Following coffee, the IWC Chair,
Henrick Fischer, announces that the new Vice Chair of the Commission for this
meeting is the US Commissioner.
Then the
Chair notes that opening statements can be made by new member countries joining
since the last meeting: Israel, Guatemala, the Marshall Islands, and Israel.
Other countries that joined but did not attend last year are also invited to
speak and so Mali takes the floor (in French). The microphones boom loudly as
she speaks and there is a small gasp from the translation booths at the back of
the room as the translators in their wooden boxes are blasted. Israel next takes
the floor and speaks of Israel’s concern for wildlife and the need to keep the
whales for future generations. Cambodia follows. The Cambodian Commissioner
speaks about sustainable and rational use and suggests that there is increasing
controversy within the IWC. The Marshall Islands (to the surprise of some) then
takes the floor. He says that the decision of his country to join the IWC was a
long drawn out matter and that they had to address many difficult issues,
including the costs of joining the Commission. He notes that his country is
surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and that they could not just “continue to sit
under their coconut trees” allowing others to make decisions. The Marshall
Islands he adds are highly dependent on fishery resources and committed to
sustainable resource management and looks forward to a productive week of
discussions.
The Secretary, Dr Nicky Grandy, announces that the
credentials committee has met twice and all credentials are in order for all
countries present. So that is the answer to one big question (because you cannot
vote if your credentials are not in order). However, because they have not paid
their dues, voting rights for Costa Rica, the Gambia, Kenya, Peru and Togo are
suspended. (Senegal is obviously not in the room.)
The Chairman then
tries to lie down a few ground rules – for example, only one intervention per
country will normally be allowed. Madam Secretary adds that resolutions need to
reach the Secretariat at 5pm on the day before they are due to be discussed. She
also reports that there is a reception tonight.
We then move to the first
big issue – the Adoption of the Agenda. This is where items might get deleted or
added and the very important issue of the relationship between the IWC and the
‘small cetaceans’ is going to be debated.
Australia asks for the floor
and its minister asks for information about Japan’s proposal for an agenda item
on ‘normalisation’ (that word again). He says that he does not know what this
term means and asks that Japan, in the spirit of co-operation, include the term
‘modernisation’ in the title of this new agenda item. Japan says that it cannot
accept this but it will provide a full explanation of normalisation when we get
to agenda 19. Brazil agrees with Australia. Modernisation she says is a better
term and claims the support of the dictionary. Monaco also speaks in support. He
notes that ‘normalisation’ has unfortunate connotations linked to repressive
regimes. The chairman asks that we keep the title and discuss this mater when we
get there. This is agreed.
New Zealand then speaks on the proposal from
Japan to remove discussion about the very important report of the small
cetaceans sub committee from the agenda. The speaker is the alternate
commissioner, Jim McClay (an ex-deputy prime minister from New Zealand). The
room rings with his alliteration and says that this removal is contrary to the
convention. He is interrupted with a cry of ‘point of order’ from Japan.
The Chairman says that he has not reached this point yet. He says that
it is correct that Japan has asked for this to be on the agenda. He says there
are clearly different attitudes on this matter. He says that we should stick to
the current way that we deal with this. New Zealand agrees with him.
Japan (Morshita-san acting throughout the day as their spokesman) says
that proposing the deletion of an item is allowed, it is a right to add or
delete items. He notes that we have been discussion this for a long time and he
notes that his proposal is amended from previous times ‘in the spirit of
compromise’. The UK supports the chair’s comments.
The Chair then offers
two possible rulings – either he supports Japan and is challenged, or rules
against Japan and is challenged!
We move towards a vote but Japan then
speaks up to say that there has been no challenge to the chair. The Chair says
that his interpretation is that there is no consensus. Japan says that he needs
an opportunity to explain the rational for his proposal.
The chair says
Ok. Japan starts to speak and Australia raises a point of order in that New
Zealand’s point of order has not been properly dealt with. The Australian
Commissioner says that we need to move to an immediate vote in such
cases.
The Chair said that he tried to make two rulings and the reality
of life is that we need to make a vote. Brazil notes that they are confused and
this is a procedural matter. The Chair then gives Japan the floor to make its
proposal, noting that others can speak.
Morshita notes that Japan
believes that there are a list of matters that should not be on the agenda
(health, whale watching and so forth). This year they only propose deletion from
the agenda of 15.1.2 (‘small cetaceans’). They are prepared to accept the report
from scientific committee but there are practical problems in dealing with small
cetaceans. Many, he says, are distributed locally or regionally, as are the
fisheries that are affecting them. He says they are not proposing to be
irresponsible about small cetaceans but that management should be dealt with by
fisheries bodies. (In the past, Japan has received numerous resolutions about
‘fisheries’ within its 200 mile zone.) No other countries will be safe from the
same destiny suggest the Japanese spokesman. This body is not managing whaling
he adds. If they are not doing this, how can we do the job for small cetaceans?
This agenda item, he adds, should not be decided by secret ballot. (The UK
minister is waving his flag to ask to speak.) If you vote in favour of this you
will be voting in favour of intervention in your 200 mile zone.
Other
countries have asked for the floor. St Lucia supports the notion that Small
Cetaceans are outside the terms of the meeting.
UK next comes to the
microphone. The Minister stresses a number of points in favour of keeping this
item on the agenda; we need the early warning of threats to small cetaceans that
this provides and he notes that some small cetaceans are critically endangered
and that the IWC must not be prevented from commenting on such matters. The work
of the IWC Scientific Committee is of paramount importance, it is unparalleled
in its role. Small cetacean work started at the IWC in 1974 and many important
reviews have been made.
The Chair asks people to be brief and try to
associate with each other. Ireland speaks in favour of small cetaceans and
comments on the recent resolution of the Convention for Migratory Species that
recognised the competency of the IWC for all cetaceans. Austria refers to the
need to refer to empirical findings of the scientists (as mentioned by Reverent
Phillips in his opening comments earlier). He emphasises that our decision
should be simple and clear and by consensus because this is a scientific matter.
New Zealand says that small cetaceans are within the scope of the convention.
Our treaty, says the Commissioner, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, uses the term ‘whale’
and the convention calls on the protection of all species of whales. ‘Whales’ he
says, means all species and Japan’s arguments are incorrect. Netherlands says we
should go ahead and vote. In his view, the IWC refers to all whales and this is
a serious legal matter and we should decide whether or not all cetaceans are
included. The Chair summarises that this has been a point of debate for
sometime. (Some discussion follows and some confusion.)
Finally, Brazil
is given the floor. Jose Palazzo the alternate commissioner notes that we are
threatening to change the status quo, and in danger of loosing important
scientific advice. He then disagrees with Japan that the rights of coastal
states are being challenged.
The Chairman asks Japan if they still wish
to move this to a vote. They do and they loose this very important vote – a vote
important both in its own right and as a bell-weather of the status of the
Commission… but only by 2 votes. (So, Japan is not quite in the driving seat,
yet.)
Lunch comes and goes rapidly – many delegates fail to eat at all
and the small shop in the Marriott is in danger of running out of crisps and
peanuts.
After lunch, the Chairman gives Chile the floor to describe its
invitation to the IWC to meet there the year after next. However, the Chilean
film presentation is working on ‘Caribbean Time’ and cannot be started. So, the
Chair moves on to the next agenda item – the proposal for secret
ballots.
Japan makes a case that small and weak countries need to be
protected from intimidation.
The Chair, notes that he is behind in this
schedule but that this is an important issue, so he allows some comments. NZ
believes in honesty says their minister. He says secrecy is a way of denying
accountability. Proper governance requires transparency he stresses, and notes
that countries who claim leadership at the United Nations (alluding to Japan’s
desire for a Permanent Seat on the Security Council) need to conduct themselves
appropriately.
The Chair then says he simply cannot allow all Parties
that want to speak to do so. Australia says that he is responsible to the people
back in Australia and that he needs to be accountable. The US opposes the ‘broad
use’ of secret ballots. Monaco agrees but Iceland does not, reiterating the
notion that small states have been threatened. Sweden agrees with the US and
others and says that Nordic countries are bound by the Arhaus Convention (which
calls for transparency).
Italy speaks eloquently in favour of
transparency. So does Brazil. The Marshall Islands comments that it has been
proposed that in the newspapers that its vote has been bought and that this is
far from the truth. St Kits and Nevis supports secret balloting and says that
many countries are parties to CITES and therefore already subject to secret
ballots (he also stresses that the vote of St Kitts and Nevis are not up for
sale – he adds that he has been threatened this morning in a press conference by
the big countries…).
We move to a vote and the voting rights of the
Gambia are announced as being restored. There is much muttering on the floor.
The roll call starts with Nicaragua.
Japan’s attempt to make voting
secret fails… by three votes.
Spirits start to rise in the anti-whaling
camp.
The Chair then tries again to show the Chilean video but the film
keeps being interrupted by pictures of delegates (mainly Morshita-san for some
reason) and then a shot of Dr Nicky Grandy (the IWC Secretary) looking very
cross….the audio continues and there is laughter and eventually the film is
stopped…. and we all go to tea.
We note that this is not an official
transcript of the IWC proceedings but one being captured in real time at the
meeting. We are doing our best to make sure that matters are accurately reported
but we welcome comment or correction.
WDCS
is the global voice for the protection of whales, dolphins
and their environment
Following coffee, the IWC Chair,
Henrick Fischer, announces that the new Vice Chair of the Commission for this
meeting is the US Commissioner.
