IWC 66 - Tuesday Part one

Slovenian stamps issued in celebration of cetaceans and provided as gifts to the delegates at IWC66

The big sanctuary vote.

The day is overcast and there is drizzle outside. Inside it is muggy and rather tense.

We open with thanks being given by the chair to host Slovenia for a very nice reception last night. 

The Executive Secretary reports on credentials – all are in order. However, Portugal has asked if Spain can vote on its behalf and the Executive Secretary Simon Brockington explains that there is no provision for this in the rules. [So they cannot.]

We move to a vote on the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary (SAWS). Simon explains how voting works and this is recorded onto the big screens at the front of the vast hall.

I will sample a few votes cast.

EU nations, including Denmark and Estonia, Latin American Nations, and Gabon, India, Israel and others support.

Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Cambodia, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Iceland, Kenya, Korea and others vote against.

Grenada abstains and so on.

The final tally is 38 yes; 24 no and 2 abstentions. The motion, which requires ¾ to pass, fails and the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary is again not established.

Brazil thanks all that supported the motion and says that it is confident that this will eventually pass and how that they will maintain diplomatic relations with all IWC members going forward and quotes Bob Dylan: “may you stay forever young”. He says that Brazil will invite IWC67 to their country, and he hopes that an African country will host the Scientific Committee.

Costa Rica and others provide an explanation of their votes. These include New Zealand and they are very disappointed with today’s vote. There was robust scientific and conservation work behind this proposal. Kenya’s Commissioner says he takes sustainable utilisation of resources very seriously. He refers to the Scientific Committee report which he says was not very clear on this matter, and this is why he opposed. In our discussions with Brazil we agreed that Kenya would host the 2018 Scientific Committee. There is some applause.

The Chair, Bruno Mainini, next reminds us that we have seven resolutions to consider and he moves to the one on food security (document 66/12). Ghana speaks to this, referring to the global need to alleviate hunger and achieve food security. Guinea says that whales consume vast quantities of fish – especially small pelagic fish as consumed by human communities. We need to integrate scientific evidence into our thinking. Cote D’Ivoire is similarly minded – he extends his compliments – and in addition recalls that African countries are fragile countries. Any environmental or economic disruption affects them more than northern countries. They would like more collaboration in the management of living resources … helping to fight poverty and building resilience of communities. 

Togo says that the Slovenian landscape reminds him of his childhood in the mountains back home. He supports the resolution.

Japan speaks of precious marine resources. Due attention must be paid to food security and Japan’s spokesman also speaks to human welfare. There is an opinion that the issue should be dealt with by FAO but when Japan raised this issue in 2001 at the FAO Committee of Fisheries, some of the same countries claimed that this should be dealt with by IWC. We should consider collaboration with FAO via an MoU that looks at food security. Japan hopes that the resolution can be supported by consensus.

The Chair notes that there is quite some support for resolution so far, so please associate with others unless you have another view. Cameroon identifies with earlier speakers in favour. Iceland supports 

sustainable use and this resolution.

The Chair next reads out a long list waiting to speak. I will sample just a few of the speakers that follow.

The USA support the rights of everyone to a decent standard of living and food security is relevant in the aboriginal subsistence context. This however is not the appropriate venue.

Antigua and Barbuda notes that members of the UN recently passed a statement on sustainable fisheries and alleviating hunger. No communities should be left behind. The UN stated that all organisations associated with the UN should adhere to this. This settles the issue that the IWC should attend to this. Food security is critical to world peace and to sustainable livelihoods. Most of the interventions and this resolution are driven by the world’s poorest… our families go to bed hungry. 

He continues at some length and asks for consensus and adds that we all have responsibility and that individual prejudices should be left behind.

India refers to its large population and adds that they have not found cause to take whales. Whales are fully protected and there is a complete ban on killing them. India stands in favour of finding alternatives sources of livelihood for aboriginal populations. It is not in support of trying to use whales to alleviate hunger.

South Africa thanks the proponents for this important resolution and notes while South Africa is a sustainable use country, this is use in terms of non-consumptive use [i.e. whale watching].

St Vincent and the Grenadines calls for full support for the resolution.

New Zealand strongly supports efforts to address food security but they believe that FAO is the relevant body. They agree with India that there is no need to use cetaceans to meet food security needs.

The Netherlands (for the EU) thinks food security is important and they are grateful that the issue has come forward but they have some concerns on the text and its purpose. They remain of the view that most contracting governments have adhered to this issue via other international organisations, such as FAO. He adds that some operative paragraphs are too open and that conservation measures do not threaten food security.

Costa Rica notes that food security is an issue for them, too. Their poor coastal communities use whales sustainably via whale watching. This is not the right forum.

Australia joins others in thanking the proponents for this resolution and Commissioner Nick Gales refers to the FAO as the appropriate forum. Like the USA, Australia believes that food security in the IWC relates to aboriginal takes. They cannot support the resolution as drafted.

Mexico says we cannot solve poverty issues here. Commercially hunting whales is not the answer to food security. The reduction in catches worldwide has not been fully resolved in relation to catches yet. He goes on to discuss fisheries research and that a third of the marine resources have been over-exploited with billions of dollars lost. Commercial whaling is not the answer.

Gabon does not believe whales are the answer to hunger but notes that conservation of whales can help marine productivity.

There is a short coffee break and again many small Slovenian cakes are appreciated and consumed.

Bruno post-coffee suggests that under each item he would like to be able to allow NGOs to speak and that he does not like members popping up and disappearing on his screen.

View of great meeting hall on break

We move to 6.4 which is the proposal for a fund for support for governments of limited means. The document is 66-13. It is co-sponsored by Ghana, Japan and Cambodia. Japan introduces it. He notes that 5 years have passed since the IWC first started to discuss this. He notes that CBD, CITES and ICAAT have also recognised the requirement to support governments of limited means. 

He adds that his working group was very productive and successful, thanks to the working group members’ enthusiasm. He refers to the dysfunctional nature of this organisation and he suggests that his working group was an exception. He is proud of the passion of his working group. He would like to see the resolution adopted by consensus. 

Co-proponent Ghana also speaks up for the resolution and notes the importance of developing nations joining the scientific committee.

Ryan Wulff as chair of the Finance and Administration Committee noted that there was general support in his committee but that some countries wanted to do some more work on this.

The Netherlands for the EU supports the work of developing countries in the IWC. A voluntary fund would reflect common practice. However, we need to give due regard to article 3.5, which requires that governments must pay their own costs. An appropriate framework needs to be developed and he is willing to work with the proponents to overcome this.

Kiribati takes the floor and thanks Slovenia for the warm hospitality and speaks to support the resolution, encouraging consensus.

St Vincent notes that the issue has been around for quite some time. He encourages this august body to take this into account. Tuvalu supports and so does Guinea. Iceland does too.

The USA also speaks to consistency with article 3 – that expenses of each member of the Commission shall be paid by its own government.

A few interventions follow and the Chairman asks if we can move to a drafting group.

Antigua and Barbuda says we need more from representatives of developing countries in this drafting group.

The chair says that the group needs to be well balanced and hopes that Antigua and Barbuda will join. Japan is happy to have further work on this but with regards to concerns from Argentina and 

Australia he requests further specificity.

The Chairman suggest that Australia and Argentina can take their concerns to the group rather than consider it on the floor here.

And with that we move to the exciting resolution from Chile and others to recognise the ecosystems services provided by whales. Chile explained that faecal plumes can improve the productivity of oceans and also that whales have a role in carbon sequestration. There are a range of roles. The resolution’s purpose is to show that whales make beneficial contributions and to have the Commission integrate this into the management and conservation of cetaceans. Therefore this resolution tasks the Conservation Committee with looking at this. This is an important resolution for the Commission and for the health of the planet and its inhabitants. Chile adds that she hopes that this will be adopted by consensus.

The Chair then asks the Scientific Committee for her report. She notes that the resolution calls on the Scientific Committee to integrate a list of things into its work. She says we already consider ecological aspects under the Ecosystems Modelling work – so we respectfully ask the commission which aspects to focus on.

The USA notes there is growing evidence in favour but, taking into the account the response from the Scientific Committee, we should refer this to the Scientific Committee.

Japan thanks the proponents. The UN and other bodies have been discussing ecosystem services. There are many different approaches to this, and four types have been recognised: provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. This particular proposal is focused on just one, supporting services. We will not deny this one but we want to see a good balance in this proposal. There should be recognition of other services – so this should include provisioning.

Iceland does not find the resolution scientifically robust; Netherlands for the EU is supportive but wants some changes; Australia is supportive and notes that the operative part of the resolution calls for us to work together on this issue.

After further interventions including one from an NGO in favour, the Chair notes that there is no consensus and asks Chile how they would like to proceed. Chile notes that there is a revised resolution on the website already – focused on productivity and not ‘services’, she has noted considerable support and she is willing to revise further.

We move to the Minamata resolution. Presented by proponents and opposed by Japan and others. Iceland, for example, suggests that human health is not within the mandate of the IWC.  Japan makes a long and amusing intervention which I missed!

This too goes off to be revised.

And so to lunch.