IWC 60 - Third Day of Plenary

The veil of camaraderie slipped a little today. We started the morning session with a discussion of Japan’s “small type coastal” (STC) whaling. They stated that they feel pressure from the coastal whaling communities to push this agenda item, but in honor of the new sprit of cooperation at the IWC, they decided not to pursue a schedule amendment this year.

We moved on to discuss whaling under Special Permit, or research whaling. The focus of this discussion was also Japan; research whaling is conducted in Iceland, as well, but they seem to fly under the radar. The Scientific Committee (SC) Chair introduced a novel mechanism to review new research whaling proposals in the SC. New proposals will be reviewed by an expert, balanced working group at an intersessional meeting. This new review process was met with praise by most countries, including Japan and the U.S. The SC Chair reported on results from current research permits and stated that there were no new proposals on the table this year.

In spite of the fact that there were no decisions to be made this year in regards to research whaling, there was a firestorm of commentary from member nations. There were many strong statements, including one from the U.S., against research whaling. These statements emphasized that research whaling should be replaced by the many non-lethal techniques available today and that the little information yielded by this research is not necessary for IWC management of whale stocks. New Zealand and the U.K. expressed that their citizens are outraged by research whaling. Australia made a two part proposal: 1) that the IWC decide first what research is needed for successful management of whales and only lethal research programs that meet those data needs will be approved, and 2) that nations form a non-lethal, cooperative research program to fill in data gaps. There was further discussion about this proposal later during the new initiatives agenda item and it was met with a great deal of support. Mexico made an excellent point that after 18 years of Japan’s whaling program in the Antarctic they still have not obtained their primary objective, which is a definition of stock structure.

On the flip side, there was a reciprocal burst of commentary from the pro-whaling contingent. Iceland stated that every country has a lethal research program on animals and he discouraged double standards just because we’re dealing with whales. St. Kitts & Nevis stated that whales and other marine resources belong to all nations, so no nation should usurp another’s rights to use these resources. Japan challenged anti-whaling nations saying that they base their arguments on emotion rather than data. Finally, the Russian Federation came in with my favorite quote of the day. The Russian commissioner told the story of Copernicus being burned at the stake because he dared say that the earth orbited the sun. He said that when Copernicus was burned, the crowd cheered; the crowd was likely the beginning of the NGO community (there it is… so far the leader for best quote of the meeting!). He went on to say that he hopes we are not pushing Japan into the fire as we did with Copernicus. The Chair, Bill Hogarth, encouraged the commission to move on from this topic.

We next moved to the issue of Safety at Sea, which focused mostly on the aggressive interactions between Sea Shepherd and the Japanese whaling vessels in the Antarctic. Japan described the protesters’ actions, such as throwing bottles with supposed irritable chemicals onto the vessel and using ropes to impede its navigation. Japan said that it was watching closely to see how the IWC reacted to these allegations. The commission was supportive of Japan saying that threat to human life was inexcusable, that they would cooperate to bring perpetrators to justice, and that they were concerned about the possibility of an environmental disaster in pristine Antarctic waters. The anti-whaling groups also did mention that they do support peaceful protest on the high seas, but not these threatening actions.

The next agenda item was Environmental and Health Issues. Working groups will be formed to deal with Antarctic ecosystem modeling and with climate change. There was a great deal of support for both working groups and the U.S. offered financial support for the climate change workshop [this made the NGOs very happy].

The meeting shifted next to the topic of Small Cetaceans. The issue of small cetaceans is generally controversial, b/c whaling nations don’t believe that it falls under the purview of the IWC. However, some of the worst welfare and stock exploitation issues fall under this category. The Chair of the SC touched on a number of small cetacean issues worldwide. He expressed the SC’s continued concern about the Vaquita; the population is no more than 150 animals and with the current by-catch rate it will likely be extinct in five years. If it is going to survive, all gill nets must be removed from the Gulf of California immediately. Mexico took the floor to announce that by presidential decree, they have earmarked 15 million dollars to remove all gill nets from the range of the Vaquita. This announcement was met by a great deal of gratitude and offers of support. Dall’s porpoise received a lot of attention this year because of Japan’s large drive fishery for this species. U.K. stated that the IWC has passed two resolutions, the most recent in 2001, condemning the Dall’s porpoise hunt as unsustainable; since the second resolution, 88,000 Dall’s porpoise have been killed. They encouraged Japan, in this new spirit of cooperation, to take the majority opinion to heart and reduce their hunt.

At this point, we broke for lunch and during the break Japan gave a presentation on their research whaling program. The highlights were that they have published many papers from this work, have many important findings, and are gathering information that can’t be obtained through non-lethal means. [As an editorial aside, there are a few things that can’t be obtained through non-lethal methods, but most of the information that we need for management of whale stocks can be gathered through photo-identification mark-recapture studies, biopsy sampling and analysis (including genetics, stable isotopes to determine trophic level of diet, and more), fecal analysis, ultrasound blubber thickness measurements, prey mapping/sampling, and tagging). Japan’s science is also questionable; they reach conclusions that are clearly self-serving and based on very little data… read on.] Japan said that they have documented a species shift in the Antarctic and that the recovery of humpback whales is causing competition for minke whales. The minkes are seen more often inside polynias (areas of open water) in the pack ice, whereas humpback whales are generally outside the pack ice. This led them to the conclusion that humpback whales are forcing the minkes closer to the ice. They also documented the minke whale age at sexual maturity as 12 years in 1945, 7 years in 1970, and a leveling off since then. These data led them to the same conclusion about competition and prey resources [instead of the possibilities that perhaps the 7 year maturity is optimal for minke whales and they simply have leveled off for this reason, or that climate change is impacting the Antarctic ecosystem, or many other plausible explanations].

When the commission returned, they moved to the agenda item for the Conservation Committee and the main discussion was a report from the ship strike working group. The group made several recommendations: 1) that the IWC secretariat maintains a ship strike database, 2) that member nations submit ship strike data regularly, and 3) that there is a workshop on ship strike mitigation. Ship strike is on the agenda for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting this year. There was general support for these recommendations and activities.

We finished the day with the NGO section, where six (three pro and three anti-whaling) NGOs were allowed to address the commission for five minutes each. Although only three NGOs were invited to speak, they stated that they were doing so on behalf of a long list of other NGOs, including the American Cetacean Society, that were listed on the official written copy of the statements that would go into the official record. I’ll start first with a summary of the pro-whaling NGOs: the High North Alliance from Norway, Women’s Forum for Fish from Japan, and Concepesca from the Caribbean. All three organizations are sustainable fisheries organizations and claim to support the continued, sustainable use of fish and whales as marine resources. They emphasized the importance of whaling to their communities and that they have a long history of fishing and whaling from their coasts. They also discussed the world food shortage and that whales are a renewable resource that doesn’t require agriculture to feed. They stated that whales are marine resources and should be available to all nations/ cultures. [I can appreciate that there are cultural differences in the world and that whaling may be a very important component of many communities. However, to me this does not trump the fact that this body was formed to manage whale stocks. If the stocks are not well understood or are being unsustainably hunted, culture shouldn’t enter into the equation. They are right that marine resources belong to everyone. They use this argument to justify whaling, but I say that it belongs just as much to me as to a Japanese whaler and what gives them the right to exterminate them?]

The like-minded NGOs, Greenpeace Japan, WWF West Africa, and CCC from Chile, discussed their support for sanctuaries and non-lethal uses such as whale watching. They stated support for the activities of the SC and the Conservation Committee and urged the IWC to consider all threats to whales, including by-catch and climate change. They expressed opposition for research whaling and any trade in whale products. They all emphasized the importance of civil society involvement in IWC proceedings.

The third NGO to speak was Greenpeace Japan and the decision was made amongst NGOs that he would give half of the presentation and that an English-speaking representative from an NGO in Dominica (who announced this year that they would not vote with Japan for the first time) would present the second half. Unfortunately, as the second person rose to speak, there was an emphatic objection raised by St. Kitts and Nevis who thought it unfair that four people were speaking on one side when only three spoke on the other side. After going back and forth for several minutes, the representative from Japan finished the presentation. This incident, though resulting apparently from a misunderstanding of protocol, caused some very negative feelings amongst members of the commission. In addition, being that this was the first year of NGO participation, it put into jeopardy the possibility of future involvement.

The day ended on an unfortunate note and tomorrow will be a long and difficult day with discussions and potentially a vote about Greenland’s proposed ASW expansion to include humpback whales and the proposal for the South Atlantic Sanctuary.