|
Day 2: Part 2 – The Sticky RMS Issue.
Just a short introduction
here to help explain a couple of matters – The RMS is the Revised Management
Scheme. This is the management regime for commercial whaling, which has been in
development for some years. Typically the whaling nations say that it is
deadlocked because the anti-whaling nations have been obstinate and asked for
too much. The conservation nations do not agree and say that they have offered
substantial compromises. (WDCS’s analysis is that the conservation nations are
correct about this.)
Moving into the middle of this debate – by arriving
at an intercessional meeting on the RMS in Cambridge earlier this year - is the
issue of a Code of Conduct for ‘special permit’ (otherwise known as scientific)
whaling. This proposal originates with some prominent individuals in the IWC. It
focuses on moving the review of proposals for scientific whaling from the
scientific committee to a smaller workshop and contains many other vague
clauses, as we shall see.
Interestingly a similar proposal was put in
front of the scientific committee this year. (In the RMS working group last
week, the New Zealand Commissioner referred to the strength of the Code of
Conduct as similar to a ‘blancmange’ – this caused a little confusion as not
even all the first-language English speakers knew this to be a milky dessert of
jelly (or for our American readers jello-like) consistency.)
Back to the
meeting:
After tea, we find Doug DeMaster speaking. He is the alternate
Commissioner for the US and the chair of the RMS working group. He now gives the
report from that group. This includes consideration of that Code of Conduct for
special permit whaling (also under consideration in the Scientific Committee).
Japan makes an intervention calling for ‘normalisation’ (that word
again) because the RMS process is stalled. With respect to the code of conduct,
Japan thanks the Chair of the RMS group but says that this is irrelevant to RMS…
but if we could agree a link between the RMS and lifting the moratorium, we
could make progress. His comments proceed at great speed….and feature again that
‘normalisation’ term.
Denmark says that no effort was spared to avoid
compromise in Cambridge (where there was an RMS working group). (The UK minister
immediately starts to wave his flag.) The Danish Commissioner reflects on his
attempt last year to reach a compromise and asks (twice) why those that take
whales did not support him.
When he finishes speaking, one clap rings
out from the back of the room.
The Netherlands reflects on his efforts
to progress the RMS. Then Palau takes the floor for the first time. It has
become abundantly clear he says that the IWC has not made progress on RMS even
after 15 years. His government, he says, think that further work on this would
be a waste of time.
 The UK speaks next (they are working
very hard today) – Richard Cowan, the UK Commissioner, speaks first on the Code
of conduct issue, noting that Japan and Iceland interpret article 8 as giving
them complete discretion to take whales in the name of science and that the
proposed Code of Conduct would have no affect, other than to block transparency.
More than 30 resolutions have sought to address scientific whaling; the draft
code of conduct is only voluntary and it would not be binding, as has otherwise
been suggested; the only way that the IWC can bind its members is by adoption of
a schedule change; the Code of Conduct gives too much discretion to contracting
governments and it speaks to recommendations rather than commitments. He adds to
his list of problems that the permissible objectives for the research are too
broad and would be left to the discretion of the workshop. He also highlights
problems in population assessment and notes that it does not speak to reducing
the numbers of animals being taken.
He concludes that it is alleged by
some speakers that those who do not take whales have blocked the conclusion of
an RMS. He refutes this. The UK and colleagues have taken part in good faith –
helping to develop a robust regime with proper compliance and so forth. An RMS
at the meeting in Auckland was ‘as near as damn it’ concluded he says but the
whaling nations would not accept it. He is forced to conclude that the whaling
countries do not want an RMS. If there is evidence that they do, he will return
to the negotiating table. But this must include consideration of scientific
whaling and the code of conduct presently on the table could have ‘a coach and
horses driven through it’.
Iceland claims to have put tremendous effort
into concluding the RMS says their Commissioner. There has been no change in the
RMS situation since the last RMS meeting, and there is no evidence that there
will be any change in the future.
Guinea says that his people are
competing with whales – pelagic stocks being the main source of protein for his
people….
A few others speak in a mainly predictable way to associate
with one side of the debate or the other. Then Australia takes to the floor
because Greenland has suggested that it is the fault of the conservation
countries that scientific whaling is going on. He does not agree… in fact he
does not agree rather strongly. He notes that the RMS could now be in place and
it would have no affect on special permit whaling. He regrets that Denmark
(Greenland being part of Denmark) tries to put the blame on the anti-whaling
nations.
New Zealand (the redoubtable Jim McLay) associates with the
earlier comments from the UK, noting that his country has also engaged in good
faith and attended every RMS meeting. New Zealand has argued for observers on
whaling boats and other requirements that are common to those in other similar
international regimes. The whaling nations would not agree to even small
matters, it was the pro-whaling countries that rejects proposal made by others –
such as a catch-document regime as used in other fora (including some which
Japan and others are party to). He goes on to list the other matters that the
whalers rejected. McLay says that he could give more detail.
He
concludes that New Zealand is still willing to negotiate a strong RMS.
Sweden is sympathetic to Denmark to some extent (it is not, he says in
the best interests of whales not to adopt an RMS).
The US says it looks
like we are failing the whales – 1000 more animals are being killed than in 2005
[he is referring to the expanded scientific take by Japan]… we need to find a
way through this. The US opposes linking the RMS adoption to lifting the
moratorium and think that a way forward can be found.
Other countries
speak… but the divisions are clear and we will not report them all here in case
we get boring.
Perhaps it is worth reporting that Japan says they have
supported various things, including the placement of international observers and
even how to decide how to choose them… yet their willingness has been ignored….
He welcomes ‘best practise’ but he adds you cannot make the best dish out of soy
sauce, caviar, sashimi at the same time… there is some laughter.
After a
while, the Chair concludes that ‘we have had a good talk’ and moves to close…
but then he doesn’t and says that he will keep the item open. The UK asks when
this item will actually be closed. (Otherwise we might end up discussing
something very important at the last moment.) The Chair says he will only keep
it open until the end of tomorrow afternoon and he is only doing this in case
very good ideas occur on how to take the RMS forward.
As we start to
wonder out towards lunch, St Kitts and Nevis tells us that it is looking for
others to sign onto the ‘St Kitts and Nevis Declaration’. What can this
be?
Stay tuned.
Many delegates now wonder round trying
desperately to find lunch. Queues break out in all directions, as does more
sweating.
| 
