27 June 2008

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.

26 June 2008

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.

24 June 2008

IWC 60 - Second Day of Plenary Part 2

The pace of the first day of Plenary carried through to the second day. The commissioners had a closed meeting from 9am until almost noon, during which time the NGOs caught up on email, read part of their 10 lbs of handouts and reports, or chatted amongst each other. When the meeting resumed, the agenda was changed so that Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) was moved to Thursday morning and we started off with a report from the Future of the IWC working group. IWC Chair Bill Hogarth presented a document summarizing the procedural changes at the IWC. There were three primary changes:
1) Proposals for schedule amendments, draft resolutions, and changes to rules of procedure must be submitted to all commissioners 60 days prior to the meeting. This change was an effort to not “surprise” any members and to keep the IWC meetings non-confrontational.
2) Although English will continue to be the official IWC language, Spanish and French will be added as “working” languages. This means that any literature produced by the IWC must be translated into all three languages.
3) New countries to join the IWC must wait 30 days before receiving voting rights.

Fourteen nations spoke in support of this new plan for the IWC. The great majority of comments were congratulatory to the Chair, optimistic that this will make the meetings run more smoothly, and/or cautionary that this is only the plan and there is still a lot of work to do for implementation. For the most part, there were pats on the back and congratulations all around.

Only China, Korea, and the Russian Federation expressed reservations for the language changes. They voiced worries over the financial implications of having to make all resources available in three languages, but also over the fact that the other languages were not acknowledged.

After lunch, we shifted to the topic of Whale Watching. We watched a presentation from Argentina about whale watching in their country. The Chair of the Scientific Committee (SC) reported that they are concerned about reports of disturbance to whales from whale watching efforts, so they are going to embark on a worldwide research program to study these effects. The final proposal for this project will be presented next year.

Many countries (16 to be exact) made positive comments about the Whale Watching report. Most mentioned that they are extremely supportive of whale watching as a non-lethal, economically advantageous “use” of whales. They encouraged the SC’s research to determine the effects of whale watching on whales and also emphasized that there should be a code of conduct for whale watching programs to minimize impacts. Norway, Iceland, and St. Lucia commented that whaling and whale watching are not mutually exclusive; all three countries engage in both and they do not conflict. Korea expressed that they have not had success with developing a whale watching program.

Although the discussion of ASW was pushed until Thursday, two scientists from Greenland gave a presentation on their ASW program and proposed quota increase. Their proposal maintains the number of fins (19) and minkes (200) taken in their hunt, but increases their bowhead (2) and humpback (10) quotas. The presentation reviewed the latest stock assessments for both bowhead and humpback whales in Western Greenland. Bowheads are present in their area at a time when other species are absent, so adding this species to their quota will ease the hardship for their people during this time. This new proposal will produce approximately 694 tons of whale meat, which is 36 tons short of their stated “need.” Most of the whale meat is distributed locally to families, markets and community institutions (such as hospitals); however, a small amount of whale meat is sold to one company that distributes it to grocery stores in a wider area. They emphasized that the money from this sale goes back into the local community. (On a side note, Greenland produced a publication in direct response to the WSPA publication I mentioned in my last blog. The Greenland publication talked about how whalers need to pay their mortgages and bills just like everyone else and they pay those bills through the sale of whale meat. If I can be a biased observer for a moment and say that of course everyone needs to pay bills and selling whale meat is a way to do that, but that is also called commercial whaling NOT aboriginal subsistence whaling. Back to the summary…) ASW is defined by the IWC as that in which the products are consumed by the local community. Greenland pointed out that the term “local” is not defined and they apparently view all of Greenland as their local community. The commission was not allowed to discuss this issue until Thursday, so the subject dropped after Greenland’s presentation.

Next on the agenda was a report on the Revised Management Scheme working group. The IWC has not asked the SC for anything in this working group for a couple years, so the SC Chair reported on only a few items where the work is ongoing. The report was filled with acronyms and lingo that I won’t pretend to understand, but overall nothing major is happening on this front.

We finished the day with a brief return to Welfare Issues; the Head of Science reported on progress on the issue of whale entanglement. They are planning a three or four day working group just after IWC 2009 to discuss entanglement prevention, disentanglement, and euthanasia of whales that can not be disentangled. Sweden commented that they hoped the conclusions from this meeting will benefit small cetaceans as well.

We finished the day a little behind schedule and the agenda completely shifted around. At this point, the Chair seems to be pushing off possibly contentious issues until later in the week. Although the atmosphere in the meeting room is congenial, just outside there is a lot of literature passing back and forth between the “like-minded” (anti-whaling) and pro-whaling NGOs. These documents deal with a wide variety of issues including:
• Greenland’s proposed schedule amendment
• Japan’s scientific whaling
• Japan’s dolphin drive fishery
• High mercury levels in dolphin and whale meat
• Crew members on Japanese whaling vessels apparently taking whale meat home to give away or sell on their own
• Iceland and Norway exporting whale meat to Japan
• Proposal for a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary
• And many more…

I will try to include information about these as the topics come up on the agenda.

IWC 60 - Second Day of Plenary Part 1

The proposed schedule amendment from Greenland found its way into all of our mailboxes this morning. They are requesting to add ten humpback whales per year to their aboriginal hunt. The issue of aboriginal whaling is on the agenda for this morning. The big question is whether the European Union (EU) will vote as a block as they have agreed to do this year or whether, due to differing opinions, they will vote independently. The fear from the NGO community is that if they vote as a block, the amendment will likely pass (it needs a 3/4 majority). There has been a lot of discussion about how each country would vote and there are at least four countries that I have heard would likely vote for the amendment.

The World Society of the Protection of Animals (WSPA) produced a multi-page document detailing how whale meat from Greenland's aboriginal hunt makes its way into supermarkets throughout the country. These publications have been distributed throughout the meeting and they certainly beg the question about whether Greenland's hunt is aboriginal or commercial. We'll see how it all plays out during the meeting.

23 June 2008

IWC 60 - First Day of Plenary

The IWC meeting started off slowly today. There were the typical opening statements and introductions by the Chair, Bill Hogarth, and members of the Chilean government. After only a half hour of remarks, we broke for coffee. As you can see, the pace was slow to say the least. When we returned, the secretary discussed some IWC business. There are three new member nations this year: Uruguay, Republic of Congo and Romania (only Uruguay is in attendance). Although I don’t have an exact count, it seems that the anti-whaling (or “like-minded”) countries have a slight majority. At the NGO meeting yesterday, we found out that for the first time Dominica and Nicaragua are not going to vote in line with Japan this year. The Chair spoke about the new spirit of cooperation in the IWC and how they are going to try to vote by consensus and avoid antagonistic language. So far, there are no resolutions set to come to a vote and he asked that if any country is going to propose a resolution, they give other member countries due notice so as not to surprise (i.e. upset) them. Japan spoke to say that in this spirit, they would not propose changes to the agenda (such as the elimination of small cetaceans and whale watching) as they have in the past. In other news, the European Union (EU) will be voting as a block this year, although Denmark pointed out that on some issues (such as the Greenland hunt) they might have to diverge from the EU. Finally, NGOs will participate this year; they have been given 30 minutes on the agenda for three pro and three anti-whaling NGOs to speak for five minutes each.

We then dove into the report from the Scientific Committee (SC) on stock assessments. These began before lunch and carried through mid afternoon. There was nothing too surprising here; the SC stated that they’ve made “good progress” on a number of stock assessments, including southern hemisphere humpback whales, Antarctic minke whales, and North Pacific minke whales, but were not yet ready to state abundance estimates. During the discussion on Antarctic minke whales, the SC Chair mentioned the results of three circumpolar abundance cruises. The third cruise sighted fewer whales than the second and it is unclear if this is due to a real negative trend. New Zealand and Japan spoke up here wondering what is going on. Japan said that they will give a presentation on Wednesday in which they’ll offer their theory (which I have heard has something to do with interspecies interactions, but it’ll be interesting to hear what they have to say). The IWC expressed continued concern for western North Pacific gray whales; five females have died in the last three years. If this continues, the population could be extinct by 2050. IWC members expressed support for working with oil and gas companies to mitigate impacts and to create sanctuaries to protect these whales.

The next item on the agenda was humane killing methods and other welfare issues. Norway, the Russian Federation, and the US (and a very small report from Denmark on behalf of Greenland) gave reports on killing methods and number of animals struck and lost. There was a noticeable lack of report from Japan. Japan stated that they no longer give a report because their data were used differently than other nations and anti-whaling supporters used the most extreme cases to lobby against them. Several countries stated that the issue of humane killing methods is outside of the purview of the IWC. Other nations countered that the IWC needs these reports because welfare must be a part of any whale management regime.

With that, we adjourned for the day to head to a reception at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There we enjoyed good Chilean wine, very little food, and native music. Tomorrow morning starts bright and early with an NGO meeting with the US delegation.

22 June 2008

IWC 60 - Arrival in Santiago

I arrived yesterday in Santiago de Chile and am slowly settling into whaling mode. I attended a meeting with over 50 NGOs (non-government organizations) today and we discussed what to expect during this week's IWC meeting. There are many issues on the table, but a few of the most volatile issues are Greenland's proposed expansion of their aboriginal hunt to include humpback whales, Japan's expected proposal (again) for an amendment to the schedule allowing "small type coastal" whaling, and the future of the IWC.

I'll start with Greenland's aboriginal subsistence hunt. Their take in recent years has included minke and fin whales and last year was expanded to include one bowhead whale. They are looking to expand their quota to include higher numbers of whales, but also to include humpback whales for the first time. They claim that the population of Greenland is expanding and they need the higher quota to feed their people. The problem is that an aboriginal hunt, as this is supposed to be, should only support the aboriginal people and not the general population. The IWC needs to better define what "aboriginal" and "subsistence" mean in this context so it is clear what is allowed and what is outside the realm of "aboriginal subsistence" whaling.

For the past several years, Japan has proposed a schedule amendment to allow "small type coastal" whaling. They claim that four of their traditional whaling communities have suffered hardship after the moratorium was passed and they should be allowed to whale on a small scale. Japan has even stated that they would take fewer whales in their research hunt to make up for those taken in a small type coastal hunt; therefore, no more whales would be killed overall. This amendment requires a 3/4 majority vote and has failed each year. This year some people think that it might pass as part of a "deal" to eliminate research whaling, but we will have to wait and see what happens during the meeting.

Finally, IWC member countries have been frustrated by the antagonistic environment and general lack of progress at meetings in recent years. There was an intersessional meeting held in London to discuss the procedures of the IWC and the current Chair, Bill Hogarth of the U.S., has also been meeting with other countries independently to discuss the matter. Some people in the NGO community even think that Hogarth has made a "deal" with Japan that will make things run more smoothly this year.

The IWC meeting officially begins tomorrow and we will see what is in store; it is sure to be interesting and likely full of surprises.

20 June 2008

IWC 60 - Setting the Scene

Santiago, Chile is scenically nestled in the foothills of the Andes mountains. It is a large, South American city with millions of inhabitants, and it stretches out for miles. Winter, with its 60 degree days, 40 degree nights, and occasional rainy days has everyone scurrying about in scarves and heavy coats. Ski season is starting in the Andes. Among this, hardly anyone has noticed that off in one corner, in the Sheraton Santiago, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) will be making important decisions about the future of whales.

This year, Kate Sardi is attending the IWC meeting for us (www.acsonline.org). However, the commission meeting is just the one-week culmination of a month’s worth of discussions about whales and their management. It starts with two weeks of meeting of the Scientific Committee, who both provide scientific advice on the topics the Commission has asked for, and brings up new issues that the scientific community thinks should be brought to the Commission’s attention. Then there is a week of meting of other “technical” committees – the Conservation Committee, the Humane Killing Committee, the Finances Committee, the Infractions Committee, and so forth. Finally, the Commission meets for a week. As the Chief Scientist of the Whale Center of New England (www.whalecenter.org), I have attended the Scientific Committee meeting as an Invited Participant for several years now, and returned from this year’s meeting about a week ago.

The Scientific Committee (SC) is a group of about 200 scientists from around the world. Many nations that are members of the IWC send national delegations to the SC. In addition, a number of people are invited to attend for expertise in one or more areas of the SC’s considerations.

Much of the time that the SC meets is spent in topic-oriented sub-committees that consider particular topics. Such groups include focused sub-committees on the Revised Management Procedure (a determination of how many whales in a population can be taken by non-natural causes), By-catch (entanglement and ship collision deaths), Southern Hemisphere whale populations (focusing on determining the status of southern hemisphere humpback and blue whale populations), Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure (both the size of stocks and how to determine allowable takes for subsistence whaling), Stock Definition, Ecosystem Modeling, the Cetacean’s Environment, Whalewatching (both looking at how data can be collected from whale watch boats to help understand whale populations, and to look at the effects of whalewatching on whales), and Small Cetaceans. The last two groups are controversial, and every year Japan, as a whaling nation, notes its protests to the consideration of these issues in what should be a whaling-focused discussion.

After the eight days in which each sub-committee prepares its report, the full SC spends 3 days considering each sub-committee’s report and passes on a compiled “digest” of the reports for the Commission’s review. However, all deliberations of the SC are considered confidential until the Commission meeting opens and the report is made public, so I can not share any of the details of what was discussed.

However, after being an IWC participant for 8 years, and Vice President of ACS for as long, I can give an impression of what may be coming up as big issues in this year’s full Commission meeting.

Major topics I see are:

1) How the whaling “stand-off” is resolved. Everyone knows that the IWC is deadlocked between conservation-minded countries (like the U.S.) and whaling nations (like Japan, Iceland, and Norway). Right now there is a moratorium on commercial whaling, which will take a ¾ vote to overturn. However, Japan and Iceland are killing whales under self-issued “scientific permits” which are allowed under the IWC rules, and would also take a ¾ vote to overturn. With a split IWC, neither is likely to happen unless a compromise is reached. IWC commissioner Bill Hogarth has spent much of the past year trying to get a spirit of compromise in the IWC. How far that progresses, and what that “compromise” consists of, will be very important this year.

2) Japan’s request for “small-type” coastal whaling – Japan wants to define a new type of whaling, called “small-type coastal whaling” which would allow small fishing villages in Japan to continue to hunt whales but not be considered as “commercial” hunts. This is a strong push for Japan, who have even expressed a willingness to give up some of their scientific kill if given such a quota. However, this would also mean that a new type of whaling would be defined and legalized. I worry that this would start many nations applying for “coastal” hunts, including many of the nations to whom Japan provides millions of dollars of fishery support. I think this is one of the biggest threats to whales, and requires close scrutiny.

3) Greenland has had an “aboriginal” hunt of minke and fin whales for years. Now, they want to increase the number of species they take by adding bowhead and humpback whales to their annual kills. At the same time, there are new allegations that this hunt is in actuality a commercial hunt, with the meat processed and sent away for consumption.

I’m sure there will be many other topics discussed and issues debated in the shadows of the Andes mountains in the coming week. I look forward to hearing what Kate Sardi, our ACS rep to the commission, reports back. The future of many whales hangs in the balance.

I should also point out that an excellent editorial on the current whaling debate by the BBC can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7463633.stm. It is worthwhile reading.

- Mason Weinrich, ACS Vice-President and