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?
