|
Sub-committee
Meetings (June 9, 2006)
The 58th International Whaling Commission
(IWC) meeting takes place in the Caribbean island nation of
St. Kitts and Nevis. AWI's Susan Millward is currently
attending the sub-committee discussions that take place from
June 9th through June 13th. She will be joined by AWI's
Wildlife Biologist, D.J. Schubert for the IWC plenary meeting
which is scheduled to take place from June 16 through 20,
2006.
The sub-committee meetings include the conservation committee
where topics will include a global review of ship strikes and
voluntary reports on cetacean conservation measures by member
countries. Infractions by member nations will also be
discussed during the sub-committee meetings, as will the
Revised Management Scheme. Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling is also on the agenda as well as Whale Killing
Methods. Susan will be reporting back from the
discussions and the Plenary as the meetings progress.
Readers of the AWI
Quarterly will be aware that this year's IWC meeting is
being anxiously awaited by both sides of the whaling
debate. This year could be the first year since before
the moratorium came into effect that the pro-whaling nations
have secured enough allies to ensure them a simple
majority. While this will not be sufficient to overturn
the moratorium on commercial whaling which came into effect
two decades ago, the meeting will be a substantially different
one if those in favor of killing whales outnumber those trying
to protect them. A cursory look at the proposed agenda
for this year's meeting gives the reader an indication of the
intentions of the pro-whaling bloc unfortunately the rules
of procedure for the IWC preclude AWI from quoting or
paraphrasing the intended plans, but readers may read the
proposed agenda for themselves by downloading the document
from the
IWC website. The United States AWI has been paying close
attention to the actions of the United States delegation to
the International Whaling Commission in recent years. Some
may remember that the U.S. was the champion of the whales in
the years leading up to the moratorium. Sadly the U.S. is a
leader no longer. We are concerned that in an attempt to halt
the expansion of scientific research whaling by the Japanese
whalers, the U.S. may be willing to enter into compromises
which will have far-reaching consequences for the world's
whales. In March 2006, we wrote
to the U.S. delegation to the IWC expressing our concern over
the U.S. position and outlining instances that we have
witnessed which demonstrate the U.S.' shift away from a
position of whale protectionism. The response
we received in May has not allayed our concerns.
|
|
Day One (June
16, 2006)
The day of the plenary opened with a press
conference by the Japanese Alternate Commissioner, Joji Morishita
advocating the 'normalization' of the IWC whereby Japan proposes to
bring the IWC back to what it says it was originally set up to be a
whalers club. This was followed by a press conference by the US,
New Zealand, the UK, Australia and Brazil which covered many items
including a proposal by Brazil for a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary
and 'modernization' of the IWC rather than 'normalization', to bring
it in line with other international treaty organizations.
The actual meeting opened with the usual ceremony from the host
nation followed by opening statements by new member countries which
included Mali and Israel. Proceedings were briefly interrupted
by a silent and peaceful demonstration by Ric O'Barry of One-Voice
France who walked calmly into the meeting wearing a body cam showing
the brutal Japanese drive fisheries. After the security
personnel promptly marched Mr. O'Barry out of the building closely
followed by the press, the meeting resumed.
Adoption of Agenda
All
ears and eyes were anxiously awaiting the outcome of the first vote
Japan's proposal to have small cetaceans the very animals One-Voice
was demonstrating over- struck off the agenda. The vote was
close, but failed by a two vote margin with Denmark abstaining in a
key move. Guatemala and Senegal were not present.
Secret
Ballots
This vote was followed
by a Japan proposal to bring voting secret ballot to the IWC.
New Zealand stressed the importance of transparency within the IWC, a
view supported by several countries including Australia, Morocco,
Sweden, Italy, Germany, Brazil, South Africa, India, and the US.
This vote against transparency was also close, with 30 countries
voting in favor of the secret ballots and 33 voting against, and again
Guatemala and Senegal were not present. Before
the day closed, the Secretariat announced that two countries, Gambia
and Togo, now had their paperwork and dues in order and had their
voting rights approved. Both countries are expected to vote
alongside Japan. The rest of the day one passed with a report
from the Scientific Committee on whale 'stocks' including the
Antarctic minke whales, the North Pacific minke whales, southern
hemisphere humpback whales, and the critically endangered western
north pacific grey. So at the end of day one,
and despite two crucial victories, things are still very tense as we
face the next crucial issues of the Revised Management Scheme and
'Normalization' of the IWC. |
|
Day Two (June 17,
2006)
After a successful opening day, spirits were
high for conservationists. And quite the opposite for pro
whalers such as Japan, who threatened to withdraw its support from the
International Whaling Commission if restrictions stop it from
partaking in regulated commercial hunts. The head of the
Japanese delegation, Joji Morishita, even went as far as to say that,
"the whole meeting is a waste of time". Although, day one proved
in favor of conservationists, there is still a chance that Japan may
soon have the majority of votes. Senegal and Gambia, both
pro-whaling nations, are expected to vote tomorrow.
The day commenced with a discussion on aboriginal subsistence
whaling and a report from the chair of the aboriginal subsistence
whaling sub-committee. The Greenland hunt was described many
times and Denmark announced that it plans to add endangered bowhead
and humpback whales to the Greenland hunt which already includes minke
and fin whales. The RMS was the next item on the agenda
and after much discussion; the item was laid to rest with no agreement
on a way forward.
"Normalization"
In the afternoon, Japan introduced its much-anticipated
proposal for 'Normalization' of the IWC. This is an attempt
to take the IWC back to its inception in 1946 and the near
collapse of the world's whale populations. The document advocates
sustainable whaling and refers to cetaceans as 'marine living
resources available for harvesting'. After a good deal of discussion
and calls for the 'modernization' and 'harmonization' of the IWC,
debate ceased and the document turned out to be a marker for later
revelations that came on the third day. The agenda item was left open
until beyond Day Three.
Japan's
Coastal Whaling
Later
the talks were dominated by discussions on 'small type' whaling
in Japan and the related socio-economic implications.
Japan insists that four whaling communities in Japan (Abashiri,
Ayukawa, Wadaura and Taiji) are suffering because of the moratorium.
Japan made their standard proposal for 150 Okhotsk minke whales. The
vote failed to get even a simple majority in favor of the measure.
30 nations were in favor of the proposal and 31 were against it.
Interestingly, China, Korea, Kiribati, and the Solomon Islands
abstained. The final hours of an exhausting day were spent with
commentaries and presentations by inter-governmental organizations,
including the UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, NAMMCO, ECCO,
European Commission, UNEP/CITES, CARICOM, and ASCOBANS.
And thus ends day two. Another vote in favor of the whales,
albeit a close vote.
Day Three
(June 18, 2006)
|
| The primary
item of business today was sanctuaries. Brazil opened the day
with a proposal to establish a South Atlantic Sanctuary. With the
co-sponsorship of Argentina, Brazil once again eloquently made its
case for a safe whale haven well beyond its shores. The US professed
its whole-hearted support for the idea and announced the recent
Presidential proclamation naming the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as
a National Monument ender the National Antiquities Act. Discussions
in support of and in opposition to Brazil's proposal continued until
the proposal was withdrawn by Brazil. Next, came Japan's
proposed schedule amendment to abolish the Southern Ocean Sanctuary
that was created in 1994. When put to a vote, the majority
that was needed for the proposal to pass was luckily not achieved and
again the pro-whaling bloc failed to achieve even a simple
majority. 28 nations voted in favor of the proposal and 33
opposed it, with 4 abstentions and two absentees this time the Ivory
Coast was absent along with Guatemala. Korea, Morocco, Tuvalu,
St Vincent and the Grenadines abstained. Finally, under
the Sanctuaries agenda item, Ms. Madeleine de Grandmaison,
Vice-President of the Martinique Regional Council, made a brief
presentation on the recent establishment of a marine mammal sanctuary
in the French West Indies in the Caribbean.
Scientific Permits
There was also a presentation by Japan on its Jarpa II and Jarpn II
'research' programs. The 'Science' presented included a graph
showing a decrease in fish populations and an increase in minke whale
populations with the ignorant conclusion that the former must have
been caused by the latter. A slide of a minke whale next to a
fishing vessel was also shown as 'proof' that minke whales are
competing with fisherman for fish. Japan who explained
'ecosystem' management approach, whereby it champions killing whales
to facilitate restoration of fish populations and to achieve an
"optimum balance" of the marine environment between whales and fish.
Japan also received severe criticism and derision
over its 'research', with Australia stating that it found it hard to
take the presentation seriously and calling the "whales are eating all
the fish" argument as "close to farcical". Brazil called it
"nonsense". Norway congratulated Japan on its efforts, calling it
important research that should continue. The US stated that it
was deeply opposed to lethal scientific whaling programs and that
scientific whaling must be phased out as a solution to the RMS
negotiations. Finally, and on the same topic, Australia gave
its presentation on its own non-lethal research and a critique of the
Japanese lethal programs. This again was followed by much debate with
no meaningful outcome.
St. Kitts
Declaration
The Commission then
returned to its discussion of Agenda Item 19- 'Normalizing the IWC'-
that was left over from yesterday. The much awaited St Kitts
Declaration was introduced. This document, though not a
resolution, was phrased in a similar manner to a resolution and
contained preamble language that initially called the moratorium no
longer valid and claimed that fish were being eaten by whales. This
language was later revised to declare that the moratorium was 'no
longer necessary' and merely claimed that whales are eating fish, and
thus making the issue a matter of food security for coastal natives.
This overly rhetorical declaration called for the 'normalizing' of the
functions of the IWC based on the forms of the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. After a lively discussion
including calls of 'foul' by conservation-minded nations who claimed
the declaration had been discussed in a pre-meeting private
commissioners meeting and had been preserved as innocuous and
uncontroversial, through to charges of being a deliberate attempt to
create discord by New Zealand, the declaration was put to a vote. The
final vote was close, just like the previous ones, except this time
the pro-whalers had the majority and the declaration passed. Many
cited Denmark as the swing vote, since it had reportedly asked for the
word 'invalid' to be substituted by 'unnecessary' with regard to the
moratorium. The final vote was 33 in favor and 32 against, with China
abstaining and Guatemala still absent.
All of the countries that voted against the declaration,
including Australia, Italy, Monaco, New Zealand, the United Kingdom
and the United States, disassociated themselves from the declaration
following the vote. The St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration is very
controversial and there are questions as to its legitimacy. The
Commissioner of Brazil challenged the vote on the grounds that it was
a declaration and for this reason, Iceland's vote was not valid due to
their controversial re-entry into the Commission in 2002.
This declaration will most likely do
nothing since it is not a legal document and therefore is not
binding. However, it gives Japan, Norway and their pro-whaling
counterparts, the majority. The declaration does little more
than serve as a wakeup call to the IWC and the public that the
majority of the IWC members are in favor of a lifting of the
moratorium. Thus, the fight for the whales just gets a little
bit more difficult. So ended the
hump-day of the meeting with a victory for the pro-whaling bloc.
At a meeting with the US delegation later, Dr. Hogarth and Dr.
DeMaster denied that the conservation-minded countries had dropped the
ball and said that they had been blindsighted by the text of the
declaration. This is hard to believe since the text had been
circulated at least 24-hours beforehand.
| Day Four (June 19,
2006)
Yesterday's grueling day marked the pro-whaler's
first victory since the inception of the moratorium in 1982.
Many conservation-minded organizations condemned the declaration to
news outlets around the world. AWI circulated a press
release denouncing this ridiculous and damaging declaration.
The mood on the fourth day was grim with the swing of the votes in
favor of the pro-whaling nations.
Environmental Concerns
Although many were still furious, it was time to push through the
remaining agenda items. The report on the two-day seismic
workshop held prior to the Scientific Committee meeting was presented
at the beginning of the day. AWI has particular interest in this
human-induced noise threat to cetaceans. Seismic noise is
generated by oil and gas companies as they survey the ocean floor and
by scientific research vessels who map the sea floor. Seismic noise
can seriously harm whales, dolphins and other marine species. We were
encouraged that Mexico, Chile, Brazil and the UK all spoke up in favor
of the report. The IWC called for 'risk-averse mitigation' to
protect whales and fish from the damages caused by air guns.
Military sonar was also discussed under this
agenda item. Dr. Antonio Fernandez of the University of Las Palmas de
Gran Canaria had presented a paper to the Scientific Committee on the
"gas embolic syndrome" whereby whales have been found to suffer from a
form of decompression sickness after exposure to military sonar. The
recent stranding of four Cuvier's beaked whales in
Southern Spain was mentioned in his presentation, as well as the
stranded whales near the Canary Islands. The Scientific
Committee concluded that naval sonar was in use during these
strandings. Other Environmental Concerns
presented to the Plenary meeting included ecosystem modeling
pollution, sea ice, the State of the Cetacean Environment Report,
diseases and entangled cetaceans. This section of the scientific
committee report was adapted by consensus.
Whale Watching
Whale
watching was the next topic up for discussion. The U.S.,
Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands presented a resolution on
'Safety of vessels engaged in whaling and whale research-related
activities'. The Scientific Committee explored the possible negative
effects tourist vessels may have on cetacean populations. Japan
used this as an opportunity to endorse whaling once more and stated
that whaling and whale watching are not mutually exclusive and that
both activities rely on ample stocks. The Commission adopted the
report of the Scientific Committee.
Interference with Whale Research
This agenda item refers to Greenpeace's campaign in the
Antarctic during the Japanese whale hunts and the Japanese claims that
Greenpeace vessels interfered with the research efforts. There
had been speculation that Greenpeace would be thrown out of the
meeting as the group Sea Shepherd had been several years ago.
However, there had been obvious work behind the scenes to smooth out
this issue and a resolution was offered to the Plenary with Japan, New
Zealand, the US, Netherlands and Australia. The resolution
eventually said that the issue was outside the mandate of the IWC and
was an International Maritime Organization issue. The resolution
was adopted by consensus with a reservation being lodged by St.
Kitts.
Whale Killing
Methods
The bulk of the
afternoon encompassed discussions regarding 'humane' whale killing
practices. The chair of the Whale Killing Methods workshop
presented the workshop's report which included methods of reducing
ship strikes, data collection from aboriginal hunts, efficient whale
killing, and reducing the time of death. Notably the US, after
reiterating the importance of hunter safety for the aboriginal
subsistence whalers, welcomed the work done on time of death and the
improvements in whale killing methods that had been made in commercial
whaling. In the Whale Killing Methods workshop, the US had only
spoken up to stress the difficulties facing aboriginal subsistence
whales in trying to make advances in whale killing methods and
reducing the time of death of whales. It is still unacceptable
that the US is not more active over the welfare issue as it relates to
whale killing methods. For example, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines said that they 'reduced' the time of death to 20 minutes,
which is still highly objectionable. Workshop members agreed on 11
recommendations for improving whale killing methods. These
recommendations ranged from the proper maintenance of equipment to the
sufficient training of whalers. Thus, the penultimate day
came to a close as the Whale Killing Methods workshop report was
adapted. Delegates then were treated to a 'cultural
extravaganza' at Brimstone Fortress, a former British military fort
and UNESCO World Heritage Site. Despite high winds and sheets of
rain, spirits were high as attendees got together socially for the
last time before the next IWC meeting. |
Day Five
(June 20, 2006)
The final day was
devoted to dealing with an awkward request in the form of a resolution
from St. Kitts for $ 370, 340 to cover unexpected expenses that it
incurred as (volunteer) host country. After the discussion
dissolved into a colonial debate, the resolution was put to a
vote. The voting came out as a tie and therefore it was not
adopted. Denmark, India, Kiribati and Morocco abstained and the Ivory
Coast and Panama were not present. The US agreed to make
contributions ($30,000) to help St. Kitts defray its costs and
encouraged other nations to do the same. To close out the last
day of meetings, 10 Greenpeace protesters landed on the beach in
inflatable boats and attempted to plant 863 cardboard whale tails in
the sand, each one representing a whale caught by Japanese whalers in
the Sanctuary. This peaceful protest was interrupted when the
police arrested the activists for not having permission from the
government of St. Kitts to dock. And so ended
the 58th IWC which celebrated its 60th year in
existence. Many fear what next year may have in store for whale
conservation due to the declaration and the newly elected chair,
United States Commissioner William Hogarth, and vice chair, Japan
Commissioner Minoru Morimoto, for next years IWC meetings in
Anchorage, Alaska. We are concerned that the bowhead whale quota
will be up for renewal. The bowhead whales are hunted by the
aboriginal subsistence whalers of Alaska. One wonders to what
lengths the US will go to make sure it isn't embarrassed and/or
defeated on home soil. |
|