Well, forget all that!!

Later some Japanese official in a visit to Australia, assured that the whaling program was not under revision, and that Japan was still pursuing their intents at the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

Now I’m not just worried with Japan but with the IWC all together! The Small Working Group (SWG), a sub-group inside the IWC assign to cut a deal between the parties and solve the whaling issue, came up with unthinkable solutions.

Sidney Holt, my tutor-guru-mentor, looked into it:

In my view the suggestions made by the IWC Chairman on the basis of advice from the CSG and SAG constitute a move back towards the situation of the IWC in its earliest days – the 1950s – and tend to nullify most of the advances made in conservation and management of whaling since then. In 1961 – my first year of attendance at the IWC – there was a virtual monopoly of large-scale factory-ship whaling in the Antarctic, held by five nations; a catch limit was set without benefit of scientific input at a level economically convenient for the five national whaling fleets;  participation by “civil society” and the media was not permitted and even the Verbatim Records of the IWC’s meetings were kept secret for many years (after some decades of making such records public the IWC no longer publishes them, thus impeding historical analysis).In my view the suggestions made by the IWC Chairman on the basis of advice from the CSG and SAG constitute a move back towards the situation of the IWC in its earliest days – the 1950s – and tend to nullify most of the advances made in conservation and management of whaling since then. In 1961 – my first year of attendance at the IWC – there was a virtual monopoly of large-scale factory-ship whaling in the Antarctic, held by five nations; a catch limit was set without benefit of scientific input at a level economically convenient for the five national whaling fleets;  participation by “civil society” and the media was not permitted and even the Verbatim Records of the IWC’s meetings were kept secret for many years (after some decades of making such records public the IWC no longer publishes them, thus impeding historical analysis).

The Palmer-Donovan Plan would legitimise and confine whaling for at least ten years to the three countries that still deny the IWC’s 1982 decision to pause all commercial whaling until certain conditions were met (those conditions have not yet been met) as a result of which five whaling nations dismantled their industries, forwent their profits and disbanded their work forces.The rationale of the P-D plan is that it would prevent any further escalation of the activities of three whaling countries, but that belief is, for me an expression of naive optimism, no matter how fine the intentions might be, and the price to be paid for embarking on a tten year voyage on this leaky ship (mutiny prohibited) is unbearably high.

The Palmer-Donovan Plan was recently discussed at a meeting in Florida of representatives of nearly thirty countries (only about one-third of the IWC’s Membership) constituting a “Small Working Group”. This was very ably and fairly chaired by Ambassador Anthony Liverpool, Commissioner for Antigua & Barbuda (The IWC Chairman was absent because of the terrible earthquake event in Chile) and was attended by Observers from non-governmental organisations but not the media; for the first time since the 1970s Observers were given opportunities to address the meeting. The SWG’s Report  will be considered – perhaps together with a new version of the Chairman’s  Report on the CSG – for decision by the IWC at a full Annual Meeting in Morocco in June 2010. That meeting will be open to Observers from civil society and to the media.

Dr. Holt identifies 10 reasons for Concern about the IWC Chair’s suggestions regarding the future of the IWC (the “Plan”). And for vigorously opposing its adoption at the forthcoming meeting of the IWC in Morocco.

1. It envisages continued whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary;

2. It rejects the Precautionary Principle that was pioneered by the IWC in 1976;

3. It applies ten-year “block quotas”, that were disastrous in the 1970-80s, even for four or six years only;

4. It ignores the consequences of inevitable changes in IWC Membership and/or attendance during the ten “interim” years;

5. It is unfair to ex-whaling countries that accepted the 1982/86 “moratorium”;

6. There are no provisions to enforce or even encourage a ban on or limitation of international trade in commodities from whales;

7. It contemplates authorizing the killing of sperm whales.

8. It undermines the role of international law in conserving and managing the use of living resources of the sea, particularly of the High Seas and Highly Migratory Species;

9. It weakens the IWC;

10. It fails to recognize global changes in public perception of whales and whaling and will encourage actions outside the IWC’s orbit.

Read the explanation for each one of these reasons here.

O Tourita que tinha ido comigo não lhe apelava muito a ideia de andar de rabo para o ar a limpar a praia e fugiu assim que viu que a iniciativa parecia ter pouca adesão.

Estavam presentes apenas alguns clientes do Bruno e no total éramos creio que uns  4 ou 5. Mas lá pelas 16 e qualquer coisa chegou o Telmo Vital com o pessoal que estava a ficar no Maximum Surfcamp.

Juntaram-se a nós também Luis Silva, Marcos Bairros, João, Rainer Gersch, e outros; num total de umas 30 pessoas, aproximadamente.

No total retirámos do areal e das zonas circundantes às dunas todo o tipo de plástico, garrafas de vidro, cordas de nylon, redes de pesca, bocados de foam de prancha, botas etc. um total de 5 metros cúbicos.

Alguns daqueles detritos eram sem dúvida o resultado da falta de consciência e responsabilidade cívica dos utentes da praia.

Isto apenas de uma pequena porção da praia, se pensarmos a um nível mais abrangente, gerar-nos certamente um grande sentimento de preocupação…

No final de contas foi um sucesso a Ocean Initiatives da Surfrider Foundation levada a cabo por cidadãos livres e conscientes das nefastas consequências que o lixo nas zonas costeiras pode ter.

Assinámos no fim uma petição que será juntada às outras assinaturas recolhidas pela Surfrider Foundation, para ser apresentada à UE quando atinja as 10.000 assinaturas, para que os nossos representantes em Bruxelas rectifiquem a actual classificação do lixo, que ainda não é considerada um meio de poluição!

Saiba mais aqui (em inglês)!
Poluição de Mares e Oceanos (Projecto da Escola Secundária da Lourinhã)

———————————–

Dear Colleagues, Friends, and Family,

Many of you may recall that in June, on the last day of the International Whaling Commission meeting, I arranged for a small dog living outside an Italian restaurant to be taken to the Sociedade Protectora dos Animais Domesticos do Funchal (SPAD) for treatment and care.

I first noticed this dog when dining at the restaurant.  While friendly it was clear that he was injured as he would routinely hobble around on three legs to avoid placing any weight on his rear right let.  Despite this apparent injury, the little dog was able to hop up and down the street barking at the random passerby.  Because he seemed well fed, didn’t seem to be in any pain, and was active I thought that I would let him be though I did provide him with a small water bowl and bought him puppy biscuits which he completely ignored.  Towards the end of my stay in Madeira, however, while on a late night excursion in search of snacks, I noticed the dog having difficulty walking with both of his rear legs causing him pain.  The next day, with the assistance of Francisco of IFAW, the dog was rescued by the local fire department and taken to SPAD.

During the rescue Franciso spoke to the restaurant owner and learned that he had cared for the dog for 3 ½ years feeding him leftovers every night.  That, of course, explained the dog’s reaction to the puppy biscuits.  We also learned that the dog had been hit by a car at least once while living in front of the restaurant but had not been taken to a veterinarian for treatment.

Once at SPAD, the dog, named Zeca by SPAD caretakers, was understandably frightened and not particularly trusting of those trying to provide him care.  A colleague and I visited Zeca at the SPAD facility before leaving Madeira and learned that he was, for the moment, in quarantine (as is the procedure for all new dogs), that the SPAD veterinarians had examined him, that he would eventually be placed with other dogs to test his social skills, and, if everything went well, he would be made available for adoption.  I expressed an interest in staying in contact with SPAD and indicated that, if a home couldn’t be found for him in Madeira, I might be able to arrange for his transport to the United States.

In subsequent e-mails with Guida, the director of SPAD, I learned that Zeca was acting aggressively toward SPAD personnel, had tried to bite or had bitten two caretakers, that his aggressiveness made it unsafe and difficult to clean his pen, and that he tested positive for heartworm.  Given what was thought to be his advanced age, I was also told that his prospects for adoption were slim.

At that point I decided to arrange for Zeca to come to the United States for further treatment and either adoption or to become a new member of our family.  During the weeks – which became months — that it took to make all of the arrangements, I received an encouraging e-mail from Guida who reported that Zeca had finally begun to trust his human caretakers allowing them to more safely work with him.

To make a long story short, I am happy to report that Zeca arrived in the United States on Saturday, October 17 and is adapting remarkably well to living in a home with dog, cat, and human companions.  Upon his arrival in Newark, after what was a nearly 18 hour journey from Madeira, I was prepared for a frightened and angry dog.  Much to my surprise and delight, though frightened, Zeca was more gentle and docile than I ever expected.  This is clearly a testament to the patience and care that he was provided at SPAD.  He welcomed my touch and I was quickly able to get a harness on him to finally allow him out of the transport carrier and into the frigid New Jersey weather.

Once home, Zeca met the rest of the family including Janet, my wife, our rescued dogs Shadow and Faith, and our rescued cats.  He slept in the kitchen the first night on a fluffy and warm blanket and, though he had a few accidents, within less than a day he was housebroken.  Once he was allowed upstairs and discovered carpeting and a bed, I think he found his own personal utopia.  He loves to sleep on the carpet and is frequently found sacked out on the bed (see picture).  He enjoys going out into our yard (see picture), has bonded with Faith, and has learned that cats don’t necessarily like to play with dogs.  Shadow, our Chow-mix, has graciously accepted our new friend but has yet to form a close bond with Zeca.  Zeca, however, has completely fallen for my wife and her for him so he has become the newest permanent member of our family.

Zeca went to see his new veterinarian yesterday and received a positive initial evaluation.  We will receive blood test results soon and at some point he will be neutered.  Graciously, Drs. Nordt and Stull at the Atlantic Animal Health Center have offered to treat Zeca at cost as they too were touched by his story.

Though it was took some time to arrange for Zeca’s travel to the US, he has been nothing but a joy since his arrival.  His personality is infectious, his temperament perfect, and his adjustment to life in a loving home has been nothing short of incredible.  We can only hope that he is as happy with us as we are with him.

None of this would have been possible without the help of a number of people who all deserve great thanks for their role in this rescue.  They include:

The owner of the Italian restaurant who permitted Zeca to be taken to SPAD.  I intend to send him a letter so that he too knows that Zeca is doing well and living in America.

Francisco Goncalves of IFAW who initially aided with the rescue.

Guida, the Director of SPAD, and her staff who exhibited amazing patience with a very frightened dog and providing him loving care for nearly 3 ½ months.

Fernando Melim and his colleagues at TAP Airlines who provided a discounted rate to transport Zeca from Madeira to Newark and who provided care to Zeca along the way.

Luis Freitas, the Director of the Whale Museum in Madeira who, though I only had met briefly during the IWC meeting, graciously agreed to provide assistance in making Zeca’s trip to America possible.

Deidre Volcker, Barbara Schubert, Vivian Romano, Karen Michael, and Susan Millward for generously donating funds to help offset the costs of Zeca’s trip.

Susan Millward and Jen Rinnick for supportive and encouraging words throughout this process.

Dr. Nordt, Dr. Stull, and the staff at the Atlantic Animal Health Center for their generosity in providing Zeca with excellent veterinary care.

Janet, my wife, who only wanted a tourist souvenir spoon from Portugal but who got a dog instead.

And a very special thanks to Ricardo Carvalho, who works with Mr. Freitas, without whose incredible assistance in Madeira this story could not have been told.  Thank you Ricardo from the bottom of our hearts.

While there are millions of dogs deserving loving homes, Zeca has found his and will never again have to live on the streets.  We dream of the day when all stray, feral, and abandoned dogs can enjoy the same fate and future as Zeca.

With gratitude,

D.J. Schubert and Janet Romano
and, of course, Zeca

The setting in Santiago was very different than the one in St. Kitts. Everyone was talking nice to each other; all were very polite into the meeting room. Pro-whaling and the like-minded (the name given to the pro-whale/anti-whaling group or countries) blocs were talking like they were old good chaps, and there was a feeling of harmony in the air. To me all of it was nothing but hypocrisy; all for the good of the recent formed Small Working Group (SWG), to be roughly translated as a smaller group of countries inside the IWC that is invested by the commission to solve all IWC problems and divergences in a record time. All I thought was that there would not be any top and fastest decision making process at all, the IWC per se is not good at fast processing body, and will not start now, at least not under this conjecture. It would also be a slow process because it is not in the best interest of some countries that are part of the SWG to get all the IWC business sorted.

In a straight condensation of the decisions and conclusions reached at the 60^th meeting of the IWC the answer is a one word reply: none.

After that I was present at the intersessional meeting in Rome during March 2009, at the FAO headquarters, and there I had the chance (even that not on purpose) to step into a side-meeting of an even smaller working group than the SWG. I left my bag into a room of the IWC secretariat and when I when to retrieve it, there was Mr. William Hogarth (USA’s Commissioner and IWC Chairman), Mr. Joji Morishita (Japan’s Commissioner), Dr. Greg Donovan (Head of Science of the IWC) and some other IWC staff I could not identify. My thought then was; “so here is where decisions are drawn”.

During the intersessional meeting of the IWC there was only one outcome: nothingness.

By the time the 61^st IWC meeting was on the horizon I already feared that not much would come out of that meeting. To me was a big disappointment, and I was already envisaging that the truthful decisions, the ones that mattered (for good or for worst) would be postponed again. As long as there are decisions being made, we as civil society can act according to what we believe is best but, when literally nothing is decided, there is a stalemate in place, a feeling of almost despair started to install in me!

I signed my first ever working contract with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), to be the lead the Portuguese front of activists on the whaling subject. Well I was not leading anything, mostly because I was the only Portuguese in that front. The Portuguese NGOs find the subject very sensitive and do whatever they can to stay away from it.

I had a number of tasks assigned to me:
- Briefing the Embassy of India in Lisbon about the IWC, as they normally send a local diplomatic representative, contrary to many who have an appointed commissioner;
- Do a number of political visits and have meetings with decision makers within the country;
- Do various media work, briefing and appoint journalists to specific people;
- I also did a personal project. The Baleal Surf Fest; a two day festival calling out to whale conservation, through different activities (beach clean-ups, screening of documentaries, painting of murals, a paddling contest, music and art in between other things), this was done together with the organization Surfers for Cetaceans;
- Work with the Portuguese IWC Commission and the Civil Society in various themes.
- I also had the chance to work with DJ Schubert, the coordinator of all the like-minded NGOs. Many daily e-mails are exchanged between us, under a closed circle, with actions, strategies, opinions and other issues.

And there was a big one!
The so called vetting process: no one is really sure why and what provoked this, but the Portuguese government gave instruction that for anyone from the NGOs and Media (governments would not be obliged to this) to attend the meeting they had to be submitted to a vetting process. This was an unprecedented and specific threat to the transparency and legal functioning of the IWC at the meeting. NGOs were informed of this on the 5th of June through a circular with the title: IMPORTANT ISSUES RELATING TO SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS AT IWC/61. This didn’t suit very well within the NGOs.

According to this circular the local security forces in Madeira would require all representatives of NGOs and the Press to undergo security vetting before being issued with an IWC badge by the Secretariat. According to the IWC Secretariat identity badges, which are required to gain access to the meeting, would not be issued to anyone from NGOs and the Media who does not pass the vetting procedure.

As Karen Sack, from Greenpeace International putted it very well:
“We are very concerned to see that for the first time in the history of the IWC, observer rights have been made contingent on the approval of a third party, in this case Portugal as the host state. We are concerned at the precedent this may set in the future. As a matter of international law, it is the IWC itself as an international organisation that may determine who attends its meetings. You will understand that the IWC cannot be accountable only to a single Contracting Government. The recommendations of a national security service should not and may not be binding on the Secretariat of an international organisation. While immigration issues are to some extent under the control of the host State, the host State has no role whatsoever in determining who may attend the meeting.

We note that this is not about immigration. It is made clear that the issue is who will be admitted to the meeting. As such this is intruding upon the IWC’s exclusive competence. We are surprised that the Secretariat should have acceded to this request, apparently without further discussion with IWC Commissioners, but in any case, as representatives of organizations that are enjoy Observer Status in accordance to the rules of the IWC, we cannot allow this breach of rules to take place.

[This was an outrage and a violation of] the Aarhus Convention, to which Portugal is a party. [It] guarantees the rights of access to information and public participation in decision-making.  Each Party must endeavour to ensure that officials and authorities assist and provide guidance to the public in seeking access to information and in facilitating participation in decision-making, including, specifically, in international environmental decision-making processes and within the framework of international organizations in matters relating to the environment, such as the IWC.  The Convention also requires that each Party shall ensure that persons exercising their rights in conformity with the provisions of the Convention shall not be penalized, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement. The public is to have access to information and the possibility to participate in decision-making without discrimination as to citizenship, nationality or domicile.”

Read all of Karen Sack’s letter here

There were many movements regarding this issue and Karen Sack, Sue Lieberman, Rémi Parmentier, Sidney Hotl and I were instrumental in revoking this route. The Portuguese government, I think, was not aware and didn’t envisage the proportions and seriousness this decision could have meant, if it was enforced. I was in close contact with Luis Freitas from the Whale Museum of Madeira, who was also part of our commission (the Portuguese one). He was tireless in assisting with virtually everything that came up, including the issue of the vetting process. In the end I believe the Portuguese Government was scared of retaliation by the NGOs, something that would have a gigantic coverage by all press around the globe. The main issue, I suppose, was a security breach by any of the NGOs with actions regarding whaling and this vetting process in my opinion was the way they found to remove possible trouble-makers; and again, all for the good of the harmony and friendly spirits.

All of this happened even before the plenary opening on the 22nd of June.
When the meeting started and after some talks with Milko Shvartzman (Greenpeace), Leslie Busby (PEW Environment Group), Patrick Ramage (IFAW), Vassili Papastavrou (IFAW), Mick McIntyre (Whales Alive) and some others, I was already getting into a depression and feeling very little motivation to extend any efforts regarding this doomed commission!

And then the “circus” (term I think fits very well to describe the IWC) began!!

(The daily resumes were initially made by Vassili Papastavrou from IFAW, but I changed them and commented of them, but the base was his work)

Day 1- Monday 22^nd of June 2009

Voting rights; the following countries had their voting rights suspended as a result of being behind with their payments:  Cameroon (voting always with Japan  member since 2005), Gambia (voting always with Japan – member since 2005), Guatemala (a “dodger”, was originally recruited by Japan to join the IWC but didn’t really knew what it was get in, NGO work and civil society quickly made it come around, but it avoids IWC affairs as often as possible, it is expected that it will leave the IWC sometime in the future – member since 2006), Guinea-Bissau (a Portuguese speaking country, recruited and voting always with Japan – member since 2007), Kenya (voting always with Japan – member since 1981), Mali (voting always with Japan – member since 2004), Palau (voting always with Japan – member since 2002), Peru (for conservation, was also for some time a Japanese puppet until Greenpeace made it come around – member since 1979), Senegal (voting always with Japan – member since 1982), Tanzania (voting always with Japan: member since 2008) and Togo (voting always with Japan – member since 2005).

From the 11 countries behind their membership payments, 8 adhered to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) during the Japanese recruitment program initiated in 2002 (detailed in the “Japan’s vote consolidation operation”, a report by Leslie Busby and the 3^rd Millenium Foundation). This raises the rhetorical question: Why are these countries really in the IWC; to defend their national interests or someone else’s?

However, the secretary hoped that there would not be any voting at this meeting.  Hogarth as Chair urged that there should be no resolutions unless they could go through by consensus.

Consensus is the illusion of good relations and harmony lived inside the IWC, this is a pre-request for “the deal” to be forged and accepted by the commission. In reality it is an agreement by Japan and the USA

NGO Speakers.  NGOs will address the meeting on Wednesday morning.  Those speaking from our side are Sidney Holt, Patti Forkhan and Mark Simmonds.  Statements from the speakers have been received.

Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues:  the report of this Committee was introduced and briefly discussed.  Very briefly discussed as Japan, Norway and Iceland do not supply animal welfare to the IWC.  There will be a workshop in Hawaii to look at welfare issues of entangled whales and the humane killing of whales that cannot be disentangled.

Shortest time spent at the IWC:  Huw Irranca Davies (UK Minister) came to the meeting after lunch today for about a couple of hours.  He returns to the UK this evening.

The Small Working Group: the process to negotiate a deal will continue with a re-constituted group.  It will be smaller than before and more of the discussions will apparently be open to NGO observers.   It has yet to be discussed but a “consensus resolution” on the subject has been distributed.

I’m always wary when talking about the SWG as a whole and the progressions it will (or might) make in the future. My guess is that it will drown the IWC into pointless discussions and negotiations for years, because the disagreeing parts will not simplify the process and the current consensus feeling is a mere misapprehension for a deal to be reached, is a deception and fantasy that all is good, steps forward are being taken and this whaling thing will be all solved in a few more meetings. It is not real and does not reflect the current state of affairs.

Day 2 – Tuesday 23^rd of June 2009

Whale watching Press Conference.  At lunch time IFAW launched Whale watching worldwide, the new report on the economic value of whale watching, at a press conference with Peter Garrett, Australian Federal Environment Minister.  Patrick Ramage and I spoke.  The minister gave an excellent summary and generously mentioned IFAW frequently in his speech.   Good press attendance and excellent media coverage.

Report available here

Future of the IWC.  long speeches in the morning on the negotiations regarding the proposed “deal”, starting with a very powerful intervention from Australia (Garrett) which set the tone for the anti-whaling countries.  Equally robust interventions from Japan and the other whaling countries.  Outcome so far is a consensus resolution for the process to continue another year and states the terms for a smaller Small Working Group, apparently more openness etc.

Greenland humpbacks.  Presentation with PowerPoint regarding the Greenland request to add 10 humpbacks per annum to the catch.  A flurry of emotive speeches from the Caribbeans and other developing countries.  List of speakers cut off and further discussion today.  Greenland has hinted that it will leave the IWC (if it can! maybe it can’t without Denmark leaving too).

Japan Small type coastal whaling and South Korea Whaling.  Long presentations from both Japan and Korea (Korea was new this year).  Unclear how many whales Korea wants to take and no written documents.  Japan wanted 150 but withdrew its request because of the “Future” discussions.

I must say I’m very worried about the coastal type whaling, it terminology and usage.

I had the chance to discuss this with some people including Sidney Holt, who also classifies the coastal whaling discussion as “dangerous”.

Read here the full opinion on terminology by Sidney Holt

EU Coordination.   Cumbersome this year (long coordination meetings).   The test will be to find a common position on the Greenland quota.

It failed totally! And as good Europeans we tried to get our guilt into someone else’s back. Words circulating were that we [Europeans] didn’t get any support from other countries, we were left alone, consensus inside the bloc couldn’t be reached etc.

Greenland is a European “problem”, so it needs to be solved by us, do not blame the Latin Americans and other countries for our cowardice and lack of strength…

Day 3 – Tuesday 24^th June 2009

Whale watching.  Australian minister Peter Garrett introduced the IFAW report, Whale Watching Worldwide to the IWC Commission meeting with an excellent speech, crediting IFAW for its production on the floor of the meeting. There was a great deal of support on the floor for the report, with the only adverse comments from St Lucia, which felt we had under-reported the value of whale watching in its country.

JARPN- Scientific Whaling in the North Pacific.  The IWC discussion took place following an intersessional review of the JARPN programme.   As to be expected there were a mixture of views with strong condemnation by some countries and support from others.  Of note was a strong statement of opposition by the USA (in additional to other usual countries).

NGO presentations. There were six five minute NGO presentations.  From our side, Susan Millward [replacing Mark Simmonds], Sidney Holt and Patti Forkhan spoke.  All the interventions were very good and supported by the NGOs present.  IFAW signed on to all three statements. His main proposal was that the Small Working Group considers a permanent end to all commercial and scientific whaling with a brief phase out period similar to the moratorium decision.

Japan made the point of order that Mark Simmonds was part of the UK’s Commission. He being one of the speakers for the NGOs would raise questions on Mr. Simmonds true role. If he was sitting into a commissioner’s seat, he had no business talking, at the same meeting, into a NGO stool. As strange as it may appear I agree with Japan of this; I always defended that NGO people cannot compromise their work being two-sided. Or we stand for civil society as observers or we take care of our country’s interests, can’t have both! The appropriate interaction to have, I believe, is NGOs offering advice and consultation to governments and for that we do not need a blue badge (NGOs get green badges and governments have blue ones). Also Mr. Simmonds having the blue badge could raise his hand any time he wanted and speak, freely, cannot get any better than that!

Mark Simmonds was then replaced by Susan Milllward, who in the end read Mr. Simmonds text.

I don’t mean any disrespect to the NGO speakers on the conservation side, who have been invaluable to the movement and conservation of whales, and who I deeply admire. However, I must say that Japan and the pro-whaling bloc, was way smarter than us in this regard!

They got a Japanese speaker (representing the International Transport Workers, A Russian Native (from the Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chuktoka) and Te Ohu Kaimoana (New Zealand natives). The first speaker was a crew member on a Japanese “research” whaling ship and he addressed safety at sea, condemning the aggressive actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The second two speakers defended the native right to hunt whales and encouraged the IWC to compromise to move the organization forward.

Smarter because we had civil representatives from Norway, Iceland, Japan, Senegal and other countries recruited by Japan, and we chose to use the occidental, first countries, white people to talk. This gives arguments to Japan’s usage as propaganda to tell their citizens: “see this is oppression from the west that we need to oppose it, this is our tradition” etc. and people will buy it! Also having campaigners from countries that are pro-whaling to take the stance, their speech is prolonged in the future, used in campaigns in their countries, stating that the participation of their country in the IWC is biased and compromised, not representing the views of their citizens. We had 3 excellent speeches but they died there, I just think we were not very strategic on this matter, and with this the only participation NGOs have on the IWC meetings was gone!

Even though I liked all speeches I will make public available the one from Dr. Sidney J. Holt. A great speech from a great mind!

“(…) The wondrous, vulnerable whales will never contribute substantially to the food security of humans. Nor do they threaten it. Despite insistent propaganda they’re not responsible for the troubles of the fishing industry.

Commercial whaling is now unnecessary, is inhumane, and is even unprofitable, continuing – subsidized – for minimal financial gain. (…)”

Read it here.

Safety at Sea. There was a long presentation by Japan regarding the conflicts between Sea Shepherd and the Japanese fleet in the Southern ocean.  Several countries stated that the IWC was not the appropriate forum to determine the rights and wrongs of the issue.  Some thought that the IMO could do this, however most realised that it was the responsibility of the flag states and the port state.

The usual same …

NGO reception.  The NGO evening reception was well-attended by IWC commissioners (as well as NGOs!).  It was notable by the absence of speeches, except that Patrick and Sara Holden from Greenpeace presented Sidney Holt with a t-shirt to commemorate 50 years since he first attended an IWC meeting.  Patrick, Sara and Francisco [yes, myself :-)] organised the design of the t-shirt which listed all the locations of the IWC meetings Sidney had attended.

Day 4 – Wednesday 25th June 2009

Greenland Humpbacks.  IFAW does not campaign on aboriginal whaling.  The discussion continued behind the scenes with serious lobbying from a number of countries on both sides.  No consensus could be found even for a reduced proposal.  In the event it was agreed to set up a scientific intersessional group to resolve some of the remaining issues with the idea that a decision should be taken prior to the 2010 hunting season.

Climate Change Resolution.  A resolution, drafted by USA and Norway was adopted by consensus.  The resolution draws attention to the IWC climate change workshop and supports its conclusions, directs the scientific committee to continue work on the subject and calls on governments to take urgent action to reduce the rate and extent of climate change

Intersessional IWC meeting.  I think it was agreed that one should be held (probably following a meeting of the Chairs Support group of 12 countries in Chile in October 2009)

Last word from the USA: Monica Medina signified a clear take over at the end of the meeting to a new Obama Team but graciously thanked Hogarth and DeMaster for all their hard work.  “Obama” was mentioned at least three times in her remarks.

New Chairman: Cristian Maquieira from Chile, with whom we have good relations – he is very NGO friendly. He noted that the business of the commission is protecting whales.  Anthony Liverpool (Antigua and Barbuda) is the new vice chair.

Initially it was supposed to be the Portuguese Commissioner, Dr. Jorge Palmeirim, to take the position of Chairman, but he was then informed that, after some debate, that Portugal didn’t made part, it was decided (I wonder by who!) that it would be the Chilean Comissioner to take the place. I would like to see the IWC problems solved under a Portuguese Chairmanship, but I believe we are still on time for that maybe in the next ten years!

NGO Participation.  France urged that the meeting become properly open to NGO speakers and received support from Hogarth.   Maquieira also mentioned the importance of civil society in his speech.

Date and Place of next meeting: Agadir, Morocco in May and June 2010

Final remarks (and leftover thoughts):
I had the change to spend some time with Sea Shepherd and the crew of Captain Paul Watson, good people, was fun to get out with them!
Also all the Surfers for Cetaceans crew was amazing to be able to interact with them the way I did first in the Portuguese mainland a then at the meeting, where Dave Rastovich, Hilts Dawe and Johnny Vass joined us, shame I missed their party on the last day!

The vetting thing was not that over during the meeting, by the way, there were many people being targeted for regular inspections, and one of the security people let it slip off while I was talking with him that there was a list, and people on that list had to be pass inspections! One of “those” people on the list was my co-worker Naoko Funahashi, who was very mad at some point, but it served the purpose and she wasn’t bothered any more.  Security was nice and were obeying orders, as their role demands, but to me always friendly, no harass at all.

I close this post with a statement by Mark Simmonds that I feel sums up this meeting.

“So where were we – ah yes in the gloom of a vast meeting chamber of a big international meeting room where ‘nothing is decided until everything is decided’ … or possibly just ‘nothing is decided’.  – Mark Simmonds (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society)