Whales Win Again - Just Barely

A Report from the 57th Annual Meeting
of the International Whaling Commission

By Heather D. Rockwell, CSI Representative

The 57th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was held in the former whaling city of Ulsan, in the Republic of Korea. Ulsan was proud to be hosting this high profile, international meeting from June 13th through June 24th and it showed. From the flower topiary whales that greeted delegates as they arrived at the meeting, to the free city tours that showcased their new Jangsaengpo Whale Museum and ancient Bangudae petroglyphs, the Mayor and residents of Ulsan were delighted to share all that their city had to offer with the 400 plus delegates who attended the two-week meeting in June.

This colorful whale topiary greeted us each morning as we arrived at the Lotte Hotel, site of the 57th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, Ulsan, Republic of Korea. (Photos by Heather Rockwell)

This was my third time attending the Sub-Committee meetings and the Plenary session of the IWC as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) delegate on behalf of Cetacean Society International (CSI). During Sub-Committee week, I attended the meetings of the following Working Groups: Infractions, Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues, Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, Revised Management Scheme, and the Conservation Committee. The outcomes of these various Working Group meetings were reviewed during Plenary and are mentioned throughout the article.

The meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee was closed to NGOs, but I received some interesting insider insights from this meeting. Of particular note was the fact that the ad hoc group formed last year to develop an NGO Code of Conduct had not met and had nothing to report to the Commission. As Iceland was the leader of this group, the NGO community was relieved to hear that we were at least safe for one more year from being thrown out of the meeting. Apparently, there was quite a bit of discussion on lowering the dues for small, developing nations, which in turn would facilitate Japan in bringing more countries into the IWC to vote in their favor. Also, the issue of languages (English, Spanish, French) and translation of IWC proceedings was heavily debated.

The collective group of anti-whaling NGOs met the night before the start of Plenary to discuss whether or not Japan and its pro-whaling allies were going to have the simple majority of votes needed to push forward their whaling agenda. We had heard rumors that Japan had "bought" several new developing nations to this year's meeting to vote in Japan's favor, including Kiribati, Gambia, Nauru, Cameroon and Togo. All we could do was wait and see what happened the following morning on opening day of Plenary.

Members of the U.S. Delegation prepare for the opening day of Plenary: (l to r)
Alternate Commissioner William Hogarth, Commissioner Rolland Schmitten,
Maggie Hayes and Melanie Khanna.

Opening Day of Plenary for IWC/57/Ulsan: (l to r)
Mr. Maeng-Woo Park, Mayor of Ulsan,
Mr. Kee-Don Oh, Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries,
Henrik Fischer, Chair of the IWC,
and Dr. Nicky Grandy, Secretary of the IWC.

The Plenary session opened with a welcome from the Chair of the IWC, Henrik Fischer, followed by addresses from the Mayor of Ulsan and the Republic of Korea's Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. The IWC Secretariat Dr. Nicky Grandy informed the delegates that there were nine new IWC member nations: Mali, Kiribati, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Luxembourg, Gambia, Nauru, Togo and Cameroon. However, this was followed by the news that Belize, Costa Rica, Gambia, Kenya, Nauru, Peru and Togo had not paid their dues and their voting rights were suspended. Of the 66 member nations to the IWC, only 59 had voting rights at the start of Plenary, and two of these voting nations were noticeably absent: India and Mali.

I should report here that Kenya and Peru, recent strong supporters of whale conservation at recent Commission meetings, never did arrive and are not expected to return to the Commission. Further, the pro-whale government of Panama did attend this year's meeting and consistently voted for whale conservation. Regrettably, Panama has made it clear that they do not intend to return to future Commission meetings. The loss of these three strong voices for whale protection will be sorely missed at IWC meetings. In fact, this could just possibly tip the scales and give Japan the simple majority at IWC/58/St. Kitts next year. CSI is joining other NGOs and national delegations in reaching out to Kenya, Peru and Panama urging them to return to the Commission and vote for whale conservation.

Japan came out swinging right away, when they tried to have the discussion on the proposed South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary removed from the agenda. New Zealand challenged Japan's efforts and protested the removal of sanctuaries from the agenda. New Zealand pointed out that sanctuaries are in the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and contracting governments to the ICRW have the legal right to propose new sanctuaries. The Chair ruled with New Zealand, which led Japan to challenge the Chair's ruling and to call for a vote on his ruling. Japan was soundly defeated by a vote of 31 to 24, with two abstentions. This was an important first vote that set the tone for the remainder of the meeting.

Following their first defeat, Japan began its annual arguments to have items relating to whale conservation deleted from the agenda. These included whale killing methods (humane killing), whale watching, health issues, small cetaceans, and the abolishment of the recently established Conservation Committee. Australia formally moved to "close the debate" over the agenda and a vote was taken. By only the narrowest of margins, Japan was shut down by a vote of 29 to 28, and the agenda remained intact.

The continued efforts of Japan and its pro-whaling allies to hide their votes to kill whales behind secret ballots was defeated by a vote of 30 to 27. Nations like St. Kitts and Nevis, Guinea and the Solomon Islands spoke out on the need for secret ballots in order to protect themselves from threats from NGOs and larger, developed nations. At least this year, the votes and proceedings of the IWC remained open and transparent to all.

A formidable foe, Mr. Joji Morishita, Alternate Commissioner for Japan.

The first day of Plenary ended with a discussion on Whale Stocks. Comments were made regarding the inefficiencies in Japan's scientific research programs and the lack of accurate data on Antarctic minke stocks. To add to Japan's woes, a paper signed by 63 whale scientists and presented to the IWC Scientific Committee was published in the June issue of the scientific journal Nature. The paper blasted Japan's newest scientific whaling proposal for JARPA II, which sought to double the annual catch of Antarctic minke whales from 440 to 935 animals, and to add 50 humpback and 50 fin whales (both of which are protected species, with humpbacks listed as vulnerable and fins listed as endangered) to its lethal sampling program. More to come on JARPA II later on in the week.

The second day of Plenary began with a stalling tactic used in recent years by pro-whaling nations. St. Lucia interrupted debate and called for a Commissioner's-only meeting. Australia challenged the Chair's ruling to allow the closed-door session and a vote was taken. Unfortunately, Australia's bid to maintain transparency throughout the Commission's proceedings lost by a vote of 28 to 20 with nine abstentions, including the U.S. The Commissioner's-only meeting lasted about 2 hours and from what we could tell, this was just another way to hold up the meeting, until one of Japan's new pro-whaling nations arrived.

The remainder of the second day involved discussions on the Revised Management Scheme (RMS). The RMS, which would "manage" the resumption of commercial whaling, has been debated in the IWC for the past ten years. Japan proposed their version of an RMS Schedule Amendment, which needed a 3/4 majority vote to pass. Countries, including the U.S., severely criticized Japan's weak RMS proposal for eliminating sanctuaries, deleting whale species from the Schedule, providing no control for scientific whaling, deleting the Compliance Review Committee, and weakening the inspection and monitoring provisions. A vote was taken and Japan's proposal lost 23 to 29 votes, with 5 abstentions.

After Japan's RMS defeat, the RMS agenda item was left open by the Chair in anticipation of further resolutions from other nations later in the week. Whale Killing Methods (WKM) and Associated Welfare issues ended the day on a high note for whales. The Commission agreed by consensus to adopt the WKM Working Group report, which called for a three-day workshop on whale killing methods to be held just prior to next year's Annual Meeting of the IWC in St. Kitts. One major focal point of this workshop will be how to determine when a whale is dead.

On the third day of Plenary, the nation of Nauru arrived ready to support Japan and vote against the whales. An interesting exchange between Japan and Nauru was caught on video by a film team. However, the delegate from Nauru didn't appear to be too pleased about being caught on tape talking to Japan and proceeded to block the lens. Nauru also caused a stir when they refused to talk to Australia, one of their closest neighbors in the South Pacific.

Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling was the first topic of discussion for day three. After being battered by the U.K. and other anti-whaling countries over their Greenland whale hunt, Denmark relented and voluntarily reduced their aboriginal subsistence quota from 19 to 10 fin whales for the 2006 and 2007 seasons. Congratulations to all of the animal welfare groups who have worked so diligently over the years to draw attention to this extremely cruel native hunt.

Next up was Japan's outrageous plan to expand their scientific whaling program in the Antarctic, known as JARPA II. Despite the criticism they have received over their JARPA I and JARPN II programs, Japan put forward their plans to double the minke whale take and to add humpback and fin whales to their lethal research program, which would occur in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, a supposedly protected area for whales.

Australia proposed a resolution, cosponsored by 25 nations, which condemned the JARPA II proposal and requested that Japan withdraw it. The resolution won by a vote of 30 to 27, with one abstention. Japan was outraged over this loss, which was undoubtedly the single most important vote of the meeting. Japan had some interesting words for the Commission that alluded to the fact that they will return next year with enough votes to push JARPA II through. And, as this resolution was nonbinding, Japan will more than likely go ahead with their expanded hunt in 2006.

A row of Japan's pro-whaling allies: (l to r)
Mauritania, Gabon, Republic of Guinea and Grenada.

Next up was the issue of Sanctuaries. Unfortunately, the proposal for the establishment of a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary (SAWS) failed to garner the 3/4 majority needed to amend the schedule and lost by a vote of 29 in favor to 26 against, with two abstentions. Brazil, Argentina and South Africa were able to at least get a simple majority for their sanctuary proposal, which is encouraging for the future. Similarly, Japan's schedule amendment to abolish the Southern Ocean Sanctuary lost by a vote of 25 in favor to 30 against, with two abstentions, which was well short of the 3/4 majority needed.

The fourth day of Plenary began with yet another PowerPoint presentation from Japan, this one regarding the need for a quota for small-type whaling in four of their coastal communities due to financial hardships these communities have endured since the moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect. Japan had two schedule amendment proposals on small-type coastal whaling to present to the Commission, one for 150 minke whales and one for 150 Bryde's whales.

The first proposal requesting the take of minke whales lost by a vote of 26 for and 29 against, with three abstentions. Without the 3/4 majority needed to pass a schedule amendment, Japan realized their second small-type whaling proposal was not going to win and withdrew it. However, Mr. Joji Morishita, Japan's Alternate Commissioner, assured the Commission that next year would be different.

The final day of Plenary involved the debate over two resolutions to "further progress" RMS discussions among the IWC member nations. The first RMS resolution presented by Denmark and Korea was viewed as being too weak and called for discussions on only three issues - scientific whaling, compliance and the moratorium on commercial whaling. This resolution went to a vote and lost by a vote of 2 for and 26 against, with a record number of 27 abstentions led by Japan and its pro-whaling allies.

The second RMS resolution, presented by Ireland, Germany and South Africa, proposed more intersessional work on the RMS and another meeting of the RMS working group, and called for the involvement of ministers and high-level government officials to resolve the outstanding whaling issues. This resolution won by a vote of 25 for and 3 against, with 28 abstentions _ again from Japan and its pro-whaling allies. I really wonder if the U.S. Secretary of Commerce will meet with other ministers (particularly from Japan, Iceland and Norway) to resolve the impasse over the RMS. Exactly what this potential meeting might mean remains to be seen. Perhaps Japan might give up scientific whaling, if given a quota for small-type coastal whaling targeting minke whales.

Some other notable issues were discussed in Ulsan, but these did not necessarily involve votes. The Conservation Committee agenda proposed by Belgium was pushed through, thereby putting an end to the ongoing "terms of reference" debate with Iceland, who had tried for two years to change the focus of the Conservation Committee from one of conservation to one of sustainable use.

Two working groups, one to address ship strikes and the other to address the "stinky" gray whale issue, were established and will meet via email intersessionally. Some CSI members might recall that Russian Eskimos have repeatedly complained about harpooning and landing North Pacific gray whales in Russian Arctic waters that were found to be smelling so badly that neither Eskimos nor their dog teams would eat the meat or blubber. From my position as the CSI representative, both Belgium and the U.S. should be given credit for successfully keeping the Conservation Committee alive and for having established its first two-year work plan.

Another useful Conservation Committee "invention" was the voluntary submission of national cetacean conservation reports by Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Chile. Given these reports were voluntary, Japan and whaling friends were in the position to challenge the formal documentation of this information. Other countries noted that at next year's meeting they too will be submitting similar cetacean conservation reports. I joined other U.S. NGOs in requesting that the U.S. prepare and submit such a report.

It was worth noting that Norway now seems to accept the Conservation Committee, given that its agenda was now more narrowly defined. This can be viewed as a major split between Norway and Japan. Given that Japan and close whaling allies continue to boycott Conservation Committee meetings, Norway's participation and apparent acceptance constitutes a noteworthy split between the two whaling countries.

The Scientific Committee was instructed by the Commission to hold a workshop on bycatch and small cetaceans in 2006. The whale watching discussions were livened up a bit when Australia invited Norway's delegates to come minke whale watching down under. Habitat degradation, melting of sea ice, noise pollution, and contaminants in whale meat and blubber dominated the brief discussions during Environmental and Health Issues.

CSI was very proactive in pushing their "Whales Alive" agenda at this year's IWC meeting. CSI distributed a 5-minute DVD on whale watching, produced by CSI board member Dan Knaub, to every IWC member nation's Commissioner, regardless of whether they were pro-whaling or anti-whaling. The video had spectacular footage of minke, fin and humpback whales being watched by people on board commercial whale watching vessels off New England. Reaction to the DVD was very positive and I also gave the DVD to other whale-friendly delegates and NGOs.

CSI also enlisted the help of two Japanese NGOs, Nanami Kurasawa and Sakae Fujiwara, who were instrumental in distributing copies of Paul Knapp's humpback whale songs CD to members of the Japanese delegation. The explanatory text on the CD's cover was translated into Japanese with the hope that CSI's message of "Whales Alive" will get through to at least one Japanese delegate.

As the representative for CSI, I tried to speak to as many national delegates and Commissioners from whale-friendly countries as I could. In particular, I had very positive interactions with government officials from Australia, Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Oman, San Marino, South Africa, Sweden and Switzerland. I also had some interesting conversations with members of the Norwegian delegation regarding whale watching around the world.

Brazilian Delegation to IWC/57: (l to r)
Jose Truda Palazzo, Alternate Commissioner,
Maria Teresa Mesquita Pessoa, Commissioner,
Regis Pinto Lima, Alternate Commissioner,
and Karina Groch, Researcher.

I should also mention that this was Rollie Schmitten's last year at the IWC as the U.S. Commissioner. I personally thank Commissioner Schmitten for always listening to conservation NGOs, including CSI, and treating us with respect and listening to our concerns (and thanking us for our insights). Both Rollie and Alternate Commissioner William Hogarth met with the U.S. NGO community for a private briefing at the close of each business day during Plenary.

Since my return to the U.S. in late June, I have received several interesting reports. Iceland has announced a quota of 39 minke whales to be taken during their scientific whaling program in 2005. This is a surprising move considering that the demand for whale meat and blubber in Iceland is decreasing and they still have freezers full of whale products from their 2003 and 2004 hunts.

Reports out of Norway indicate that the demand for whale meat and blubber is increasing, and that Norway will seek their self-allocated and increased quota of minke whales this year. This is alarming for at least three reasons. First, to justify higher quotas, Norwegian scientists have been working "to adjust" the mathematical formula accepted by the Commission. Second, this fiddling with the numbers has not been formally reviewed by the Scientific Committee of the IWC. And finally, the northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock being targeted by the Norwegians remains categorized as a protected stock by the IWC. Though Japan's expansion of scientific whaling and aggressive recruitment of small, developing countries receives considerable admonishment from whale conservation activists, one could readily conclude that Norway has managed to escape the international condemnation that is warranted by their whaling activities.

From the South Pacific, we hear that the island nation of Palau has been threatened with a boycott from diving organizations in the South Pacific over Palau's continued support of Japan and commercial whaling. A new report from New Zealand states that the whale watch industry there produced a profit of $84 million last year, which definitely proves that whales are worth more alive than dead.

As I look ahead to the 58th Annual Meeting of the IWC to be held in St. Kitts, I think we, as NGOs, have an opportunity to capitalize on this international meeting being held in the Caribbean. The six Caribbean nations of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines continue to vote with Japan and against the whales. However, we should not ignore the many other Caribbean countries that have resisted Japanese pressure to join the IWC and support Japan's whaling agenda. In preparing for the 58th Annual Meeting of the IWC in St. Kitts, CSI will work with other organizations to reach out to Caribbean island nations and who are not members of the IWC.

Nancy Azzam, CSI Board Member, and
Heather Rockwell, CSI Representative to IWC/57/Ulsan.

THANK YOU!

We give grateful thanks to all who responded to CSI's appeal for funds to help the fight for whales at the IWC, because with your help Heather Rockwell made such a significant difference! You understood how much CSI needed to support Heather in Korea, and how much her experience and skills could fight whaling. As you read her report, just about the first firsthand and accurate account of the IWC to be made public anywhere, take pride in your contribution to help us get the job done. Thanks!