… but also ship noise and other related pollution.]

The Chairman comments that now everyone is back in their seats, we have finished the agenda for the day. There is some laughter and then, 15 seconds later, more laughter (this is known as the translation effect).

Tomorrow, says the Chair, we shall look at documents relating to our future negotiations and also Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling. That you-all says the chair in closing… buses leave at 18.30 for a reception.

Monday: The IWC is poised to open. The long hall is packed. Delegates are urgently greeting other delegates; Many ambassadors greeting many other ambassadors;Camera flashes are popping; Ministers, flanked by entourages swarm across the room seeking their delegations – snugly arrayed along parallel tables roughly in alphabetical order.

IWC Chairman, Bill Hogarth, opens the meeting with the observation that it is a beautiful day in Chile and ‘a beautiful day for whale conservation and management’.

Two Chilean ministers provide welcomes in Spanish. Regrettably the volume of the loudspeakers is so great than any chance of hearing the translation from the Spanish is drowned out.

But it is clear that they are welcoming everyone and wishing them well.

They both receive warm applause.

A coffee break follows. And here the news that many of you are waiting to hear: there are no biscuits. There have been no biscuits since the SC meetings opened at the beginning of the month. It seems biscuits are unable to make it across the Andes or the Pacific from the wider world.

NGOs are gathered in the break by the IWC Chair and he invites them, very unusually to make presentations later in the week – three from ‘each side’ (how many sides are there? – Two apparently!)

After coffee and no biscuits, Uruguay, as a new party is given the chance to make an opening statement but they are somewhere else (possibly looking for biscuits).

The IWC Chair then sets out some rules that he wishes the dance to proceed by. He requests that points of order are kept to a minimum. And adds that he does not expect any resolutions. He also notes that he will only allow second intervention from a country, once all have spoken. The lunch break he adds will be two hours long. This is important because it allows, potentially, time to run into town and locate real and cost-effective food.

He then gives the floor to Japan. The Commissioner notes that they will maintain their position that ‘Small Cetaceans’ (issues relating to the smaller whales, dolphins and porpoises) and certain other issues should be deleted from the agenda but in respect of the process established by the IWC Chair, they will not seek any amendment to the draft agenda. They hope that other members will also refrain from making resolutions and other matters that might ‘inflame things’. Morimoto adds that they are committed to ‘normalizing’ the IWC and promises a side-event on JARPA (Japanese ‘research’ in Antarctica) at lunch time on Wednesday.

Is the agenda adopted asks Chair Hogarth?

Denmark intervenes with one point along the following lines: ‘you might have noted that the EU has adopted a common position on a number of issues. I would like to clarify the position of Denmark. We are bound by a common position. But we have territories that are not part of the EU and their positions are taken care of by this delegation. Their positions may diverge. So, when I speak I will speak on their behalf.’

Suddenly, we are propelled to detailed and swift consideration of whale stocks:

Antarctic Minke whales.

The redoubtable chairman of the Scientific Committee, Arne Bjorge, details ongoing reaearch. There have been three surveys with an apparent appreciable decline shown from the last. For some time, the Committee has been trying to explore this to determine if it is a real decline. This work is still ongoing.

He also describes some ongoing work looking at the ear-plugs of whales for aging purposes.

New Zealand says that this is an excellent and helpful report. It is clear, says their Commissioner Sir Geoffrey Palmer, that there is a considerable amount of work ongoing but success is illusive! We still seem to be far away from an agreed estimate. Perhaps our interests would be better served if trends are looked at rather than an agreed number. This might, he suggests, show the impacts of climate change and, concerning the age estimate techniques using ear plugs, the RMP (the mechanism used to calculate commercial removal rates) has moved away from such estimates as they proved unreliable in the past. Any information gathered from reading ear-plugs is of questionable validity, he stresses.

Japan does not agree with New Zealand. He states that consideration of age is not useless. This is why the Scientific Committee is engaged in this. In fact, he suggests that the age data is still very important.

There are no other comments and the Scientific Committee recommendations are endorsed and we next hear from the Scientific Committee Chairman about Western North Pacific minke whales.

Following this several countries take to the floor to voice their concerns about the dwindling and genetically distinct population of whales in this region known as the J stock. Mexico for example is very concerned as is the US.

The SC Chair explains that his committee is considering this matter further via one of its ‘in-depth’ assessments.

Richard Cowan, the UK Commissioner, then makes his first intervention and thanks Chile for hosting. He adds, should the meeting not be a success, it will not be Chile’s fault. There is some gentle laughter. He associates with the US’s comments and says that he is very concerned.

Australia gives its thanks to the hosts too and with respect to the western north pacific minkes she stresses her concern for these animals. Total mortality continues to escalate, with high levels of bycatch (accidental deaths in fishing nets) in J and K. Australia calls for action on two fronts – better abundance estimates and that all genetic samples should be made freely available. Only then can appropriate advice be given.

Japan thanks the Chair of the SC for his excellent presentation and refers to extensive studies both lethal and non-lethal and states that he is proud of these studies. He thanks the Russian government for the opportunity to conduct sighting studies. He adds that the report of the SC might sound as if Japan had not done any research but they have.

Bycatch, he adds, is by coastal bycatch with nets set close to the shore. The size and shape of nets has been the same for thirty years. So, why more bycatch? His scientist are considering this but there is no rush to make a conclusion. After a few further comments, and endorsement of the scientific committee report, we close for a long lunch.

The wisdom of (some) whales.

The old whalers told many fascinating stories of their quarry – the great whales. Many were lies, including gross under-reporting of catches by certain nations, and some were legends but one has a strong ring of truth to it and is recounted independently by several whalers and this is the story of the whales that learnt to avoid the harpoon.

In antiquity of course there are many tales of large whales – sperms and grays – fighting back against small wooden rowing boats and often winning. But this is not what I mean. I refer to the days of mechanized whaling in the last decades of the last century, when huge motor-driven metal boats with bow-mounted grenade-headed harpoons offered no reasonable chance of retaliation. Nonetheless, some of the sperm whales found a way to stay alive. Instead of swimming away from the boat, they would swim towards it and before the gunner could get a decent aim, they would hide underneath where a shot was impossible. Then they would dive away into the abyss and safety.

Even when sophisticated sonars came to be used to follow the whales, some still managed to learn that there was cover under the boat – and their opportunities for learning could only have been brief. Some of the whalers admired the intelligence of the whales. Some still do but it does not seem to be enough, at least for the moment, to persuade them to stop.

Sunday Dawns.

IWC 60 minus 1. (6 days to go).

It is Sunday. Cloudy and cool in the city and the major highways to the front of the Sheraton are unusually quiet. The street dogs (more of these later) are busy carefully crossing the roads with tails held high (life is a little easier on a Sunday for them). Inside, the IWC ‘Commissioners’ (those given the power here to represent their nations - and there might be as many as 80 as this is the present count of parties) - are locked in their traditional private pre-meeting meeting. Is there laughter, is there shouting? We don’t know. We are not allowed to know. However, one thing is sure this is a fundamentally important gathering and much of what will follow in the next few days is being tested and rehearsed. Dance steps are being practiced and suitable partners evaluated. (We all dance here in Latin America.)

Anxious representatives of non-governmental organizations, like our own, stalk the hall ways of the hotel and seek out the more junior members of national delegations to talk to (that is those that have been unfortunate enough not to have been allowed the day off).

Eventually Commissioners emerge looking weary and looking for their tea and possibly a Pisco Sour or two.

By the afternoon many ministers have arrived (more of them later) and delegations have now swelled to great size – will the long narrow hall in the long narrow country be able to accommodate them all?

In the late afternoon one of the first scheduled events breaks out. WWF and WDCS join forces to present a briefing for press and delegations about climate change.

This is the first press event and it does not go entirely smoothly. Despite requests for several days and then again from early in the morning, the one key piece of equipment the power point projector fails to arrive. As the clock ticks towards 6pm the allotted time for the briefing, the finest diplomats from WWF and WDCS are sent to encourage the arrival of this small but critical piece of equipment. Eventually, with less than a minute to go, it arrives and a team of technicians sit quietly ignoring it.

One speaker (let us call him the WDCS Director of Science) briefly leaves the room to quietly think about what he might say, whilst others encourage the technicians into action.

The set-up is not exactly perfect. The three speakers face the audience (so far so good) but the pp projector stubbornly takes a more idiosyncratic approach to the whole event and faces a screen at the back of the room, behind the audience. Perhaps this is the traditional way of making a presentation here.

On returning from two minutes of fresh air, the WDCS Dof S finds his lap-top computer (which hosts the presentations and much more besides) and which was previously sitting quietly on a table minding its own business, has been seized and – for reasons that are never explained – it has been hurled onto the floor through a plate-glass table. The lap top is now decorated with both large shards of glass and some finer pieces and snuggled within the key board (but more of these later). Not surprisingly it no longer works.

A small audience has gathered by now – presumably to enjoy the presentation about climate change or possibly the art of lap top hurling, but they find themselves facing a certain amount of cursing as the small and winded lap top (now displaying a range of interesting and indecipherable hieroglyphics) is slowly coaxed back to consciousness.

Clearly it was just dazed because, eventually, and rather kindly given the circumstances, it agrees to allow the presentations to be shown. From this point on things go fairly well, although there is some amusement as the audience has to swivel in its chairs to alternately face speakers at one end of the room and the relevant images at the other. After a while, most of the audience gives up and they are just pointing in random directions.

And so the day ends.

Let the great dance begin!

So, what can we expect at this meeting?

Some say very little, because the Commission is perhaps in a rare conciliatory mood and a huge effort is being made to find common ground. Hence, many parties are trying to persuade many other parties out onto the dance floor of reconciliation and mediation. Given that the margins of this particular dance floor are stacked with the bodies of thousands of dead whales – something that the peoples of so many countries find totally unacceptable – finding a middle-ground is going to be difficult to say the least; but there are signs from non-IWC intersessional meetings that a major effort is in play.

However, preparations for the dance were probably thrown into some disarray when some nations announced a major export of whale meat. Iceland sent a copious quantity of fin whale meat and Norway a lesser amount of minke whale meat to Japan, although it seems unclear what the latter knew about this, or even where the meat has gone. (The strongest rumour seems to be that it is sitting in customs freezers in Japan.) We will not go into the legalities of this here but just before a meeting that is poised to try to ‘find a way forward’, this export is rather like hitting the host of a lovely party to which you have just been invited around the chops with… a large wet piece of whale meat.

Certainly as nations seek to link hands and try to dance, this export event, will likely spoil their synchronicity.

What else is likely to be an issue here? The recent arrest of Greenpeace activists in Japan and claims of harassment of the latter on the high seas? Probably, to some extent.

What of the recent mysterious and perhaps potentially loud noise-associated strandings of whales and dolphins around the world? Possibly.

What of climate change and its accelerating effects in cetaceans? Certainly this will be discussed because the Commission last year made a commitment to further investigate this matter and it will be interesting to see how it follows up on this.

What of another matter left over from last year: the question of the proposal from Greenland to open up a new hunt in the North Atlantic – a new hunt for humpback whales? We shall certainly be hearing of this.

What else? Declining dolphins and porpoises, some poised to blink out of existence and also the perils of fishing activities and boat strikes for marine mammals, and much more besides.

Take your partners for the music is ratcheting up and the dance is poised to begin.