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

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

I was astonished, dismayed, and angry, by all the footage, and some of my colleagues at the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said that is was very hard even to watch. There is no special effects on the images, it is true blood and slaughter.

But a full year would pass by before I had the chance of seeing the full version. It was played at the room 303 of the Pestana Casino Hotel, the same venue where the IWC 61st meeting was being held. Then I realised that I started to see some of the main characters of the movie in different occasions and places.

The man who opened the door was Charles Hambleton, one of the cameras, but I recognized him from before. Back in 2006, he was also at the same beach I was in St. Kitts, he was holding a camera, and I was being arrested for “unlawful demonstration”, the term used on my deportation order. Yes I got deported from that Caribbean island.

Also the day prior to that, Ric O’Barry also did his demonstration holding a flat screen with images of the Taiji bay dolphin killing season rolling, in the face of the Japanese delegation, in the middle of a ongoing schedule of the IWC meeting.

Also in 2008, during the IWC meeting in Santiago, Chile, I met Captain Paul Watson, the leader of Sea Shepherd, Dave Rastovich and Howie Cooke, 2 of the minds behind Surfers for Cetaceans.

I watched the movie next to Junichi, a Greenpeace activist arrested and now waiting for trial, for exposing the true nature of the “research” endeavour Japan takes every year in the Southern Ocean, killing around 1000 whales.

In the end of the movie Junichi pointed out that Hideki Moronuki, Deputy of Fisheries for Japan, was not fired, as the film claims. This a policy of the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), he was reassigned to a different position. This is in fact very cleaver, leaving us, the activists and people working on the issue, never knowing who is where.

Is is behind doubt the best documentary I’ve ever seen! So arm yourself with knowledge and learn what you can do!

However, I must say I don’t get the critics to Greenpeace and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). We also (me having made part of IFAW in several occasions, and Greenpeace on others) make a lot of effort in trying for things to come around, maybe Ric O’Barry and Sea Shepherd, do things a little different or on other fronts, I don’t condemn them even though sometimes I even might disagree with some of their tactics, but ultimately we are working towards the same goal.

No one is perfect, neither is Ric O’Barry, Greenpeace, IFAW, Sea Shepherd, or all of them combined. I don’t really get the point of these pointing fingers …

Although I do agree that perhaps Greenpeace and IFAW could take a much more active position on this. However the work they have done inside the IWC has made possible in many fronts a better world for whales and dolphin. And I do know and have been working with passionate people that do whatever they can to stop whaling.

Better, not enough…
Still, 23.000 dolphins are killed or sold alive every year, coming from the cove of Taiji, and what keeps this going is the DOLPHINARIUM INDUSTRY! Every time you go and watch a dolphin show at a zoo or sea-life aquarium, you are actively contributing to the slaughter and suffering of these animals, there is no way around this fact!

But this is part of a bigger picture and to put a stop to these we need to work together, not away from each other and pointing finger out.

However I do understand Ric O’Barry claims, and can also relate to it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw5qgVp0jng

Ric O’Barry argues that all dolphins should be delivered to their natural habitat, the ocean.  I agree! No cetacean should be taken from the ocean to be put on a swimming pool, but if we learned anything from the Orca Keiko (main character on the movie “save willy”), is that the releasing of animals with long period of confinement back to the ocean, leads to almost certain death. However all dolphins capable of readapting to their TRUE and NATURAL environment (the ocean), should be released AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

I would also propose a phase-out. No dolphin is captured for aquariums of any kind, and there would be no more reproduction in captivity. When the last captive dolphin dies, the industry dies with it. Ah, an no more dolphin circus-like activities, too, please! This blocks the mind of people, who watch the shows, it is an animal doing tricks for food, there is nothing emotional or educational on that.

I also agree with something that Ric O’Barry says that, Dolphins are whales, size doesn’t matter! In fact even on scientific terms there are no whales and dolphins, there are Mysticetis (Baleen whales) and Odontocetis (toothed whales). Dolphins and Whales are common-names, derived from the family delphinidae, a sub-group of Odontocetis. For example a Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) is not a whale is a dolphin, also The Orca (Orcinus orca), also known as killer whale, is not a whale is a dolphin, the largest of its family. So big that is has the same size of a minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis), now the main target of Japanese whaling (since all larger whales were hunted to the break of extinction), but still Japan argues that some species are whales and other should not be under the mandate of the IWC.

Furthermore, Japan says that whaling and the killing of dolphins is part of their heritage and tradition, is this is so, why is that most of the Japanese population doesn’t know about it? All is it is a bogus claim and a fat lie.

Mercury poison, is all that is left after eating a dolphin from the bay of Taiji, the recommended total level of mercury in seafood, by Japanese standards should be 0.4 ppm (parts per million), analysis of meat from dolphins killed in the bay of Taiji account for 2000 ppm!!!

But the aim of the killings in the bay of Taiji is not the meat, that is a by-product, resulting from the dolphin not selected to be sold for dolphinariums around the world for 150.000 dollars each!

Is that’s their tradition, and heritage?

People say they relate to dolphins and feel connected with them in this way. What a stupid thing, they just want to please themselves with something they relate to, in their twisted mind, having a creature in confinement doing repetitive movements, no singular movements or free will, all trained for the purpose of pleasing someone that wants to kiss, touch and hug… is this you relate to? Think again!

A semana passada, uma pessoa do Oceanário de Lisboa perguntou-me se as pessoas ligadas a instituições como a Greenpeace e o Fundo Internacional para a Protecção da Vida Animal (IFAW), como é o meu caso, viam ou não com bons olhos o trabalho desenvolvido pelo Oceanário de Lisboa.

Esse penso ser um estigma já ultrapassado, porque acredito que desde que sejam dadas as devidas condições para os animais serem mantidos em cativeiro, e existem vários indicadores de bem-estar que podem ser monitorizados, estes transformam-se autênticos embaixadores do mundo oceânico, que permitem a milhares de pessoas (o oceanário festejou recentemente a visita do visitante 12 milhões) ter contacto com um mundo submerso que de outra forma seria totalmente impossível.

Mas uma coisa é a posição oficial da Greenpeace ou IFAW, outra é as pessoas que trabalham com eles, que nem sempre reflectem a posição pública da ONG, e que muitas vezes é algo extremista.

Penso ainda que existe uma diferença abismal entre uma instituição como o Oceanário de Lisboa e por exemplo, empresas como delfinários (onde se proporcionam espectáculos com golfinhos e outros animais, que fazem truques e acrobacias a troco de comida, para contentamento da audiência), em que nestes não é possível proporcionar um bem-estar adequado. Os golfinhos baseiam a sua vida na acústica, e para um animal que consegue distinguir uma bola com 6,5cm de outra com 7,5cm a 70 metros de distância, através de meios acústicos, uma vida numa piscina em que cada uso do seu sistema de ecolocação  se converte em tortura com o reflexo do som em todas as paredes do tanque onde estão cativos a entrar nos seus cérebros e a descarregar informação de confinamento. Estes em cativeiro deixam mesmo de usar o seu sistema de percepção sensorial.
Claro que a solução não é libertar estes animais, visto que muitos deles, já nascidos em cativeiro (que é um evento não muito comum, difícil de acontecer naturalmente e de manter as crias vivas até à idade adulta), não se adaptariam ao meio natural.
Contudo oponho-me à captura destes animais, do seu ambiente natural para piscinas de entretenimento, para satisfazer a um público que fica com uma ideia totalmente deturpada do comportamento natural destes cetáceos, da sua fisiologia, ecologia e  dignidade.

O papel do Oceanário de Lisboa, bem diferente de um delfinário, e de instituições similares na actualidade é vital para a conservação e consciencialização social para os problemas que assolam os oceanos e as criaturas que vivem e de ele dependem.

“O Oceanário celebra a vida na Terra através de uma visão deslumbrante da vasta e complexa diversidade de seres vivos que habitam este Oceano Global, evocando o papel vital que este exerce na saúde e evolução planetária.”
Francisca Menezes Ferreira in “Pavilhão do Oceanos – Exposição Mundial de Lisboa de 1998″

As pessoas quando vêm acreditam, quando lêem, nem sempre. Ou é uma realidade tão distante que não se conseguem relacionar. É esse o papel do oceanário, aproximar realidades, e deslumbrar-nos, sempre que olhamos para aquele enorme tanque.

E esta é uma história de que como este papel é importante.

“O Pollock do Alasca (Theragra chalcogramma) caiu de “a melhor escolha” para “uma boa alternativa” para os consumidores, na última avaliação da espécie pelo Monterey Bay Aquarium, que publica a lista/cartão Seafood Watch usado por milhões de restaurantes quando encomendam peixe.”

E com as falhas na governança internacional a todos os níveis que esta tenta actuar resta-nos a nós, através de instrumentos como este fazer uma escolha, e que essa seja um futuro melhor para nós e as gerações vindouras.

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

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.

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 :-)

It will start tomorrow as I have a meeting with Rémi Parmentier and Alex Garcia at FLAD (Luso-American Foundation). This is to start organizing the set-up of the meeting that we will have next week in Lisbon hosted by PEW, Varda Group and FLAD.
The work in Africa seems on a good stance and there will be a new effort on Sao Tome and Principe this year. I was also invited to collaborate on the opening of a communitarian centre of artisanal fisheries. Sound to me very interesting and something that can help out the coastal community of the country on a very benefic way.

The week started very well, I was in Lisbon with a very good friend of mine, Kike, drinking mate, chatting about all and every subjects. Then Tuesday I was with another very good friend, Mariana that I haven’t seen for a while and her mum, Teresa, for the first time since the last 3 years. It was superb, Mariana is an extension of my soul, and with whom I developed a great empathy and connection over the years. We seem to work at the same level in terms of professional achievements; however we have chosen different paths and ways of achieving the same thing, CHANGE! World change …

Beside that life goes smooth, working on the house and re-building the last bits there is to finish. Very fulfilling and good fun, well, apart from the times when things go very wrong and then I get much stressed trying to remediate my mistakes!
Surf hasn’t been so good lately but got a new board from Gero and I’m quite excited about it!
Also, I’m getting more and more into Jiu-Jitsu, it is really like a chess game more than a fight. Got my first graduation and working on some more!

Scandal within the IWC in again on top of the table…
“Apparently” (IFAW and I have been saying this since the IWC meeting in Chile on last July) the Bush Administration is trying to reach a deal with the Japanese to solve all the whaling issue. (We also start the meeting saying other things that turned almost everyone against us but in the end of the meeting many press releases came out saying what we badgering all along!)

Washington Post story about the attempts to craft a deal
IFAW’s press release on the secret Bush’s administration plan to legitimise Japanese whaling

NGOs are now asking President Obama to cancel all negotiations regarding this “coup d’état”.
Read Greenpeace pledge to President Obama to assert authority and replace officials

I keep saying that this year things will get very interesting, the only down side seems to be me stuffed down on a suit and tie … funny!

Personally: My house was in construction most of the time; some of the plans were from my father some mine, some from my mum. Much work was needed and I was part of every task, which was quite fulfilling. Now the second phase of construction began and I’m quite enthusiastic about it.

Professionally: I had to get back to Sao Tome and Principe (STP) a small island on West Africa and ensure they didn’t join Japan at the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the international body that regulates whaling.  I was one of the lecturers at the Forum Biodiversity and Ecotourism, with the talk; Non-lethal use of Cetaceans a multidisciplinary perspective. I eventually accomplished the mission (with much help from various people) with success since STP didn’t show up at Chile for the 60^th meeting of the IWC.

At the Chilean meeting I was representing the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) with whom I hold a contract until the next IWC meeting that will take place in Madeira, Portugal.
I also got into a business I never had the chance to really be, Surf Industry. I started working with Fatum Surfboards and now I’m in charge of their website (www.fatumsurfboards.com)

Emotionally: I got involved with a fine and very special girl but unfortunately before the end of the year we broke up. My wish is that we can still relate from now on a different dimension. Whoever, the task is not easy.

2009 is a very important year because much is expected of me until and during the IWC meeting in Madeira. My only hope is that I can perform at the level I’m expected to, accomplish much and get a place at this field of work. Some other plans are also on the cooking but nothing certain yet.

I hope this year may bring you happiness, laughter, health and prosperity!

During 2009 we will have the conjunction of Jupiter and Neptune, Jupiter 24′ south. First of three in a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Neptune (May 25^th). . A total solar eclipse (on July 22nd). The longest lasting total solar eclipse of the 21st century; and sometime during November the retail sale of incandescent light bulbs will be banned in Australia. Just to mention 3 events.