IWC 60 - Fourth Day of Plenary

The commission and the NGOs arrived for the fourth day of plenary with curiosity and trepidation about what the day would bring. There were two divisive issues, the South Atlantic Sanctuary and the Greenland schedule amendment, that could potentially come to a vote. Either issue would likely change the tone of cooperation and hope of voting by consensus that the commission had struggled to uphold so far at the meeting.

We started with some last details of the Conservation Committee report, most of which were issues already brought up earlier in the meeting, and then launched right into Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW). The Chair of ASW reviewed several populations that are the focus of ASW efforts. He started with the eastern North Pacific gray whales and the problem of “stinky” whales. In a small percentage of gray whales, when they are flensed, they give off a strong, chemical odor; these whales are inedible. The cause of this phenomenon is unknown, but hypotheses that I have read include toxins (such as PCBs) built up or prey switching that causes some sort of chemical reaction in the tissues. The Russian Federation, whose ASW program focuses on this species, has suggested for several years that these whales not count under their quota because they are unusable. They stated that they will bring a schedule amendment to the IWC next year in relation to this problem. During this conversation, Mexico requested that a different name be used for these animals, but without a definition or cause identified the commission seems to be avoiding giving them an official name [besides, “stinkies” adds a certain child-like silliness to the meeting that is sorely lacking otherwise]. The Chair then very briefly reviewed stock assessments and quotas for other ASW species.

At this point, we launched into Denmark’s (on behalf of Greenland) request for a schedule amendment. Denmark gave a brief synopsis of the rationale for their request. At last year’s meeting, they provided a statement of need (730 tons of whale meat), which was based on an increase in Greenland’s population. The like-minded NGOs were upset about this increased need for a few reasons. 1) Greenland’s overall population shouldn’t impact the ASW quota, b/c ASW is supposed to feed only those people in the local aboriginal community. 2) The need stated here is for whale meat only. The blubber, which makes up a significant proportion of yield from large cetaceans, though eaten as well, is not included in this need. 3) The small cetacean take, which totals approximately the same amount of tonnage as the need statement, are also not included. In spite of these issues, the SC did approve the need statement last year. Denmark also reviewed the SC’s recommendation that a quota of ten humpback whales per year would not negatively impact the stock. Finally, knowing that taking humpback whales is always very contentious, Denmark offered to reduce their fin whale take if the humpback whale amendment was passed.

The Chair opened the floor to comments and a second later you could barely see him past the sea of waving hands. The first nation to take the floor was Slovenia, speaking on behalf of the entire EU voting block. Slovenia recognized the SC’s recommendations and the approved statement of need, but stated their opposition to the request. With this, there was a lot of murmuring throughout the room and the Chair, sounding resigned, acknowledged that his dream of an IWC based on consensus decisions had failed. This issue would have to come to a vote.

Comments fell out along the typical pro and anti-whaling lines. In the pro camp were Korea, Japan, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the Russian Federation and most of the Caribbean nations; in the like-minded camp were the EU, Australia, New Zealand, and most Latin American countries. Many of the speeches from the pro-whalers were emotionally charged, high volume, and with a fair amount of dramatic grandstanding. The Russian Federation talked again about throwing people into the fire. St. Kitts and Nevis and others spoke of Greenland’s basic human right to eat and whether the EU wants to take away other nation’s right to eat. Several nations criticized like-minded countries for making decisions based on emotion, not science. [In fairness to the pro-whaling nations, the EU did not explain why they were opposing the request, so it was understandable that they would think it was simply because they feel an emotional bond to humpback whales. In addition, if Greenland removed an equivalent number of fin whales from their quota, then few to no more whales would be killed.] Most of the pro-whaling nations expressed their disappointment that the efforts at consensus in the IWC had failed and questioned the validity of the IWC in the future. Another common thread was their anger at the EU voting as a block, because they claimed it fundamentally changed voting in the IWC. Slovenia later countered that each EU nation still has one vote, but there is simply an agreement that, if possible, they will vote the same due to common beliefs.

There was some confusion about whether the SC catch limit for ten humpback whales was a temporary, one-year recommendation pending further review or an annual limit. Several anti-whaling countries believed the former and used it as reasoning to oppose the schedule amendment. The SC Chair interjected to clarify that this was an annual catch limit good for two quota periods (ten years). Some of the opposed nations stated that they needed more information on Greenland’s subsistence need, because they were not yet convinced. Chile mirrored the concern of the pro-whaling nations that this issue has taken the IWC away from consensus; therefore, they announced that they would withdraw the South Atlantic Sanctuary proposal.

At this point, we came to the vote. The result was 29 for, 36 against, and 2 abstentions. The proposal failed. The only surprise in the vote was that the U.S. voted for the proposal. The U.S. took the floor to explain their vote; they voted in favor because they have a long history of supporting management recommendations by the SC and in this case the SC clearly stated that the take would not harm the stock. They said they are concerned about the precedent of ignoring the advice of the SC. Many other nations then took the floor to explain their vote, but the arguments were much the same as the previous discussion.

The next agenda item was Sanctuaries, which did not require action due to Chile withdrawing the South Atlantic Sanctuary proposal. Still, the Latin American countries presented a video in support of the Sanctuary. [This video was very touchy feely, with residents of range nations saying that whales should not be hunted because they are beautiful, special creatures and telling about their whale watching experiences. The tone of the video seemed to make the pro-whaling nations’ point that like-minded countries make decisions based on emotion rather than science. Nowhere in this video was the scientific reasoning for a sanctuary.]

Many nations commented on the sanctuary proposal even though it had been withdrawn. The comments again fell along typical pro and anti-whaling lines, so I won’t bore you with them. Suffice it to say that it all started to sound like someone had tape recorded the last round of speeches and had rewound and pressed play during this time. [Being conservation minded myself, I believe in sanctuaries; however, if the South Atlantic Sanctuary will be equivalent to the Southern Ocean “Sanctuary,” where the Japanese kill over 500 minkes every year, then I’m not so sure it’s worth all this debate. Unless the sanctuary will actually mean something in practice then it just seems like yet another conservation measure to make ourselves feel better and not to actually protect whales.]

We finished the day wrapping up some loose ends from the rest of the meeting. The last day of plenary will involve finances and other administrative issues in the morning and a closed working group in the afternoon. Being that I would guess people want to read about those issues even less than I want to sit through a meeting talking about them, I’ll wrap up on the IWC blog here.

Overall, this year’s IWC meeting made a few small steps towards “normalization” and a more cooperative atmosphere. However, as I would expect will be the case every year, this cooperation lasted only until the commission was faced with divisive issues. The feelings on each side are so contrary and so heartfelt that compromise, though a noble goal, may be too much to ask. The goal of normalization was to break the stalemate that the IWC has been in for years. However, if the only way to generate consensus and thereby make decisions is to boil down every issue into bland and ineffectual language or to eliminate decisions on important, potentially divisive issues, then what have we gained? The IWC will still be in a stalemate; only in this case there will be soft voices and smiles instead of the traditional model of angry speeches. We leave IWC 60 with very few developments in whaling efforts; Greenland will maintain the same ASW quota, Japan will continue their research whaling program, and there are no new sanctuaries for whales. We will see what IWC 61 holds in store for whales when it meets in 2009 in Medeira, Portugal.