Sunday Times investigation over Japan bribery over Whaling! A MUST SEE!
Vote Buying Scandal in the International Whaling Commission
Reply
Tag Archives: IWC
Controversial whaling proposal fails at global meeting
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
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
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.
The [bloody] Cove
The fisrt time I saw footage of this film, was at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), in Chile, 2008. I also had the chance of meeting some of the people involved in the making, Louie Psihoyos and Joe Chisholm, from Ocean Preservation Society (OPS).
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.
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!
The End of Whaling in the Southern Ocean (?!?!)
I recall the message from the pro surfer and environmentalist warrior Dave Rastovich, just days before the 61st International Whaling Commission meeting started in Madeira, Portugal. He ended it by saying that “Honour and respect are nowhere to be found within the modern whaling crime”.
This sentence to me marked that meeting and period, when Japan uses corruption end to meet his aims, with no regard to nature and the livelihood and heritage of the next generations, using resources for profit or stubbornness, if that resources goes extinct, it doesn’t really matter. The IWC61 itself was a big hole full of nothing, and especially big governmental mouths full of empty words and no actions, no resolutions and no whales saved during that meeting.
Mr. Mark Simmonds summed it up very well when he wrote on his blog: “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’”
I was profoundly sad and as it has been usual during the last period that I’ve attended the IWC and done actions and contributed to the movement devoted to end whaling, I was feeling what I like to call a “post-action depression”. Happens after a very intense period of work and by the end of it nothing has been accomplished. Our struggle was in vain, and it has been since Japan started whaling in the southern ocean sanctuary, to recruit countries to their side, and established a stalemate inside the IWC, meaning that nothing changes year after year.
But some light is shinning ahead, maybe it is a tunnel end, or not…
In the beginning of the year I wrote an entry titled “And if the crisis would solve the whaling issue?” where I wondered that even though “we cannot really forecast what will happen, and do nothing but wondering about it [while we keep fighting to make whaling history], the fuel prices will fell dramatically, the Japanese whaling industry and hardware is getting old and they been having repeated misfortunes lately. The Oriental Bluebird, the refueling vessel that would go down to the Antarctic lost its registration and Panamá flag and is now registered in Japan requiring more staff and funds etc.”
Now it seems that my thoughts were not so astray.
The eminent change it is not only due to crisis, but to a number of given situations lead by it. Political change in Japan itself; shortly after taking office last October the Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama confide his dislike for whale meat saying that “I hate whale meat”.
Even thou the government at the time was showing no signs of discontinue the policy followed by his antecedents; buttressing up an unnecessary, unsustainable and uneconomic industry that has no place in the 21st century, now things seem to be changing.
IFAW was also focusing efforts inside Japan and with other NGOs such as Greenpeace urged the new Prime Minister to rethink about Japan stance on whaling and its national fleet.
The end of whaling in the southern ocean seems a possible reality now! I have withstand long conversations with Milko Schvartzman from Greenpeace International, and his belief was that if we are to save whales, the frontline of resistance must be inside Japan, our activism our efforts must come from within. Us on the outside are like little helpers, and can do just up to some point. My dear friend Sidney Holt also shared that vision; he always says that whaling has to be so economically unbearable that it is abandoned.
Now it seems that crisis will also affect whaling. We hope!
Information arrived to me via the Greenpeace International website with the topic: End of Japanese whaling might be in sight.
On it you can read:
“A major review of Japanese government spending could spell the end to whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
Commissioned to cut wasteful programmes by Japan’s new government, a review committee has proposed massive cuts in subsidies to a body which funds the so-called whaling research programme.
Without government subsidies, the whaling programme would be doomed.
The Spending Review Committee recommended that the Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Fund (OFCF), which gives loans to the Institute for Cetacean Research (ICR) to run the discredited science programme, have all of its funding revoked, except monies needed for loans in 2010.
The OFCF claims it needs 70.4 billion yen (around US$780 million) for various programmes, including whaling, in 2010. The Review Committee and Cabinet Office will determine by early next year if the proposed operations for 2010 are actually “necessary” or should also be cut.
The Institute for Cetacean Research, which runs the whaling programme, has failed to repay government loans for several years now, as demand for whale meat has plummeted and the cost of whaling increased. Practises which would have lead to bankruptcy for any commercial firm have been the target of outspoken criticism not only from Greenpeace Japan, but from the business press and even the former spokesperson for the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Tomohiko Taniguchi. Taniguchi lamented the financial propping up of a programme that caused endless headaches for Tokyo abroad and generated revenues worth “less than one-tenth the value of the country’s annual market for toothbrushes.”
With the change in government at the recent election, a new focus on reducing spending and cutting wasteful programmes.
Two Greenpeace activists, Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, have spoken out against the cost of the whaling programme and the fact that only a handful of fat-cat bureaucrats really profit from the programme. Last year alone it cost 8 billion yen, or nearly US$90 million, to run the annual Southern Ocean whale hunt. Of that, 1.2 billion yen, or more than US$10 million, came from government subsidies. The rest is in theory covered by the sales of whale meat.”
Still I’m not 100% convinced and I’m afraid that what Japan does is to resize their fleet, keep its recruited countries in sufficient number to take away a 75% majority to the pro-whale bloc inside the IWC thus preventing them from taking resolutions to vote that are binding; and keep on whaling. Other perspective if for Japan to hold its status as it is until the Small Working Group (SWG) negotiations are finished, and accomplish its goals and face-saving.
But I’m optimistic; the actions lead by Junichi and Toru had a big impact, not only in the media but also, because there was some tight control over meat coming from the Antarctic, some Japanese whalers stopped from going boarding for the Antarctic whaling season. Because, without the extra money they were making from meat they kept for free, after returning from the Antarctic, it was not worth to embark on that voyage. For this reason Japan had to start hiring and training whalers from Korea and other countries of Southeast Asia, making whaling even more expensive. Also the toll they get with their recruiting programme in order to have enough support inside the IWC and control roughly 50% of votes is so big that I wonder until when can it keep up, with an industry that doesn’t contribute to the Japanese economy health, and in fact it is a drag and forces Japan to spend taxpayers’ money, rather than making profit.
Now we need to keep up with our work, in my opinion we should even direct more actions and efforts inside Japan, and watch as a economical crisis and the necessity of cuts on public spending, take whalers from the southern ocean sanctuary forever, as it should be!
IWC Intersessional – Day 3
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 8th 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
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
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 :-)
The Fixer
During my short career I’ve been called many things, but the name that stands out the most is beyond any doubt the one Alex Garcia from Varda Group gave me on the Secretariat description for the PEW Whales Commission meeting held in Lisbon last week, THE FIXER.
It was also the first time I have a name plate, just for me once! I know is noting special but it was nice nonetheless.
My duties included that all logistics and issues that appear during the meeting concerning the participant and all affairs related to them and the gathering were running smooth as a well oiled machine.
PEW was trying to create an INDEPENDENT commission not bound by countries policies and interests, it turned out not to be the case.
I remember waking up from a fuzzy dream that I cannot even recall and it was Monday the 9th of February, date that the meeting was supposed to take off. Everything was set to go apart from finishing the welcome packages, something that Alex and I did rather quickly before the chairman Dr. Peter Bridgewater gave the kick off.
After a “tour de table” and everyone knew who was things started to become a bit clearer when William de la Mer gave his presentation. Most of the people seated at the commission’s table had no clue in relation to the International Whalling Commission (IWC) terms and perspectives of many background. I’m pretty sure some of them went home wandering what pelagic was and got nothing from the precautionary approach and stock (but what is a stock anyway?) management. And when things get to the complex stocks and the Cj and Co stocks things get even better. Not to mention what is the RMS (Revised Management Scheme) and so on.
My point here is that ok, I’m fond of the idea of getting some freshers to the issue and hope they find ways to break the stalemate the IWC was drowned into some years ago and still endures. But IWC is an intricate game of seduction and power that one needs a multidisciplinary perspective in order to perceive the problem in its plenitude. That is, political, scientific and economical background. On their on matters alone I have to say that it will go nowhere, even realizing that the biggest issue is the political rather than anything else, however, to circumvent that a lot of history and knowledge of IWC procedures was also needed.
Like Mário Ruivo said Global Management is a Big Problem to mankind” after saying that Portuguese society has no clue on the status of the IWC and has no involvement on the issue (very true). So in some ways I believe that the participants needed a week or so of “classes” before they could actually deliver possible solutions and hypothesis for a break-out of the conflict.
PEW established 3 different options as possible solutions for the stalemate.
A) Adopt the 1994 specification of the RMP into schedule, as part of a larger process.
B) Establish catch limits for coastal whaling (CW) using the Agreed RMP
C) Develop a new [less precautionary] management approach for coastal whaling.
For starts what is coastal whaling? Well it can be described as whaling practised on a country’s EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), or something along these lines. However the IWC has not defined CW! If Japan’s main objective is to go whaling and obtain whale meat for human consumption (however I must speak my mind saying that it is my belief that no one really knows what Japan wants…) it won’t serve the purpose of letting them any type of CW since the whales they have in the EEZ of Japan are contaminated with mercury and are a potential health hazard!
When Dr. Russel Leaper from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) gave his presentation and showed how unsustainable the coastal whaling scheme is, it made the Ambassador uneasy and it showed visible discomfort saying Dr. Leaper’s statements were biased said “look at the facts” but gave any etc.. The danger I see on the CW subject is if other countries (namely puppets of Japan) come up and issue CW permits …
After that Lorenzo Rojas (IWC Commissioner of Mexico) name very good scientific questions to Dr. Leaper that shown how CW cannot be done under the RMP.
Japan claims that many issue are out of the competence of the IWC (but even the IWC having the most incredible and reliable line-up of whale scientists it doesn’t allow its DNA database to be scrutinized by it), such as bycatch and whale-watching. Enough is to say that what seems clear is that Japan claims are to its own vested interests and not more than that!
Still in relation to the Scientific Committee (SC) of the IWC many other interrogations and issues were put forward. The SC has the stigma of lacking credibility, and providing its yearly conclusions to the Commissioners 48h prior to the meeting. How can an 800 page document be well evaluated in such a short time? The SC meeting should be made well in advance in relation to the Countries Delegations meeting.
Sue Lieberman from WWF urged the importance of decoupling science from politics and Mário Ruivo added that the IWC is “dysfunctional not in terms of science and its credibility, but in terms of governance”.
Speaking about the long standing slogan that Japan uses saying whales are a threat to food security she mentioned that food is 40%-50% what is taken from the ocean and treated as waste!!! So go figure …
I had a hard time trying to communicate with Ms. Ngoné Ndoye Senator and Mayor of Senegal, I really need to improve my French! A lovely lady with a great sense of humour, who was despaired during lunch when I couldn’0t find Tabasco for her to add to her meal! But as a good fixer I found a full bottle just for her!
I was registering some quotes during the meeting, some that I found interesting were:
“When you open Pandora’s box you don’t know what comes out” – Peter Bridgewater
Yolanda Kakabadse made the point that if the IWC breaks down or becomes functional it will also imply that “people would have to find new jobs. Like the ones that take on countries that are non-compliant”. Here I think resides one of the big problems of IWC and why I realized that some NGOs are actually happy with the process as it is! Yolanda’s (who loves Fado) statement affects me directly since my latest work is to look at non-compliant countries, but my desire is to solve the IWC’s stalemate with a victory to whales, ensuring her place on this planet is guaranteed and move forward to another subject!
Peter Bridgewater also stated that “Madeira will be an important turning point or the death of the IWC”. I wouldn’t say it would be its death but if was to be a turning point it would make me feel very proud I must say! It was followed by Yolanda Kakabadse asking the Portuguese Secretary of Environment Humberto Rosa for “leadership on the run up to Madeira”. She also say and with much truth that “international governance is a mess!”
Barry Cohen was very emotive and I think one of those who had no country related opinion but its own. He asked for the PEW Whales Commission to “cut the bullshit approach!” and asked “how do you want to reach consensus between two opposite parts that are not going to back down on their positions?” and added the question: “Why do you keep tapping around the bush and don’t come out to the open and speak your mind?”, for much of my amusement!
He also mentioned an interesting episode that involved much emotion from the Japanese public towards animals (Japan also argues that the whaling debate is driven by emotional motives rather than rational and sustainable use of resources). Barry was the Australian Environment Minister at the time and was he who signed the first export of Koalas from Australia to Japan. He recalls it as being very emotional and the Japanese public went “nuts” when he had to give the “biggest press conference ever” in Japan and say that the Koalas would take an additional 6 months to arrive. It however turned out to be a sad story when one of the Koalas died already being in Japan and the keep committed suicide. Can you get more emotional than this?
Other subject that was discussed and I’m backing it fully is the fact that the question and way of taking Japan out of its way must be using economical factors. I discussed this with Sidney Holt asking him if the crisis would solve the whaling issue. If the subsidies were cut off to the whaling industry it would collapse in no time…
The end of the meeting was not so good with people taking on countries decisions and politics rather than speak their own mind. I think it was the reason why Peter Bridgewater was calling Jim McLay, New Zealand. It was a pity, but I take this meeting to be very positive, at least if we keep brainstorming new things will come up and we can find ways to solve the problem. However I think it could be on another way and angle, but that is another matter.
In sum, the issue is still bold to dash with loads of sticking points …
See the Chair Summary produced by the PEW Environment Group here
Check out the BBC report by Richard Black from the meeting.
Also see the TIME article by Brian Walsh: Will Killing Whales Save the World’s Fisheries?