Controversial whaling proposal fails at global meeting

Posted on June 23, 2010 by Chico

23 June 2010

(Agadir, Morocco) – The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW-www.ifaw.org) announced today that a controversial proposal to legalize whaling has failed at the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Agadir, Morocco.

“Under a cloud of corruption allegations the IWC is taking a safe course, opting for a cooling off period that protects the moratorium and other IWC conservation measures,” said Patrick Ramage, Director of IFAW’s Global Whale Campaign. “Had it been done here, this deal would have lived in infamy.”

The proposal, three years in the making, proposed a compromise between whaling and non-whaling nations which regularly clash at annual IWC meetings. Among the most hotly debated components of the proposal was a plan to overturn the worldwide ban on whaling, in place since 1986, by allowing legalized hunting of whales by Iceland, Norway, and Japan – the last three countries still hunting whales commercially. Japan, Norway, and Iceland have illegally killed nearly 35,000 whales since the inception of the moratorium.

“This was an intense three year effort but one conducted behind closed doors and focused on defining terms under which commercial whaling would continue rather than how it would end,” said Ramage. “The proposal it produced could not withstand public scrutiny and ignored the overwhelming global support for permanent protection for whales. Any future process of negotiation should not leave the views, expertise, and perspective of the global NGO community sitting outside.”

Crisis as whaling talks move behind closed doors

Posted on June 21, 2010 by Chico

ANDREW DARBY IN AGADIR, MOROCCO
June 21, 2010

High-level talks over a global whaling peace deal are to be sent behind closed doors, in an abrupt move said to show that a bid for compromise is close to failure.

The decision to suspend the International Whaling Commission’s annual meeting shortly after it opens later today was agreed in private at the demand of the acting IWC chairman, Anthony Liverpool, Fairfax Media has learnt.

It has surprised lobbyists, as well as some IWC nations who, after months of closed door talks, wanted the controversial deal finally to be argued in the open.

The suspension also prevents the peace talks from being derailed on the floor of the meeting by rising disquiet over Japan’s vote-buying scandal.

The British marine environment minister, Richard Benyon, had planned to raise reports of Tokyo’s largesse, including payments to support the attendance of Mr Liverpool who comes from Antigua in the Caribbean.

About 65 IWC members, including an unprecedented number of government ministers, are in Agadir to work on the deal that offers Japan, Iceland and Norway new rights to commercial whaling.

In exchange, the whalers’ catches were to be reduced overall, and there was to be an end to loopholes such as the IWC’s discredited “scientific” whaling clause.

A key negotiator said of the meeting’s suspension: “This is one last attempt to see if there is any common ground. We will be split up into small groups, and we won’t be coming back until Wednesday.”

Patrick Ramage, the global whale program director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said Mr Liverpool had ordered the closed-door meetings with a view to fast-tracking the proposal when the formal session reopens on Wednesday.

“Whatever one’s view on the proposal, its adoption under the present circumstances will destroy any remaining credibility for the whaling commission,” Mr Ramage said.

Source: theage.com.au

Japanese pay for whale delegates

Posted on June 20, 2010 by Chico

The Sunday Times Insight team
Published: 20 June 2010

The chairman of this week’s international summit on whaling is being secretly funded by a Japanese company to stay in a luxury hotel.

Anthony Liverpool will open the crucial International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Morocco tomorrow which could vote to lift a 24-year ban on commercial whaling.

He has accepted free flights and the £4,000 cost of staying at a hotel with a private beach during the meeting. The hotel bills of five other countries’ delegates are also being paid.

The payments will increase concern that Japan is bribing delegates to secure support for whaling and may be in breach of the IWC convention which says: “The expenses of each member of the commission … shall be determined and paid by his own government.”

Richard Benyon, the minister for fisheries, will raise what he called “these very serious allegations” at the IWC meeting.

On Friday Liverpool, the Antiguan IWC vice-chairman who will stand in as chairman at the meeting, said he did not know who was paying for his trip. “I am just aware of getting support through agencies,” he said.

However, inquiries have shown that his bill at a hotel in Agadir is being paid by Japan Tours and Travel of Houston, a company said to be linked to Hideuki “Harry” Wakasa, who has previously been identified as the middleman who makes secret payments to the pro-whaling Caribbean countries.

Matando com Tecladas – Actualização sobre Portugal

Posted on March 16, 2010 by Chico

Durante o mês de Fevereiro conduzi uma investigação sobre o comércio de vida selvagem através da Internet em Portugal, o chamado e-commerce.

O tráfico internacional de animais selvagens é estimado em vários bilhões de Euros anualmente – um mercado negro que rivaliza a dimensão do comércio internacional de drogas e armas. Anualmente, milhares de elefantes em África e na Ásia são ilegalmente abatidos para satisfazer a crescente procura de artigos em marfim.

A Convenção sobre o Comércio Internacional das Espécies de Fauna e Flora Selvagens Ameaçadas de Extinção (CITES) tem três níveis de protecção para as espécies ameaçadas[1].

O maior nível de protecção é dado às mais de 800 espécies incluídas no Apêndice I, designadas como estando em perigo de extinção[2]. Com muito poucas excepções, o comércio de espécies do anexo I é proibida. Este apêndice inclui as espécies altamente vulneráveis tais como: elefantes, tigres, gorilas e tartarugas marinhas, juntamente com um grande número de outros felinos, papagaios, periquitos, catatuas e araras.

Espécies inscritas no Apêndice II da CITES exigem uma certa regulamentação no âmbito da sua comercialização, mas não ao ponto de uma expressa interdição. Embora o comércio possa ser admitido para espécies do Apêndice II, todo o comércio internacional ou de transferência do animal ou seus derivados exige uma licença de exportação emitida pelas autoridades do país exportador, e em alguns casos, uma licença de importação emitida pelo país onde o produto de origem animal será recebido. Em teoria, estas restrições sobre o comércio de espécies do Apêndice II são destinadas a regular o comércio, a fim de assegurar que essas espécies não serão exploradas ao ponto de requererem protecção sob o Apêndice I.

Espécies do Apêndice III, apesar de não enfrentarem ameaça de extinção, são indicadas por cada país que deseje auxílio para proteger determinadas espécies localizadas dentro das suas fronteiras[3].

A expansão da Internet e o seu uso no nosso quotidiano revolucionou o modo como trocamos ideias, informações e mercadorias. Este sucesso é em grande parte devido à capacidade deste meio para facilitar comunicações e novas relações comerciais e sociais ao redor do globo. Não admira que esta poderosa tecnologia se tenha difundido e tornado a maior “montra de loja” do mundo. Algumas das características desta loja virtual – sempre aberta, não regulamentada e anónima – também a fez um canal propício para o comércio ilegal de animais selvagens, um comércio que segundo estimativas oficiais anualmente excede os 15 bilhões de Euros.

O rápido aumento do uso global da Internet, os diversos interesses e actividades dos seus usuários, e a introdução de novas tecnologias e aplicações são apenas três dos desenvolvimentos que desafiam a capacidade de aplicação da lei nacional e internacional para acompanhar as acções e inovações dos criminosos que nela operam e se refugiam.

Actualmente, a generalidade das leis nacionais destinadas a regular o comércio dos animais selvagens a níveis ecologicamente sustentáveis estão pouco desenvolvidas, e são ineficazes para lidar com a natureza do comércio na Internet. Mesmo onde as leis existem, a aplicação é frequentemente inadequada ou, simplesmente não é focada no tráfico de animais selvagens. Simultaneamente, a Internet proporciona uma plataforma sem precedentes para a crescente actividade de comércio ilegal de animais ameaçados de extinção, vivos e mortos. Este novo mercado global distância o consumidor do rasto de sangue que serpenteia através da internet com origem nos locais selvagens que mais apreciamos.

Desde 2004, o IFAW tem vindo a investigar o comércio de vida selvagem na Internet. Esses estudos revelaram um elevado número de trocas diárias de produtos de animais selvagens. Em 2004, o IFAW descobriu um alarmante e vigoroso comércio de marfim na internet no Reino Unido. Em 2007 num relatório de acompanhamento do IFAW, focado especificamente sobre o comércio de marfim no eBay, encontrou 2,275 artigos em marfim à venda em oito websites nacionais da eBay Inc. numa única semana. Como resultado deste estudo e consultas com o IFAW, a eBay Inc. anunciou, a Junho de 2007, uma proibição global do comércio transfronteiriço de produtos em marfim para todos os seus websites nacionais.

Em 2008, o IFAW empreendeu a maior investigação sobre o comércio de espécies selvagens na internet jamais impulsionada pela organização. Os resultados da investigação foram publicados num relatório intitulado Killing with Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the World Wide Web, e disponível em www.ifaw.org. O propósito desta investigação foi estimar o volume e âmbito geográfico do comércio global de vida selvagem na internet, identificar os principais mercados de comércio de espécies selvagens, determinar as espécies mais afectadas, e identificar as mais importantes questões e tendências relacionadas ao comércio online de espécies nos Apêndices da CITES[4].

É neste contexto que o presente relatório foi produzido, tendo como objectivo aprofundar a investigação feita pelo IFAW em 2008, com uma actualização sobre este assunto no contexto e âmbito Português. Pouco se sabe sobre a dimensão e gravidade do comércio de vida selvagem na Internet Portuguesa. Este relatório é a primeira tentativa de descobrir e avaliar a dimensão em Portugal do e-commerce de espécies ameaçadas da fauna e flora.

Apesar do emaranhado de leis e políticas destinadas a resolver o problema do comércio de espécies selvagens não regulamentada na Internet, a vastidão e adaptabilidade da World Wide Web, o anonimato concedido a comerciantes e compradores, a falta de consciência pública sobre a regulamentação e aplicação inadequada das legislações nacionais existentes, continuam a ameaçar todos os animais selvagens ao redor do globo. Esta investigação visa fornecer informações ao Governo Português, aos funcionários responsáveis pela aplicação e às plataformas de Internet, a fim de lhes dar um maior conhecimento e compreensão da situação, e sugerir métodos para combater o comércio ilegal de animais selvagens.

Lançamento oficial do relatório pelo IFAW aqui (inglês)
Ler/Download do relatório aqui

Sobre o IFAW (Fundo Internacional para a Protecção dos Animais e o seu Habitat)
Como uma das organizações líder mundial em bem-estar animal, o IFAW tem representação em 16 países e realiza trabalho de protecção de animais em mais de 40. O IFAW trabalha desde a sua sede mundial nos Estados Unidos, e focaliza as suas campanhas na melhoria do bem-estar de animais selvagens e domésticos, reduzindo a exploração comercial, protegendo habitats, e prestando auxílio a animais em dificuldade. O IFAW trabalha tanto no terreno como nos corredores governamentais, numa tentativa para proteger animais selvagens e domésticos. Através da motivação do público em geral, procura prevenir a crueldade para com os animais e promover o seu bem-estar fomentando politicas de conservação que aumentem o conforto tanto de animais como de pessoas. Para mais informação, visite www.ifaw.org

————————–

[1] CITES Secretariat. (2008). The CITES Species, from http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/species.shtml

[2] CITES Secretariat. (2008). How CITES Works. from http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/how.shtml

[3] CITES Secretariat. (2008). The CITES Appendices, from http://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.shtml

[4] IFAW, 2008. Killing with Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the World Wide Web. 38pp

Killing with Keystrokes – Portugal Update

Posted on March 16, 2010 by Chico

During February I conducted an Investigation on the Wildlife trade in Portugal via Internet, the so called, e-commerce.

International trafficking in wildlife is estimated to reach well into the billions of Euros annually – a black market rivaling the size of the international trade in illegal drugs and weapons. Every year thousands of elephants are illegally slaughtered in Africa and Asia to meet a growing demand for ivory products.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has three levels of protection for threatened species[1].

The highest level of protection is afforded to the more than 800 Appendix I species designated as being in immediate danger of extinction[2]. With very few exceptions, commercial trade in Appendix I species is banned. These species include the highly vulnerable species like elephant, tiger, gorilla and marine turtle, along with a large number of additional wild cats, parrots, parakeets, cockatoos and macaws.

Species listed on CITES Appendix II are recognized to require protection from trade, but not to the point of a ban. While trade may be allowed in Appendix II species, any international trade or transfer of such an animal or its derivative products requires an export permit issued by the authorities of the nation where the animal product is located and in some instances an import permit issued by the country where the animal product will be received. In theory, these restrictions on trade in Appendix II species are designed to regulate trade in order to ensure that these species are not exploited to the point where they require Appendix I protections.

Appendix III species, while not facing specific global threats, are listed by individual countries wishing to enlist assistance in protecting species located within the borders of their countries[3].

The rise of the Internet has revolutionized the way we exchange ideas, information and merchandise. This success is largely due to its ability to facilitate communications and new commercial and social connections around the globe. No wonder this pervasive and powerful technology has become the world’s largest “shop window.” Some of the characteristics of this virtual store – always open, unregulated and anonymous – have also made it a conduit for the illicit trade in wildlife, a trade that officials estimate may be worth in excess of US$20 billion annually.

The rapid rise in global Internet usership, the diverse interests and activities of Internet users and the introduction of new technologies and applications are just three of the developments that challenge the ability of national and international law enforcement to keep up with the innovations of Internet-savvy criminals.

Currently, national laws aimed at regulating wildlife trade to ecologically sustainable levels are poorly developed and insufficient to deal with the nature of Internet trade. Even where laws exist, enforcement is often inadequate or simply not focused on trafficking in wildlife. Meanwhile, the Internet provides an unprecedented platform for a burgeoning, undocumented trade in endangered animals, alive and dead. This new global marketplace distances the consumer from the trail of bloodshed that winds through the World Wide Web back to our most cherished wild places.

Since 2004, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has investigated the Internet wildlife trade. These studies have revealed high numbers of wildlife products exchanged on a daily basis. In 2004, IFAW uncovered a brisk ivory trade on the internet in the United Kingdom. In a 2007 follow-up report, IFAW focused specifically on the ivory trade on eBay, and found 2.275 ivory items for sale on eight national eBay websites in a single week. As a result of this study and ongoing consultations with IFAW, eBay Inc. announced a global ban on cross-border trade in ivory products in June 2007 for all eBay national sites.

In 2008, IFAW undertook the largest investigation into the wildlife trade on the Internet the organization has ever attempted. The results of the investigation were published in a report entitled Killing with Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the World Wide Web (KWK), and available at www.ifaw.org. The purposes of this investigation were to understand the volume and geographic scope of the global Internet wildlife trade, to identify key Internet wildlife trade markets, to determine the species most affected by the trade, and to identify significant issues and trends related to the online trade in the CITES-listed species.[4]

This report is aimed at furthering the 2008 investigation by providing an update from Portugal on this matter. Little is known about the dimension and seriousness of the wildlife trade on the Portuguese World Wide Web. This report is the first attempt to find out how large is the E-Commerce on in endangered species of fauna and flora is in Portugal.

In spite of the patchwork of laws and policies designed to address the problem of unregulated wildlife trade on the Internet, the vastness and adaptability of the World Wide Web (WWW), the anonymity afforded to traders, a lack of public awareness about regulations, and inadequate enforcement of existing national laws all continue to threaten wildlife around the globe. This investigation is aimed at providing information to the Portuguese Government, enforcement officials and Internet platforms in order to give them greater understanding of the situation, suggest methods in which to counter illegal wildlife trade, and aid further enforcement.

Official IFAW report release here
Read/Download report here

About IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare)
As one of the world’s leading animal welfare organization, IFAW has representation in 16 countries and carries out its animal welfare work in more than 40. IFAW works from its global headquarters in the United States and focuses its campaigns on improving the welfare of wild and domestic animals by reducing the commercial exploitation of animals, protecting wildlife habitats, and assisting animals in distress. IFAW works both on the ground and in the halls of government to safeguard wild and domestic animals and seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation policies that advance the well-being of both animals and people. For more information, visit www.ifaw.org.

————————–

[1] CITES Secretariat. (2008). The CITES Species, from http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/species.shtml

[2] CITES Secretariat. (2008). How CITES Works. from http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/how.shtml

[3] CITES Secretariat. (2008). The CITES Appendices, from http://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.shtml

[4] IFAW, 2008. Killing with Keystrokes: An Investigation of the Illegal Wildlife Trade on the World Wide Web. 38pp

TIA, bru!

Posted on April 4, 2009 by Chico

0035 of the 04/04/200 I was sitting at the 25A seat of the STP Airways taking off to Sao Tome (ST). I don’t understand why they feed us 2 courses within 5 hours when we are flying over night and what I really wanted to do was SLEEP, NOT EAT!

Landed ST at 0634 with people at the side of the landing platform waving at us and some dogs running around the track…

With much less sleep than what I need, and when I don’t get the sleep I nee I get very, VERY grumpy and stressed. So, I kept blaring inwards because the cue was taking too long, people were just taking silly photos and not moving etc.

At the vaccination pitch I met the always smiling Isaura Carvalho (the main organizer of the event) and her husband José Carlos Silva (a very famous chef) that helped us getting ready for the hotel.

At the way out I met Luis Noronha my long friend and guide of ST. After a small chat about life and how is ST going and the people that I know here we parted ways and I went o the new Pestana Sao Tome – Ocean Resort Hotel. Helping me up to my room as the nice Adécio, whom I’ve met the other 2 previous times I was here. He didn’t recognized me wt short hair (contrary to the long haired guy who was here the last time) and so I started to play him around saying he looked like someone from Sporting (a Portuguese football team), knowing that he is absolutely crazy about it and coaches a team of young kids here in the island.
I generally don’t fancy much this 5 start luxurious facilities with people more grumpy people than me with little sleep (normally I’m a nice chap!). However I must say that with the view I have from by balcony overseeing the ocean and a big part of ST’s coastline, this must be the best “office” I ever had (the balcony has internet access and all). I would however, maybe, change this for the Roça São João dos Angolares and its entire traditional and tropical feel. I Know I’m just taking the piss being so picky…

After a short while I headed down to the hall, got on the mini-bus and entered the meeting at Aula Magna near the MARAPA office. All morning session I was struggling to keep my eyes open and gutted at the fact I could not get my hands on a cup of coffee, which I eventually did at the break of the meeting. Morning session was a full one with very interesting presentations. However I would like to mention 2 of them, the ones I caught all my half sleeping attention:

1) The talk given by Rogério Roque Amaro (ISCTE):
Is the local development wanted and possible in STP?

I particularly liked the way he started addressing the people in the room by saying that he normally does not follow protocol and would like to greet every person present in the room in the same way (while others were giving praise to different people in relation to their social status).

He started by explaining the history of the concept and methodology of the “local development” movement, as it started to be put in practice by member of UN & FAO, even contrary to the models and practices of those organizations. Normally the ways of a more developed country, nation or society were modeled and then taken to another part of the world and imposed onto the population living there, because it was more evolved, and so it would enhance the standards of living of those striving and leading their lives there. However, one needs to listen and take into deep consideration the culture, ways, convictions and traditions of the populations of a community. One needs to listen and work with the community in a different way. Listen to them, use local methods and knowledge and look at the problems in a global perspective.

The main notion of “local development” is to find local answers for global challenges.

It is also an answer to the global crisis we are living presently, and to any problem that might arise and become a threat to the community.

So 3 sectors of society play a vital role on the process, the government as a partner of the process, the industry with a civil responsibility, and the community (not a administrative term here!) as a voiced entity that conducts its own path.

I took some quotes about “local development” that I think portrait its meaning:
-          “it is not a prête-à-porté kind of work”
-          “needs external help [but is not dependent of it] and it is not sectored”
-          “convert a person with problem into a person with capabilities”
-          “the local community is marginalized with the thought that was comes from abroad is what is good”
-          “defy the local government as a cabalistic agent rather that a inhibitor of development”

During the discussion the governor of the region of Principe (the other island) spoke and I thought his comment was very enthusiastic and with a good message: “we have to forbid of letting ourselves down, and never to doubt the power the communities have to organize.”

2) The lecture presented by Maria do Carmo SIlveira (STP)
Sustainable/Local Development – durable perspective of the communities’ growth

I liked her presentation not so much for the edge revelations she presented but because of the contents related to STP. She presented only 4 dimensions of sustainable development when there are 7 and there were some gaps of knowledge. However, her presentation was simple and informative in relation to the palce we are meeting, Sao Tome and Principe.

She gave much focused on the environment as a fundamental factor for the sustainable development, having technology playing it role.

She also highlighted some projects that have environmental risks such as the petroleum case (that STP divided 40/60 with Nigeria) [that is was thought to save STP and making it a new Dubai, but so far nothing has happened so far], the deep water harbor, and in the end she threw the question to the air, “what kind of tourism do we want for STP?”

After the morning session I started to collapse due to sleep deprivayion, so I headed to the hotel and slept almost all afternoon. Got up to eat at the hotel and went back to bed.

However, I would like to make some considerations in relation to the history of this small island state. After the 500 years of Portuguese dominance, in 1975 they got their independence. With independence they were given a system, industries and a political realm they did not know how to administrate. To make things worse their transition was into a single party (dictatorship) who ruled the country and was taking any opposition to its power out of the way for 15 years. “Democracy” arrived only in 1990′s. Democracy with the less transparent budget in the world, according to the Open Budget Index (2008). Now go figure how is to work down here, it isn’t easy, many games of seduction and power, a little like the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

The country here is unstable and corruption is a career not opportunity. I reckon the main problem is that they are holding a system they don’t know how to control and administrate. The culture and society is still living in a post-traumatic state with little conducting vector towards a stable and safeguard environment for the people of STP.

TIA (This Is Africa), bru!

IWC Intersessional – Day 3

Posted on March 12, 2009 by Chico

Sea Shepherd (SS) dominated all the agenda of the 3rd and last morning of the IWC Intersessional meeting. Japan via the Institute of Cetacean research (ICR) (who conducts and runs the Japanese “junk-science” operations) presented a talk based on the “happenings” on the Southern Ocean during the last whaling season.

All their presentation was focused down on the ramming, the propellers disabling tactics and line-throwing rockets used by SS. In one of the videos they showed some one screaming. It was funny because they showed it like a way of demonstrating the danger and fear the crews of the catchers were experiencing but in the end he asked for no translation. Yeah it was someone screaming, but just swearing all the way through.

During their presentation they mentioned a few things that I got intrigued:
1) Japan’s claim that you were using nylon ropes to disable vessels and that after an unsuccessful attempt to do so, you would not recover the ropes
2) It also stated that if you were there to defend whales and then if some of their vessels was properly disabled it could eventually create a environmental catastrophe in the pristine region that is the Antarctic.

I took my time to ask Shannon Mann (long-time SS activist) about this 2 main question and she got me a nice and clarifying message. However, this is her perspective, not an official SS position!

[quoting Shannon Mann]
“But, in regards to your questions… we do use ropes to attempt prop fouling of the Japanese vessels, I’ve seen us try several times in the past three years. However, each situation is different and although we try to retrieve all of the lines we drop, there have been cases where we haven’t. If the situation is that we have to make the choice between doubling back to retrieving a line and abandoning the pursuit of the Nisshin Maru… we will stay on our pursuit of factory ship and make sure no whales are being killed. Essentially, if it comes directly down to the choice between whale life and a line, we choose the whale. As well, we often change course to pick up stray lines (and it happens often) when we are voyaging to and from the Antarctic territory.

So far we haven’t disabled one of the whaling ships with one of these lines. I don’t know if we ever will, but I can assure you that we would do everything possible to mitigate the risk to their ship. We would jeopardize our campaign and SS reputation if we caused injury, death or environmental destruction. If the situation occurred where a ship was in need of assistance, obviously we would be there to ensure the ship and everyone on board was safe. If they would refuse our help, they also have the rest of the fleet there to assist.

I’m not sure I’ve answered your questions, but feel free to email me again for further discussion. As well, these are my opinions from my observations as a crew member for the past few years, not official SS stances… I would have to ask Paul for that, and could if you would like an official statement. [...]“

After my last lunch at the chaotic cafeteria on the 8^th floor of the headquarters of FAO, I headed to the Santa Prisca hotel to pack up and leave. Seemed a easy task, but I always try to complicate it. I thought I had a long way to go and a few transfers in the way. My plan was to take the Metro, then the Train and reach Fiumicino Airport in time for my departure. After encountering some Greenpeace fundraisers on the street, they told me the best way of doing it was actually using the train station just next to the Metro near the Piramide. So I did, I shared the train with Alexandre de Lichtervelde, the Belgian IWC Commissioner and got far too early to the airport, so early the ladies at the check-in introduced me into an earlier flight. The only problem was that I didn’t really looked at my ticket and my only objective was to send away my luggage. So I watched all the people from the departure lounge boarding the plane I was meant to take. Because I was earring my mp3 player I did noticed any of the 20 times the name Francisco Gonçalves “last call, boarding etc” was pronounced. So I made a plane get delayed since all my luggage had to be taken of the aircraft and I got another tour of the airport getting my luggage back, making the check-in again and having the flight attendants eager to almost punch me, but in the end they we very sweet. After a short stop in Madrid I reached Lisbon Airport where my good friend Susana picked me up and we went down town for a few drink and cheap chat.

So the IWC Intersessional 2009 meeting was concluded.

Read the IFAW press release at the conclusion of the 3-day meeting: Whaling Commission harpoons science in favour of political compromise

IWC Intersessional – Day 2

Posted on March 10, 2009 by Chico

Second day of proceedings started with the discussions of the Agenda Item 4: REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE GROUP (ICG) ON ISSUES RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC).

A panoply of affairs related to the SC presented by Greg Donovan, Countries started asking the Commission to be able to provide reports of the SC well before the IWC plenary. The current way things are processed; the Scientific Report is concluded and handed to the country delegations 48 hours prior and remains confidential until the plenary opening. Various countries argued that this manner is highly unproductive since the delegations cannot go through the approximately 800 pages in the time frame allowed and aren’t able to deliver recommendations and propose solutions. The commission will take this in consideration and will see what can be done to alter this.

Then discussions turned to the transparency and who should or shouldn’t be allowed presence at the SC meetings and so on. Australia did hold a stance wanting to be present at some of the SC discussions (and it was not allowed at some point), USA intervened saying that it welcomes observers, but there should be the opportunity for closed meetings of the procedure reviews and there is no plan on holding observers “because you don’t know how many will turn up if 4 or 84″ those were the words.

After Agenda Item 4 was closed opportunity was given to NGOs to speak. From all those I would like to sand out Dr. Sidney Holt’s speech, that you can access here. Talking about the crisis IWC faced, first in 1961 then 1973 he said that “We did learn, then, that short-term provisional “solutions” could lead to nasty long-term consequences”, referring to the almost extinction of blue, fin and humpback whales. “What crisis management really needed was for governments to have the will to change and to act in good faith. But promises to act definitively within a certain specified frame were repeatedly broken”. Whales indeed have a special status being highly migratory. Sidney evoked UNCLOS (Convention on the Law of the Sea) stating that fisheries must be managed in such way as to leave enough food for dependent species, such as cetaceans – not the other way around (Article 61.4 & 199.1 (b).

He also argued that the restoration of functionality requires the withdrawal of all “objections”". Another threat to Cetacean conservation is the “reservations” to CITES Appendix I listing. He finally welcomed the launching of the Southern Ocean research Partnership by the government of Australia, but said that was “a late start in producing a coherent management plan for the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary”.

After the NGO speakers finalized their interventions, the commission went into recess until the next morning and we warped it up by lunch time.

However I would like to make some personal considerations about some of the agenda items and a few topics that are quite hot on the IWC dealings.

1) Everyone is asking for the head of the current chair of the IWC Dr. William Hogarth due to the “whalergate case” (as Patrick Ramage was putting it). Basically Dr. Hogarth was forging a plan behind close-doors that would legitimize whaling on international waters compromising the conservation block and fundamentally the welfare of whales by undoing the global moratorium on commercial whaling. See IFAW press release here.
Even though I would like to see Dr. Hogarth pulled away from the Chair role of the IWC I would agree with the IFAW perspective that it wouldn’t be good policy or tactic. Being a USA Chair to remove him from his position would be highly damaging. If there is any country able to put a final mark on the whaling issue is the USA. And their citizens need a feeling of leadership, get rid of Dr. Hogarth would not just take the “savior complex” away but would also leave the feeling that “if we are not leading, it is not our problem, the other leader have to solve it not US!”

2) Coastal Whaling
As for many other terms the ICRW is not clear in defining Coastal Whaling. Dr. Sidney Holt put it very well on his Speech saying that “[the term] is dangerously ambiguous. Colloquially it means “near the shore”, but some governments seem to think it could mean “within 200-miles or even further”. That’s practically what Aristotle called a reduction ad absurdum, making whaling habit from the Barent Sea to the coast of Labrador the zone of “coastal whaling”. Further confusion comes from something called “Small-Type Whaling” (S-TCW), which is just an English translation of a Japanese administrative category by which catchers of less than 48 tons displacement are allowed to hunt small whales on one-day trips, that’s about 50 miles from base”
I really think this Coastal Whaling terminology need to be clarified in order for us to envisage what we are really dealing here with.

3) Junk-Science
JARPA (conducted in the Antarctic), JARPN (conducted on the north-west Pacific); the ongoing JARPA II and JARPN II are all part of the so-called scientific programs of the Japanese government conducted by the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), a privately-owned, non-profit institution. The institute receives its funding from government subsidies and Kyodo Senpaku, which handles processing and marketing of byproducts such as whale meat.

During JARPA for example, a program that took 18 years and after killing 6,778 minke whales it was attempted to determine the natural mortality rate, ‘M’.
In 2006 an expert workshop of scientists from the International Whaling Commission, meeting in Tokyo, agreed (including the Japanese scientists) that the natural mortality rate was not determined – the confidence limits around estimates of M from JARPA data were so wide that M remains effectively unknown. These were so wide that even a value of M=0 was not excluded. In other words, 18 years of lethal ‘research’ had been unable to exclude the possibility that minke whales might be immortal! (source: Greenpeace)

Today again we heard the IWC Head of Science Greg Donovan, say that there is not enough and reliable data to determine numbers and abundance of most of whale stocks, so I wonder after all this junk-science we still don’t have data to implement a RMP or anything at all? With over 200 scientists attending the SC meeting and so on producing huge amount of paper load to be analyzed 48 hours prior to the plenary opening, I ask: what have been the achievements of the SC?

4) The blurry fuzzy future
It is hard to make long-term strategies on this whaling affair. Most of the time, I feel we are only trying to fill in the holes, that the Japanese Government inflicts on the conservation movement. I strongly believe that the Small Working Group (SWG) has to be “blown-up”. It is circumventing the RMP (Revised Management Procedure), set in place (however, not applied) to make sure commercial whaling would be bond within safe and sustainable catch-limits based on sound-science. Now, the SWG is trying to come up with a package based on ad-hoc catch-limits, disregarding science and long-term sustainability all of this with an aura of compromise from the USA regarding Japan’s objectives.

Well, what are the Japanese objectives; anyone has any idea of what are these? If there is someone with a better and clearer idea is the USA government. We on the NGO platform are often blind-working trying to up-hold the conservation measures that the IWC imposed itself and is now thwarting, like the RMP and the Moratorium on Commercial Whaling.

Japan is still using its corruption loophole, here in Rome, Comoros was presented as an observer, obviously ready to join the circus of puppets Japan has bought in order to keep its simple majority, and the stalemate in place.

My work from now will be focused on avoiding some nations to join the IWC and support Japan, try to get one or two important countries and make sure they vote for conservation (if need be). Regarding the IWC 61 in Madeira I’ll be taking care of logistics and on-ground assistance; outreach network and information sharing coordination with NGOs and Civil Society; and work/provide information to Portuguese and International Media agencies based in Lisbon.

My feeling is that I’m just closing gaps and now making any dashing forward movements towards a resolution of the whaling issue.

The afternoon was spent walking around Rome, a long awaited moment since all my school days I was fascinated by Greek and Roman history. I walked a few kilometers around the city to discover things as I was going along, Coliseum, Arc of Triumph, roman Forum, Imperial Forum, Plaza de Venezia, Fontana de Trevi, Pantheon and other few bits.

At the end of my walkabout I joined a Tibetan Demo marking the 50th anniversary of the exile of the Dalai Lama in Dharmsala, India. March 10th marks the 50th anniversary of the failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule that sent the Dalai Lama into exile.

Dinner was at Da Giggetto, with Sidney, Vassili, Patrick, Georgan, and John, nice Roman meal to conclude the day.

IWC Intersessional – Day 1

Posted on March 9, 2009 by Chico

It was a night with little sleep (about 3 hours) before I drove into Lisbon and my friend Susana took me to the airport. With a stopover in Madrid I got into Rome Fiumicino Airport around 19:00. Then took a taxi to the Hotel Santa Prisca where I’m staying. Dropped things there and went out for some food since the only thing I had eaten all day as breakfast, chose the closest one to the hotel, Trattoria “Perilli”. It was a strange experience since I do not speak Italian and didn’t know that you need to ask “all you want” on your plate separately so I ended up eating a Bisteca Manzo, that was nothing but a huge steak, followed by a Tiramisu. Went back to the hotel and dropped flat for some sleep.

It is difficult for me to get some decent sleep in cities, since I’m living on a very secluded place in the country side. So I spent the night waking up intermittently, and drinking loads of water due to the bedroom eating system that seems to dehydrate and try to take away all available water in my system.

Woke up today to get lost trying to find my way to the FAO headquarters, I started walking on the opposite direction, then manage to give myself a tour around before started ascending on the right direction through Via Piramide Ciesta and then Viale Aventino, until I reached Viale Terme Di Caracalla and the FAO headquarters.

Got my IFAW credentials and headed towards the venue. It seemed rather empty, but that was only because all NGOs were gathered at the cafeteria and I didn’t know about it! But soon people started to appear here and there, one of the very first I saw was Mammadou Diallo from WWF WARMER and dear colleague who has been giving a great help on my work in Africa, also after that I saw my dearest friend and mentor, Dr. Sidney Holt and my “PEW Boss” Leslie Busby. It was followed by many other included the other from the IFAW pack, Vassili Papastavrou and “IFAW Boss” Patrick Ramage.

All meeting was quite dull and we are not suppose to transmit whatever was said because it is confidential (quite ridiculous), we basically passed in review the 33 items the Small Working Group (SWG) has in hands following some comment on the future of the IWC by the Chairs; and that was the end of the first day. (read the “de Soto report” here)

After that we went down for dinner after the reception hosted by the Italian Government at the FAO headquarters where food and beverages were serve, we ended up in the same room that the Japanese Delegation having with us Sidney holt who appear on ECO calling them “Terrorists” and “Kidnapers”. Quite funny! After that I went down to my hotel and dropped dead at my small bed with a huge pillow :-)

Chile & IWC 2009

Posted on June 29, 2008 by Chico

Frenetic, stressful, inflammatory debates and very unproductive, the old same! This was the ambience surrounding the 60th Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, (IWC) hosted by the Government of Chile and held at Santiago.
After several decades of little change in terms of making the IWC a body that regulates properly whaling, it is sliding off to the middle ages framework. This because now (and like the UN) the IWC has a “mini-commission” that decides (by consensus) what goes around on the main venue, and so controls topics and themes that are “allowed” to e discussed. Preventing the other members of having an active and demanding stance inside the Commission itself.
It is my belief that this mini-commission is not going anywhere and should be dismantled during the next couple of meetings. However it is undermining all the work environmentalist and conservative government have done so far. Even those government are being blunt on their position. And worst of all the NGOs are giving out “votes of confidence” to governments who are betraying them and they keep supporting them. Some NGOs (big ones) even are saying one thing to the press and other inside the room. I must say i was very pleased to be representing the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) in Chile, whose position was the same throughout the meeting, it had the vision and clarity to see what was going behind the scenes and made accurate and precise conclusions about the outcome.

60th IWC meeting at Sheraton San Cristobal, Santiago of Chile

In sum the 60th meeting of the IWC was highly armful to whales, the so much hoped Southern Atlantic Sanctuary was not even proposed and all conservation work stopped. Who really won was Japan that didn’t gave any sign of good faith, keep their “junk-science” research in the Southern Ocean and took hard measures to prevent a transparent and democratic system inside the IWC (it might as well have won the secret ballot vote that it has been trying for years now).

As IFAW stated on its press released, “we didn’t ask fopr voting to stop, the only thing we want to see stopped is whaling!”

It will be interesting so see how things go in Madeira next year, where I’ll have much work on my shoulders to do and my only hope is that I may deliver good results.

Gossypium in Umbilico

[exteriorized introspections] by Francisco Gonçalves

Category Archives: IFAW