IWC 60

Santiago - Andes in background. Below: Meeting hotel.

Breakfast - UK Minister, Lord Rooker, meets with Claire Bass of WSPA. And street dogs

Quintay old whaling station where Chile launched its new whale sanctuary. (Whale landing ramp in foreground.) Above - the 'brown river' and San Cristobel hill.

Above: the Luxembourg delegation. Below: the Mexican Commissioner.

Two above - Peter Garret, the Australian Environment minister on one of the big screens at the front of the meeting room. Above him the Portuguese Commissioner on the screen. Below: part of Team WDCS at the end of the meeting.

Above: a caracara and below Chilean hummingbird (Photographer: Pierre Gallego)

Two images above - Latin American whalewatching report launch by WDCS

IWC Day 5 – the final hurdles: No one wants the IWC and what is that whale meat doing there?

A small sandy brown dog is soundly asleep in its nest of ivy as we make our way past, onwards to the last day of IWC 60. There is frost on the ground elsewhere and he (or she) is perhaps a little warmer wrapped in the leaves. The brown river still flows swiftly and the snowy Andes are in soft focus behind the smog. As we walk, the WDCS Whaling lead talks excitedly to the WDCS Science lead about her future plans… but we will not detail them here.

Outside the main meeting hall, the Japanese commissioner can be seen studying the table of literature provided by NGOs. He selects a few items and then heads to his seat.

Others are doing likewise gluiding across the room nodding to others and seeking their flags. The phrase ‘last day, thank goodness’ and similar can be heard from many lips. Many delegates are already towing their luggage around.

The Chair starts by saying that we now approach the day that many of you have been waiting for about 30 days …. There is some nodding from the people still here who also attended the scientific committee way back at the beginning of the month.

The Secretary of the Commission, Dr Nicky Grandy, now takes us through the report of the Finance and Admin Committee. Here issues such as translations costs and the IWC website are discussed.

The issue of the recognition of French and Spanish as working languages is detailed. There seems to have been no consensus on this issue earlier and it was referred to a private commissioners’ meeting.

There is some discussion of food security. St Vincent and the Grenadines speaks to this and says that his whalers are chastised because they use too modern techniques but they are a small island state and they are charged a lot of money to be a party to the IWC. They only have very little commercial aspect to their hunt.

Cameroon and others are worried about costs too.

We move on – others issues come and go, including the possible relocation of the IWC Secretariat presently based in Cambridge, UK. They have decided to stay put.

We move on to the costs of separating the Scientific Committee from the Commission meeting (so this would not be a one month block of meetings with very little time for the commission to study the Committee’s report). This matter remains to be resolved.

Other matters wander by… then we come to the location of the next meeting – Madeira and a nice video is shown to us. The Portuguese Commissioner talks us through the video which features many cetaceans and unusually the voice of a dolphin can now be heard echoing around the meeting room itself. We wonder what it would say to us if it knew its words were being broadcast….

“Please be kind, we are friends, not food… we like you… why do you treat us this way?�

Maybe.

The Portuguese Commissioner now takes us gently to the Casino in Madeira – apparently we will have meetings rooms in there (that will be interesting) and, he adds, there are many hotels in the capital and no need for transport. He also stresses the beauty of the interior of the island and that there will be many lovely walks.

[The scribe assumes that the meeting rooms will meet the usual standards – absolutely no windows, flock wallpaper, chandeliers and a style that could be anywhere in the world. ]

We move to a list of next year’s meetings, the UK Commissioner, Richard Cowan, thanks the Secretary for responding to the request from his minister and scheduling a welfare-related meeting.

Awkwardly it now transpires that no one has offered to host the IWC meeting after Madeira. The Chair implores the gathered parties to offer to host. No one does.

The Secretary says the IWC does not have enough money to run a meeting unless someone offers to host it. [Pause – tumbleweed blows through…. ].[Did you miss the tumbleweed?]

[Still no one offers.]

The membership of the IWC Advisory Committee now comes up Cote D’Ivoire and Costa Rica are now new members, replacing Cameroon and Chile.

The Chair moves to close the meeting but the UK asks for the floor. He speaks in, he says, in the spirit of openness and conciliation. We have heard unconfirmed reports of trade in whale meat from Iceland and Norway to Japan. He knows that they hold reservations under CITES, so this is not illegal. He asks if import and export permits have been issued. This is a matter that many of us attach great importance to us.

[Is it getting hot in here again.]

Iceland responds mildly that trade is not within IWC Competence. We can discuss this bilaterally with any parties.

No one else asks for the floor.

The Chair starts to close. He thanks Nicky and Greg. There is applause. He thanks Cheri who will now be working with him on the future of the IWC. He says goodbye to the Commissioner for Argentina who is retiring. He thanks the Commissioners. He is sorry that we had to have a vote but ‘that’s life’.

New Zealand thanks the Chairman for his leadership – this is a courageous enterprise. Changing the culture of this organization is a difficult process – it can be one step forward and then one step back.

India expresses its sincere thanks to Chile and the Chairman.

Chile says that Chile has been honoured to host the IWC and that they have enjoyed their time in our city and then he too speaks of the Chairman’s leadership. He thanks Nicky, Bernard and the whole team.

More applause and then we are done.

Delegates scurry across the floor to shake hands or hug (there is a surprising amount of hugging going on)– more photos are taken and within 2-3 minutes the very efficient Secretariat have taken away all the flags and name plates before they get nicked.

A working group on the future of the IWC breaks out a little later in another room behind firmly closed door.

A little later, sometime after the meeting has finished, we are sitting in the lobby when the protestors who have previously been kept far away rush up the front door and blockage it - 'Save the Whale' they are shouting.

Indeed.

Finally More Thank yous but this time from the WDCS team in Chile.

As usual, as we close here from the 60^th IWC meeting in Santiago, Chile, we would like to say thank you to a number of people and institutions:

We would like to thank the hard-working UK delegation for staying resolute and providing leadership to the EU – and others- under the difficult circumstances that we found here.

We would like to thank valiant Luxembourg for its support.

Portugal, Germany, New Zealand , Austria, Germany, Argentina and all the Latin countries – you were all great. Thank you so much.

Thanks to those that stepped up to support the climate change workshop.

Similarly, to all who worked hard in the Scientific Committee – especially those still here 4 weeks later – muchos gracias.

The people of Chile were kind and very hospitable. We felt very welcome here. We are pleased that out visit coincided with a wine festival in the City and for anyone coming to Santiago we strongly recommend the leafy district of Providencia – especially its vegetarian restaurants and small hotels (and in particulat the Villafrancha Petit Hotel- to you.

We salute our sister NGOs, especially this year WSPA, WWF, the Danish Society for the Protection of Marine Mammals, Ocean Care and HSI (Kitty we missed you greatly) for their hard work here and beyond.

We thank the IWC secretariat for their courtesy and help.

We wish the street dogs that amused us, kept us company and sometimes even let us cross the roads with them, good health and a mild winter.

To our many readers, thank you for your support and messages of encouragement and to Finns for Whales, the ‘emergency biscuit’ was most welcome.

The ‘dog blog’ scribe thanks his editor for her patience and finally we dedicate all these words and anything good that we did here to Lisa.

Thursday, Santiago, Chile.

A Vote is Coming [in fact the only vote], Australia has a Vision and the Scientific Committee is liquefied. [Prepare for a volcano of invective.]

Pigeons and sea gulls are foraging alongside the brown river as usual as we cross the bridge. The sky is clear and the sun is shining brightly, but when we reach that part of the Sheraton hotel where the IWC is occurring the doors are again firmly shut against us.

The IWC Commissioners are again meeting in private, following the request from the Danish Commissioner yesterday. We assume that they are discussing Greenland’s request for more whales – specifically the delicious and easier to catch and process humpback whales.

After coffee we are all allowed back into the all-too familiar meeting hall. As usual Chairman Hogarth and Dr Nicky Grandy, the Secretary of the IWC, are sitting side by side on the raised platform at one end of this long room.

We start by returning briefly to the Conservation Committee and its chair, the commissioner from Korea, suggests that the issue of participation in the Committee should be considered by the group looking at the ‘future of the IWC’.

He tidies up some other business, including whale sanctuaries (no new proposal) and national reports on their conservation work (a few countries provided these). Then we gallop on to …

A NEW VISION

The Australian Minister, Peter Garret (pictured below on one of the big screens at the front of the meeting), proudly describes their new vision for the IWC. There are two key elements in this:

1. Internationally supported Conservation Action Plans

The focus of these would be to assist species and populations in trouble.

2. Collaborative regional conservation research programmes

New Zealand, in the form of Sir Geoffrey, speaks up noting that as an isolated island nation which has conservation issues, it is pleased to support Australia. The US and Brazil speak in support as well. The US says we need consensus in finding a way forward with conservation work.

Frances speaks up positively too and notes the overlap with regional plans such as ASCOBANS (the cetacean agreement in the North Atlantic region).

Mr Cowan of the UK says that he can be brief and will associate with Australia and also the US’s point on the need for consensus.

Others take the floor and all agree.

Then there is a short intake of breath and we move to the long awaited report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Working Group. [Here lurks that key vote on the Greenland humpback whales.] The report is calmly and carefully presented by the Commissioner from Portugal.

We move cautiously through the report word by word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph… towards ‘catch limits’.

The problem that the scientific committee is having in providing ‘interim advice’ is highlighted

Catch limits include –

• The Bering-Chuchi-Beaufort bowheads – 63 were struck but only 41 landed (this efficiency is regarded as low and environmental and logistic reasons were given for this).

• The North Pacific Eastern Stock of Gray Whales – the phenomenon of the stinky (and hence inedible) whales is mentioned here and that research is ongoing to determine why this is happening. The stinkiness is apparently not limited to gray whales – other marine species in the same are also being affected. Russia comments that they wish their definition of ‘stinky whales’ to be used whilst the Scientific Committee looks further into the stinkiness issue. The definition says that a stinky whale is one that ‘has a strong unnatural pungent odour that makes the whale inedible’.

• Common minke whale stocks off Greenland – some are taken from the east of Greenland and many more from the west. There was a wide ranging discussion in the working group including discussion of an ‘unsubmitted report’ – this was the report from WSPA which shows that some 25% of whale meat ends up in commercial use. [Details on the WSPA website.]

• West Greenland Fin whales

• West Greenland bowhead whales. The SC has advised that an annual take of 2 bowheads would not ‘harm the stock’.

• North Atlantic humpback whales off St Vincent and the Grenadines. One animal was landed last year and another struck and lost.

• Humpback whales off West Greenland. The SC has said that strikes of up to 10 humpbacks will not harm the stock.

A minor eruption occurs, NGOs speak and life moves on.

The Scientific Committee chair moves on to other environmental issues including the excellent ‘State of the Cetacean Environment Report (SOCER) and the skin-disease workshop held just ahead of the Scientific Committee meeting.

Austria notes that she strongly supports the climate change workshop and she speaks of another threat, noise pollution – military sonars and seismic – another chronic threat is vessel noise. She notes the link to the International Maritime Organisation and hopes that the Commission will agree with her that vessel noise should be ‘one focus’ of this work.

Belgium agrees with Austria on noise effects.

The chair drops his metaphorical gavel (although he does have a real one too) and we pass on to

‘Small Potatoes’

with great acceleration i.e. the report of the Small Cetaceans part of the Scientific Committee.

[This relates to the smaller whales and the dolphins and porpoises, which are dealt with in a separate working group of the Scientific Committee.]

Switzerland thinks that the IWC has some responsibility for all cetaceans and welcomes work on this topic.

Australia appreciates the report too and congratulates all concerned and eloquently also those countries that have acted to help their small cetaceans including Mexico

Cambodia speaks about its river dolphins and is concerned about their endangered status relating in particular to gill nets. They seek help from other members.

Others make similar comments.

This year the committee made a special review of issues in the region and also looked at some critical issues. This includes the situation of the endangered porpoise, the vaquita, in the Gulf of Mexico. There are perhaps only 100 left.

Sweden announces that they sent a demarche with many other members to the Mexican government recently on this matter but that their concerns are not alleviated by what they see in this year’s report of the Scientific Committee.

China talks about the finless dolphin and its 3 sanctuaries (and 4 more provisional ones) intended to protect this species. They are encouraged to provide information to the committee next year.

New Zealand says tough decisions sometimes have to be taken about small cetaceans – they know because they have just had to take some [they refer to their Hector’s dolphins] and they wish Mexico good luck.

We move on to other species. Arne Bjorge, the Scientific Committee chair, stresses from the report the threat to the boto from its use as fish bait and also the very unsatisfactory situation of Dall’s porpoises killed in hunts in Japan – which are believed to be unsustainable.

Austria says perhaps this is a turning point for the Commission – what is our bottom line here? – we need to focus on extinction of species and extirpation of populations. The Baiji was driven to extinction last year. We need to act, especially if the threat is of a simple nature, such as a directed take. The Scientific Committee has called for Dall’s porpoise removals to be made sustainable. Austria will continue to make such comments he says, ‘for the sake of the species and the credibility of this body’.

Brazil says they are making progress with the boto and will report more to the next meeting.

Sweden notes the SC’s concern and that last year it was noted that Japan would manage this [the Dall’s] hunt scientifically.

The UK notes the concerns from the Scientific Committee and elaborates at some length on this matter. He concludes that in the new ‘spirit of co-operation’, he hopes that Japan will accept that small cetaceans are within the mandate of the IWC and act accordingly.

Finland also speaks up about the Dall’s porpoises. So does Belgium, noting again that it regrets that the SC has to keep raising these concerns!

Sir Geoffrey of New Zealand waves for a while from deep in the room but no one can see him.

A long lunch follows. In the long meeting room Japan gives a presentation on its research. Many delegates stay and many don’t.

The Chair then gives the floor to Netherlands. But they are not here.

Nicaragua says we need to care for mother earth. It is not only small cetaceans that have been driven to the brink of extinction… it would be remiss of us to ignore the rest of the ecosystem. [He adds some thing about Greenland but he is loud and the translator is having problems…] ecosystems… China… one side of the planet… oceans… my country… rationale use… protectionism… sustainable use… aboriginals… so I applaud those conservation projects…. mitigate… mother-nature … tidal waves… cyclones… floods…

Ireland appreciates the report of the small cetaceans working group chaired by an Irish colleague. Let us act before they become seriously depleted.

The Chair looks again for the Netherlands; still no sign. [Possibly hunting biscuits.]

Sweden notes that he and Portugal asked direct questions of Japan. May they have answers?

The Chair says, Japan did not ask for the floor and so we have moved on.

The Chair of the Scientific Committee re-opens the volumes from his scientific committee. He now describes research in the southern ocean, thanking Australia and Japan for their support. Then, suddenly, we are talking about DNA testing and genetics. The SC Chair is quite breathless but he continues on to the issue of who is the Chair and Vice Chair of the Scientific Committee. A new Chair will be in place in 2009.

Mexico graciously thanks Dr Arne Bjorge for staying in the Chair for another few months. There are no other comments.

[It is cooler in the meeting room this afternoon and in the lunch break delegates were prevented from leaving the meeting area by the security guards and directed to the lower level where they are going to be locked up… but no… the host nation has some gifts for them. The gifts turn out to be bottles of wine and a souvenir ‘IWC 60’ pen. The wine is very welcome and generous. So we will not stop complaining about the biscuits…for a while.]

We charge towards new plans for the IWC with papers from Australia suggesting a new way forward. One describes a multi-partner research initiative in the southern oceans. This idea is forcefully delivered by Minister Garret and he concludes by again asking Japan to suspend his lethal research.

New Zealand, Brazil and others are warmly supportive of dancing with Australia. The UK too is linking arms… or at least he looks forward to doing this in the future.

The French Initiative.

This is a proposal to provide a simplified overview of the work of the scientific committee for the Commission and … but it should be done in co-operation with the Scientific Committee say some, including Japan and Russia.

The Future Workplan of the Scientific Committee and adoption of the report.

The Scientific Committee chair indicates where the workplan and the budget of his committee can be found. There is much urgent shuffling of papers.

Can we approve all this says the chair and close the report….

However, Norway has some problems with the adoption of the report. We still need to look at several items, including aboriginal subsistence, so item 14 needs to be kept open.

We speed on…

The Conservation Committee

The Chair of the CC– the distinguished commissioner for Korea – takes us swiftly through his report.

He speaks of the issue of the inedible ‘stinky whales’ – gray whales with a strong odour that are killed in the Russian hunt but which cannot be eaten.

He then talks about the work of the CC on ship strikes.

We pause for comments and Brazil notes the importance of the ongoing work on ship strikes. France celebrates the work of the CC.

Russia takes the floor to point at one of the NGOs that gave technical assistance in helping this issue (the Stinky whale) and expresses his appreciation.

Sweden: I note that Iceland regretted that only 1/3 of the commission was present at the CC. I agree. [Iceland is urgently waving his flag.]

Iceland: thankfully in this commission we all agree that conservation is important and I would like to thank Sweden for reminding us that this [lack of participation] is an issue – this is because of the way that this body was set up.

Argentina is annoyed by the ongoing harassment against the Conservation Committee – it is not true that it does not work well.

[A lovely tea break follows and then we come to the unusual event when NGOs are going to be allowed to speak. Outside a caracara (a large indigenous falcon) flies around the Sheraton Hotel. A little further away the city dogs are going quietly about their business, meeting and greeting each other, a little friendly sniffing and then seeking trustworthy human beings to take a little walk with and maybe cross the road.]

The Chair now declares the NGO section open. (This is the bit where NGOs have been invited to speak – three from ‘each side’ for just 5 minutes each.

The Chair announces we will hear from CCC (Chilean Cetacean Conservation), the High North Alliance, WWF. The Woman’s Forum for Fish, Greenpeace and finally Conapesca..

Barbara Galetti of CCC speaks – she seeks concrete action and suggests that this moment is unique as for the first time in many years civil society is being asked to give its opinion. She stresses the importance of non-lethal use and urges that the commission should form a working group of commissioners and NGOs to look at the rules of procedure and help to open up transparency.

She emphasizes the importance of whale watching important for the sustainable development of coastal communities and for social and cultural reasons.

The High North Alliance comes forward next: Their spokesperson tells us something about the organization, including that they represent hunting and fishing organizations. Our organization was born out of the anti-whaling movement, she says, and then stresses the importance of science – she suggests that some other organizations oppose whaling whatever the science says. She then speaks specifically on Greenland and the attacks against them. Then she calls for respect.

WWF comes next. He speaks on the behalf of the WWF network and many other organizations. Amongst other things, he speaks of the impact of climate change on the Antarctic Ocean and how pleased he is about the climate change workshop. He also speaks of degradation of coastal areas and fisheries. He reminds us that the world is watching the Commission.

The Woman’s Forum for Fish comes forward and is grateful (in Japanese) for the opportunity to speak – they are an organization with 1000 members, fishermen, processors, school teachers and others.

She goes on to describe the wide range of marine foods eaten and that whale meat is traditional but beef and pork is new – only eaten in the last 100 years. She mentions sustainability.

Greenpeace comes next – they are represented by a Japanese person and he talks of the profound impact of human beings on the planet’s environment and how we pushed the whales close to extinction. He tried to pass his microphone to a colleague to speak but

a ‘point of order’ is called by St Kitts and Nevis. This is our first this meeting! There are two speakers says St K & N. We agreed to only one speaker!

They only have 5 minutes in total and they are both Greenpeace says the Chairman defensely.

Point of order: I think we are going back to our old ways thunders the St K & N Commissioner.

Ok says the chair. Greenpeace please continue with one speaker..

The young man from Greenpeace continues noting that sustainable use means whale watching not whaling. We – the IWC - need to become an instrument of conservation. He also speaks for transparency.

Conapesca makes the final contribution and calls for the maintenance of diversity in food culture… and this extends to whaling. He is concerned about the distinction made between aboriginal and other whaling.

The Chairman thanks all the speakers and moves to close but Denmark wants to speak.

He says we need a private Commissioner’s meeting.

The Chair says OK at 9am tomorrow. Having been given a few minutes to speak the NGOs – the representatives of civil society – can now be expected to be excluded from much of tomorrow and, indeed much of what will follow in the coming months.

Distant dogs are howling again and small pieces of glass are making their way out of the lap top key board… so we close for the day.

It is cool and cloudy in Chile. A dog is sleeping in its little 'dog nest' deep in the ivy outside our hotel. We pass by and it wakes up, and someone rather rudely takes a photograph as we head to the IWC meeting across the brown river. (It is soon asleep again - but no such luck for us!)

[It is hot in the meeting room – will the fragile peace hold in this heat? Certainly there are some hot topics coming up. Will there be biscuits. Will the earth move. How is the dancing going?]

The major of Taiji sits quietly.

Japan take the floor to refer to its claim for coastal whaling – which is usually made at this point in the meeting. The delegate notes that the major of Taiji, one of the towns that conduct this type of whaling, is sitting quietly behind him. But in the new spirit of IWC’s attempts to reach a common ground, they will NOT make this request this year.

There is a small pause. The earth shakes gently, somewhere a city dog howls and then we more suddenly into the review of Japan’s Special Permit (‘scientific’ and lethal) hunt.

[The temperature soars].

The Scientific Committee Chair now describes the main part of the Scientific Committee report. He draws particular attention to the proposal for a new review process for lethal research that the Committee supports.

The UK is pleased that we have a clear process to review Special Permit whaling, although ‘if he has a regret’ it is that the time-table for the review of JARPA 2 (Japan’s ongoing lethal research) is a long way off .

The US Commissioner, DeMaster, is very pleased about this development too.

Switzerland takes the floor for the first time and he thanks the hosts and then the Scientific Committee for their ‘tremendous and excellent work’. He notes that scientific whaling is a difficult topic and so it is excellent to see this progress.

Japan seems to like the plan too. He notes that they were actively involved in achieving this success in the Scientific Committee and commits to the process. As far as scientific committee is concerned… he hopes that the commission and general public will also achieve greater understanding of scientific whaling.

The chair is again peering towards the back of the room and cannot make out who wants to speak. [This is a big international meeting… get him a telescope, lend him some binoculars… come on.]

India compliments the scientific committee but also calls for the increased use of non-lethal methods.

New Zealand also welcome the report of the Scientific Committee but adds that it will come as no surprise to all that they oppose the scientific whaling programme in the southern ocean. This issue inflames people in New Zealand, and she is also worried about human life and also the pristine Antarctic environment. But she is pleased that Japan did not take humpback whales and calls on them to ‘take the hard option’ to stop scientific whaling.

Slovenia, on the behalf of the EU block, notes that there are several non-lethal research techniques and that these allow for non-lethal studies… scientific whaling should be brought under IWC control in the first place and then phased out.

The Australian Minister, Peter Garret, strongly opposes killing whales in the name of science. There is simply no need to kill whales in this age. Special Permit whaling is commercial whaling and he has particular concerns for humpback whales and fins because of their conservation status. There is no defensible level of scientific whaling. No scientific reason for this.

He proposes that the approach to scientific whaling is reformed. The Commission does not currently play a part in approving these takes and he thinks it should. Indeed, Commission should agree by consensus such matters.

Secondly, research should seek to meet the aims of the Commission.

Garret concludes that Special Permit whaling can only be a source of division and it must stop.

Brazil agrees with Australia and New Zealand. They are strongly opposed to this practice.

Mr Cowan of the UK associates with Slovenia and others. The British public is outraged that this is nothing less than commercial whaling in disguise and it undermines the 1982 moratorium. However, he welcomes Japan’s decision not to take humpbacks in the last whaling season and that they did not take fins. Then he asks Japan if they still plan to take fins given that they only saw 9 whales of this species during their whole expedition.

Iceland says he will refrain from a long political speech, he does not wish to spoil the friendly atmosphere here…. But does not agree with UK.

St Kits and Nevis says, at some length, that this is an important issue and that such research is important for the fishing and whaling industry… he says that sharing the economic benefits of whales will be an important development in future discussions.

Japan says shall we just go back to the usual exchange of acrimonious comments? He believes that positions are first made and then arguments follow from this. He knows that some countries say there is no need for lethal studies but … well he does not agree.

I might be convinced, he adds, if you say there is no need to kill any animal in the 21^st century. People tend to close their eyes to the information not supporting their positions. The information from our studies is ignored because it does not fit with the arguments.

He continues at some length and is also concerned about how journalists report Japanese science. He calls on media and NGOs to join the lunchtime event where the latest results of Japanese science will be presented but urges also that there should be no emotion-based acrimonious comments there.

This issue, he concludes, is a symbol of the problems that we face.

Russia talks of Copernicus and the middle ages when we thought the earth rotates around the sun… he was burnt at the stake and the crowd cheered. In this crowd was the beginning of the NGO movement. There is laughter and some low level jeering.

‘Japan' he adds, 'is clearly not researching whales so they can have a database of the lengths of the tails of the whales – we will never work out the RMS or get out of the moratorium without this [lethal] research’.

Chairman – there is no action here that we are coming to.

US – We oppose Japan’s lethal programme – it is unnecessary for modern conservation.

Argentina, Costa Rica and Chile also voice concerns.

Portugal stresses the importance of science to the IWC but notes that modern research starts by minimizing lethal aspects.

Mexico notes that Japanese research has not even met its own aims.

Korea says that we do not use a single standard for scientific studies. In his delegation’s view, problems have arisen because political decisions have prevailed. The decisions of the Commission have been charged by political values. We cannot stop scientific whaling under these circumstances. We need to return to reason [the floor is shaking gently]

Luxembourg is not happy with Special Permit whaling – in the current state of knowledge, these are not meeting scientific priorities and therefore should be stopped and non lethal research techniques used.

Norway supports Iceland and Japan. We have heard that scientific whaling meets no needs but he disputes this.

St Lucia associates with Iceland and others. As a scientist she adds that she is appalled that countries do not recognize the tremendous contributions made from these [lethal] studies. The meeting is now ‘degenerating’ and especially when the UK refers to the ‘so-called scientific’ information. This she claims is insulting. To manage our resources properly we need this data … we need lethal data.

The Chairman says that he still has a long list of speakers and notes again that there is no action here.

Peru associates with Argentina. France associates with all opposed to scientific whaling – it is not necessary to kill them for research he stresses.

St Vincent and the Grenadines, however, associates with those that support lethal research … and so it continues.

[Now we are cooking]

Switzerland says that lethal research is only acceptable where other methods cannot work and any suffering of animals needs to be justified.

Spain goes back to what Slovenia said and encourages again a phase-out of lethal research.

The Chairman notes the report and endorses its recommendations, which include (if we can think back that far) the recommendations for a new review process in the Scientific Committee.

Coffee and no biscuits follow. [Come on Chile it’s not too late….]

The restart of the meeting is delayed because with camera bulbs flashing at the front of the room, Morimoto-san, The Japanese Commissioner, is presenting Peter Garret the Australian Minister, with several volumes of what we assume are the results of Japanese research or perhaps a collection of books of Japanese recipes. It is not clear. Perhaps we will never know.

On to the SAFETY OF VESSELS.

[No cooling off in the Commission today]… This concerns actions against the Japanese whaling fleet on the high seas.

The Japanese statement includes the following sentiments:

“Violent acts�. “Harassment�. “Trespass�. “Irritable Chemicals�. “Interfere navigation�. “Serious Damage�.

Their spokesman says (in Japanese) that important people are watching how the member countries will react to these acts. The only organization mentioned is Sea Shepherd.

He mentions the need for co-operation between nations and the need to bring the wrong doers to justice.

The Netherlands takes the floor. Their spokesman has been following the issue – they support the right of free speech and the right to demonstrate … but within the law. Complaints have been received and investigations are in progress. The issue of safety of sea should be dealt with in the appropriate bodies and they welcome the fact that this matter will be looked at by the IMO next week.

Mexico speaks up to support Japan in this matter of international law.

New Zealand fully shares concerns for the safe operation of vessels in the southern ocean – the risk of maritime accidents and their consequences are of great concern. Next years the fleet will be in an area where they have rescue

There must not be risk to human life and property. They will continue to work with Japan.

Australia was deeply concerned with the escalation of matters in the southern ocean and whilst opposed to whaling under special permit and supportive of the right to protest but it must be lawful and so he calls for the ‘utmost constraint’. Our calls were not heeded last season and several incidents took place that were not in accord with safety at sea. National or international laws may have been violated.

Iceland notes that the Commission has already condemned this activity by consensus and welcomes the international co-ordination on this matter reported by Japan.

India gently recognizes the right to demonstrate but urges that it must be peaceful.

The US associates with previous speakers and whilst it does not think this is the relevant body it does think full investigations should be made.

Peaceful activities would be encouraged says Korea but interference with lawful scientific investigations that endanger life must be punished.

We now come to that most important issue, the Climate Change workshop. [WDCS strongly supports this initiative.]

The Australian Minister speaks up strongly in support of the need to address and actively manage emerging threats. He is pleased with the climate change initiative and that one of his scientists, [we will name him – the redoubtable, Dr Nick Gales], will Chair this meeting. He pledges 10,000 Australian dollars to the project.

Mexico thanks Australia

Italy makes her first intervention and ‘adds her voice’ to all other countries who have thanked Chile for hosting so well. She adds that she has spent over three weeks here [she was also part of the Scientific Committee meeting] and has ‘always felt at home’. She is pleased that the meeting of the climate change workshop will be in March in Siena in Italy.

The Netherlands too is concerned about climate change, especially the changes in the ice in Antarctica, where the whales feed.

For the US, Acting Commissioner DeMaster, speaks up to support the initiative and says that it will make a financial commitment

France also supports, as does Argentina

Costa Rica also welcomes the workshop. It is in line with the focus of their work and it is important for Costa Rica to understand this matter better. They thank Italy for hosting the main workshop and offer to host a pre-meeting which they have bee discussing with interested parties.

Equador notes the threat of pollution.

Luxembourg (in the form of its scientific advisor) then congratulates the Scientific Committee on its excellent body of work on environmental issues. He notes that the Commission’s Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns was exceptionally well attended this year and considered a broad range of important topics. We associate with the earlier comments of Germany and others concerning climate change.

Climate change is a fundamental threat to whales and it is entirely appropriate that this body should seek to understand it more fully. The Scientific Committee has made excellent progress in its preparation for this workshop and we thank them for their hard work. Details of the workshop can be found on pages 17 and 18 of annex K.

Noting that the workshop does not presently have full funding and some matters remain to be resolved, Luxumbourg requests that this agenda item is held open to allow us to consult with other delegations and to report back at a later time on progress.

Finally he thanks Australia for the support they have provided and also Costa Rica for their offer to hold a pre-meeting.

The UK is delighted that the workshop is being convened by a British scientist and Uruguay stresses that we need to allow mother earth to breath.

[And here we break because the biscuit shortage is now so accurate that we have to go and have a lie down.]