|
Well we are all feeling a little older today but let’s do a recap.
In
the main foyer of the meeting hotel a large naked lady still has her arms thrown
open in welcome. Many small centipedes are still wandering around seemingly
intent on something or other. There are still monkeys up in Timothy Hill going
about their business and many tourists are still having a nice holiday in St
Kitts.
The life of a Timothy Hill monkey is probably a pretty good one…
by contrast with an IWC delegate. (Got up this morning, had a good scratch, did
a little foraging and then ambled down to the Marriott golf course with my
wives… this is the monkey by the way.)
Anyway back to the IWC hall. Lots
of little bilaterals are occurring. The Japanese alternate Commissioner
Morishita-san can be seen talking to the Australian Commissioner earnestly. New
Zealand is talking with the US. Environmental lobbyists are running around with
bits of paper. The Scientific Committee Chairman, Arne Bjorge, and the IWC Head
of Science, Greg Donovan, are chatting at the back of the room (probably about
how to present the next part of the Scientific Committee report) and hopefully
somewhere deep in the administrative bowels of the vast Marriott hotel someone
is trying to track down the biscuits in time for them to arrive with the
coffee.
The IWC Chair, Heinrich Fischer, calls order and the Secretary of
the IWC, Dr Nicky Grandy, warns about an outbreak of tripping hazards at the
back of the room.
Arne Bjorge takes us through the report of the
Scientific Committee (SC) – he notes that there was a special workshop on
seismic surveys [loud noise sources used by industry to examine undersea
geology] and that it produced a lot of important recommendations, including the
need for long-term monitoring programmes.
Arne adds his own comment that
this was a good meeting and successfully brought industry and science together.
Brazil thanks the SC for his work and notes that the precautionary
approach needs to be used in this matter. They are grateful for the advice
given.
The UK, via the redoubtable alternate Commissioner, Trevor
Perfect, makes a similar comment, thanking those who took part and agreeing that
it was a major achievement to bring industry and experts together.
Chile
and Mexico are also pleased with the outcomes. The report of the SC with regard
to seismic surveying is endorsed and we move on to more of the report of the
environmental working group covering ecosystem modelling and work on chemical
pollution.
He notes the production of SOCER (the State of the Cetacean
Environment Report).
Mexico notes the pollution work of the SC and calls
it ground-breaking, especially the work of Peter Reijnders. Argentina says
something similar and hopes that the pollution work will continue.
New
Zealand notes ocean acidification raised a new issue and looks forward to more
of the same. The UK comments on the good work on entanglement and net debris.
The IWC Chair moves on through the agenda issues on ‘human health’ and
‘other issues’ and no one says anything whatsoever. So (sigh) we move
on.
The SC report is now presented on the committee’s work on whale
watching, including important studies in Australia and New Zealand showing that
a population level impact can be detected.
Australia notes that it finds
the work very valuable and will take note of the recommendations. New Zealand is
a little less happy but acknowledges the work of Dr David Lusseau before
emphasising that the effect seen in Doubtful Sound relates to tourist vessels
going to see the Fjords rather than going to see the dolphins. He draws people’s
attention to annex 5 where they explain what they are going to do.
The UK
thanks the chair of the SC and notes that the studies this year are especially
useful and that a dedicated workshop should be held and that it will make a
useful contribution to whale management science – he also refers to the UK’s
work on whale watching and its economic importance in Scotland.
Japan
thinks that whale watching is a waste of time.
The US notes that its
whale watching industry is growing and this work is important.
The
report is noted and endorsed.
But Australia has another comment and also
stresses the importance of whale watching back home and Argentina goes on to
talk about a workshop on non-lethal use. Brazil now also congratulates the Whale
Watching Sub-Committee and the work of Australia and Argentina.
Japan now
presents its views about whale watching: whale watching and whaling are not
mutually exclusive, we do no need to make further polarisation in this
organisation by fighting between whaling and whale watching. He speaks of
normalisation and says both industries are based on abundant stocks.
St
Lucia notes that in the SC report there was a paragraph showing that whale
watching is detrimental to whale populations and so this activity needs to be
looked at very closely. St Lucia is not a whale watching destination but whale
watching does go on there and is controlled by a few rich boaters and there is a
tendency for conflict with their local fisheries. NGOs in the region mislead
people by claiming that tourism will decline if they stick to their position at
the IWC. This has not been the case and tourism continues to grow.
Iceland associates with Japan. Monaco is more enthusiastic.
We
move to agenda 15 – and more of the report of the Scientific Committee on Small
Cetaceans which made a report on these animals in the Caribbean region. Amongst
other things the SC Chair notes that there is a take in the region for food. The
significance of live captures for dolphinaria is unclear. The remainder of the
report on small cetaceans looks at its previous recommendations.
Belgium
acknowledges the excellent work of the SC but is concerned about lack of
participation in the review .
St Lucia says the E Caribbean states do not
recognise the SC with respect to small cetaceans but local ‘comprehensive
surveys’ have been ongoing since 2000
The UK associates with Belgium but
then reiterates a question it made last year about Japan’s Dall’s porpoise hunt
– in particular Mr Perfect seeks new population data as previously
promised.
Japan says that their position on small cetaceans is well known
and they will not repeat it. Studies are needed… much of small cetaceans are in
the EEZ of coastal states, so a ‘global standard’ is not appropriate. For Dall’s
porpoise we submit data to other fora outside of this one. [He doesn’t say
which.]
Finland associates with UK’s concerns on Dall’s
porpoises.
Luxembourg associates with Belgium and the UK and is very
concerned about Dall’s porpoises.
Argentina thinks likewise.
The
UK says that it recognises Japans position but could the distinguished
commissioner for Japan say to which forum it will provide data so that we can
see them.
The Chair asks Japan if they would like to reply.
Japan
says that a stock assessment report is issued every year the data are there – as
soon as it is available it will be updated. Japan adds that it will only be
available in Japanese.
Antigua and Barbuda is very disappointed that
Japan is being attacked and says that there is nothing about this in the report
of the Scientific Committee. [Actually it is in section 13.2.6]
The
Scientific Committee chair moves on to stock assessment. Japan and Norway have
some reservations about DNA studies.
The SC Chair is having microphone
problems again (the US delegation are believed to be the culprits and have
kicked a plug out of a socket). Greenland notes its request to the Scientific
Committee for new advice on the two new species that it wants to hunt. The SC
chairman says OK.
The work programme for the Scientific Committee is
considered and there are a few comments.
Russia now complains that data
from Russia showing errors in its historical whaling data (which is used in the
RMP) keeps being used without its permission and asks for this to stop. They ask
that the term ‘falsification of Soviet data’ should no longer be
used.
Ireland notes that the St Kits and Nevis Declaration makes a
commitment to the RMP but is concerned that Norway is putting its own version of
the RMP through the Scientific Committee. Norway replies that this is being done
within the rules… they said that they would do this two years ago and no one
objected.
There is a brief moment of quiet in the room (a crash of
falling crockery outside) and then we break for tea.
Many people rush
around talking to many other people. Many rumours are born and many die. (There
remains a distinct shortage of anything that looks like a biscuit.)
We
arrive back to agenda 16 – The Conservation Committee.
Bo Fernholm the
Swedish Commissioner gives the report – he notes there were two priority work
areas – ‘Stinky Gray Whales’ and ‘Ship Strikes’.
The stinkies were
identified by the Russian Aboriginal hunters, they had a medicinal smell and
could not be eaten. Work to investigate this is reported.
Some very
substantive work on ship strikes of whales is then noted, complete with a number
of recommendations.
Many parties speak to support the committee. Japan
says that establishment of subsidiary bodies should be by consensus and that
this was not the case with the Conservation Committee. He says that they could
have proposed disbanding this organisation but they don’t want to polarise the
situation anymore but they want the idea of consumptive use to be included in
the terms of reference of the Conservation Committee. CCAMLR he notes includes
this in its terms of reference. He looks forward to an appropriate proposal for
next years meeting.
Australia appreciates that Japan has not called for
disbandment of this committee. He acknowledges the work on ‘stinkies’ and
ship-strikes.
In the lunch break there is going to be a special meeting
in the Tiger Room (this is apparently the Marriot’s night club) held by Japan to
discuss ‘normalisation’.
New Zealand thanks Japan for not removing the
Conservation Committee he thinks they have been very gracious.
Denmark
notes that it previously opposed the Conservation Committee but that this was in
the past and he suggest that whale watching and other matters should be
considered there as its natural home.
Others like it less. With respect
to the endorsement of the report, Japan says that it reserves its position.
The Conservation Committee chair notes that there are other matters that
the Committee could look at including chemical pollution and whale watching but
stressed that the Committee did not wish to duplicate work done elsewhere, i.e.
within the Scientific Committee.
Dominica takes to the floor to say that
they cannot endorse the report. Russia says that they made a statement against
the creation of the Committee and take part on a voluntary basis only. Iceland
supports Dominica and a few others speak in predictable fashion.
We now
move to an interesting resolution on ‘Safety of vessels engaged in whaling and
whale research-related activities’ – this has been submitted by Australia,
Netherlands, New Zealand and the US.
The operative part of the
resolution says:
Agrees and Declares that the Commission and its
Contracting Governments do not condone any actions that are a risk to human life
and property in relation to these activities of vessels at sea, and urges
persons and entities to refrain from such acts;
Encourages Contracting
Governments to take appropriate measures consistent with IMO guidelines, in
order to ensure that the substance and spirit of this resolution are observed
both domestically and internationally.
Japan takes the floor to say that
anti-whaling activities are getting more and more extreme and that there was a
collision this year. The Nissan Maru research vessel, he says, was hit at the
side and blames Greenpeace for causing this. He calls on organisations that have
alternative views to his research activities to carry out their protests in a
more civilised way. They are considering further actions and will not talk about
details here. He calls on everyone to act in a peaceful manner and act within
the law.
The US now introduces the resolution noting that it is about
safety at sea. We all support the right to express our views peacefully he says.
Any incident that involves a collision should be investigated through proper
channels.
Netherlands speaks to say that they have examined material from
the clash with Japan and been unable to determine who is responsible. They
support the resolution.
St Kitts asks if the flag state has taken any
action.
Netherlands says that they have just said this.
St Kitts
says that we need to know what the flag state of the nation of the culprits
‘Greenpeace’ has done
The UK shouts point of order – we are not a court
here says the commissioner we cannot decide who is guilty or not guilty
here.
The Chair agrees
But St K and N will not join the consensus
without an answer. The Chair says he cannot take this much further.
There is a pause.
So we take by consensus, says the Chair, noting
St Kitts reservation and then we break for lunch.
| 
