.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

David @ Tokyo

Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics

6/18/2006

 

IWC 2006: Live blogging - Day 2 (after lunch)

[03:30 JST] Just waiting for the video feed to come through again...

OK, all going again now. Again, some technical trouble here... Japan to present it's proposal now.

They are noting that in the discussions on the RMP, certain nations have been completely uncooperative and irresponsible in their actions. As a result Japan and a group of nations that support the principle of sustainable use have produced a paper which Japan is presenting on behalf of the group.

Japan notes that since the introduction of the moratorium, certain whale stocks have been studied in detail, and for those stocks sustainable whaling is now scientifically possible, and that the IWC adopted the IWC SC's RMP in 1994 by consensus.


New Zealand speaking now. New Zealand is saying that most nations who have co-sponsored Japan's proposal have mostly joined the IWC after the moratorium was adopted, so they think it's strange for those nations to support "normalization". Now he is saying that the recent focus of the IWC on "conservation" was also the focus of the IWC when it was first created.

I'm missing all of his points completely to be honest. Now he has slipped in a reference to his belief that whale-watching is a better way to use whales than whaling.

Australia now. Ian Campbell reiterates that they would prefer the proposal to be "modernization" rather than "normalization" (Japanese officials called this "nonsense" yesterday). Australia says that it is prepared to work constructively with the other nations. Campbell is looking back over history. He talks about things changing, refering to the 1972 stockholm meeting of leaders, and how they called for a moratorium. (Of course, what he ignores is that many whale stocks are recovering now - this has changed as well, but he conveniently ignores this!) Australia says again that it supports "modernization", but disagrees with Japan that the organization is on the verge of collapse. He says that nations have to be mature about the different views that are strongly held by various nations.

Brazil now. Brazil is criticising the language used in the Japanese proposal as being emotional - words like "normalization". Brazil is saying that many aspects of the ICRW have become anachronic. Brazil is unhappy that despite Japan's paper calling for respect for whaling cultures, complaining that coastal regions where whaling is now not acceptable are not noted.

Iceland. Thanks Japan for the proposal, and recognises the great need for productive discussions. Iceland sees the proposal as a means to saving the IWC from becoming irrelevant. Iceland looks forward to participating at the meeting.

A french speaker now (Belgium?). Now Benin, again in french. Lots of nations want to speak, but Henrik wants to finish this item by 15:30. 15 speakers, 2 minutes each, is Henriks request.

[04:19 JST] This will take a while. The Netherlands is wondering whether the proposal, which mentions that no commercial whaling would be allowed for depleted and endangered species, also could make the same provision with regards to Scientific Whaling.
The US is concerned that Japan's proposal is for a meeting outside of the IWC.
St. Kitts and Nevis notes the 15 years of non-progress by the IWC. They believe there is a great deal of opposition to RMS proposals allowing the IWC to carry out it's mandate. Some nations have said openly that they will never accept commercial whaling. Even when they talk about adopting some form of RMS, this is paradoxical. This is why normalization is important. The ICRW is a convention for the regulation of whaling, and it is wrong to be of the belief that it's role is only to focus on conservation. "Modernization" must be seen within the scope of the existing convention. Henrik tells the speaker off for using 50% more than his daily speaking allowance! It was good though :-)
Morocco speaking now, french again... (or was it Monaco!?)
Sweden now talking about using "harmonization" instead of the other two terms. Sweden notes that they support sustainable use and the precautionary principle, in this respect.
Argentina is now parroting what Brazil, Australia and New Zealand have said.
St. Vincent and the Grenadines shares concerns of others about the polarization of the IWC which achieves nothing, and hopes normalization of the IWC can be in the interests of all.
Marshall Islands notes that the nations who now oppose whaling were the nations who drove whales close to extinction in pursuit of oil. Marshall Islands believes that these mistakes can be learned from and sustainable whaling achieved, if there is political will.
Mongolia notes that the substance of the proposals is more important than the words used to describe this. The performance of the IWC must be improved. Mongolia urges parties to engage in debate constructively to reform the IWC.
Ivory Coast speaks in french.
Dominica now for the first time. Dominica notes that "conservation" has been redefined by some nations. Dominica refers to the Caring for the Earth document from 1991 for it's definition of "conservation" (which is the standard meaning). (Note from me - this document actually calls for the moratorium to be maintained - this was before the RMP was completed and adopted, however).
Italy welcomes a document that was produced by the Netherlands.
Antigua & Barbuda associates itself with the nations who supported Japan's proposal. Massiah states that most nations still believe that the ICRW is a good convention, and is not happy with attempts to bastardize the ICRW by anti-whaling nations. Massiah notes that "modernization" is an attempt to move the goalposts by the anti-whalers. "Normalization" on the other hand is about reforming the IWC to meet the goals stated in the ICRW. She continues to be amazed by the unalterable positions of some nations at the IWC. She thinks that such nations have no moral right to remain part of the body. Regarding a statement by Belgium, she rejects cultural imperialism. A strong contribution, and receives applause from other members. Go Joanne!

Joanne Massiah of Antigua and Barbuda ladies and gentlemen (search for her name at Google - she is passionate about sustainable use of resources)

Henrik laying down the law on additional contributions now.

St Lucia and Norway don't support the initiative undertaken by the Netherlands. St Kitts also does not feel it can go along with the Netherlands proposal either.
Denmark tends to agree with St Kitts that the Netherlands proposal is premature. Rather than focus on three topics, as suggested by Netherlands, any meeting should focus only on the two focuses of the ICRW, conservation and whaling.

Japan again now, thanking all supportive countries. Encourages nations to attend the meeting that Japan proposed. All nations joined the convention believing that the convention is good, as is. Looking forward to constructive participation.

Netherlands repeating it's question on scientific whaling no to be applied to depleted stocks or endangered ones to Japan.

[05:09 JST] Henrik adjurns proceedings until 16:30 local time - back in 20 minutes!

[05:19 JST] Just in the break, Reuters has reported on the Greenland aboriginal subsistence hunt issues discussed earlier in the day (I seem to have missed some of this)

[05:45 JST] Henrik settles them down, and notes that they'll probably have to run through to 18:00. Apparently Agenda item 3 has been postponed until late monday morning, and some useful discussions have been going on about that.

They will now look at agenda item #10, under which Japan is going to propose a schedule amendment regarding it's coastal whaling communities.

A representative from Taiji in Wakayama is now speaking (Mr Nihara). 5 representatives from this whaling town are present. In April a whaling summit was held with people from other communities also present. Taiji is the first town in Japan to have organized whaling, with history stretching back 1600 years. From here, whaling culture spread to other parts of Japan.

... the presentation comes to an end eventually. Joji Morishita notes that the IWC is gradually killing coastal whaling communities in Japan. The names of people in the town represent roles in whaling organizations. Some nations have raised concerns about the stock that these towns wish to utilise. The stock in question is the north pacific minke, and the stock is healthy. The IWC SC has also finished the implementation trials for the stock, the problem is that the IWC has not taken action on the advice. Some nations refuse to support whaling because of the commercial nature of the small type whaling. This is a double standard, as other small type whalers in other nations have commercial aspects. Japan is not blaming subsistence whalers, just pointing out the inconsistency. And what is wrong with commerciality anyway? Whale-watching is commercial. Most human activities are. Futher, some nations claim that an RMS must be implemented before they can support the proposal. But the RMS discussions have broken down now. Another reason for objection is that those nations believe whaling is immoral. In Taiji, the people have great respect for whales. These people have never tried to export their morals to other countries. They just wish for an exemption from the moratorium. In terms of conservation, there would not be negative impact by this whaling - but some nations may have a different understanding of the meaning of conservation. In CCLAMR, "conservation" includes the concept of sustainable use. Japan's proposal this year is the same as last year. Just to highlight some points:
- operations with be within Japan's EEZ
- five vessels only to be included
- not a proposal to lift the moratorium
- very strict monitoring will keep the quota within the granted numbers
- no effect on the conservation status of the minke stock, much less than 1% of the stock.
- DNA registration system to individually and track each whale taken.
The IWC has the role of preventing extinction of whales, but the IWC should also prevent the extinction of these people as well.
On this issue, Japan would not seek to use a secret ballot. Japanese people will wish to know which nations supported them, and which did not.
These small communities should not be held responsible for past overfishing by other entities.
(Fabulous!!)

The UK responding now, noting that bycaught whales can be sold in Japan, and that the vessels in question are used in the JARPN programme. The UK is disputing Japan's claims of need. They say that young people in these towns want to move to the city to work. The UK can't support the proposal because it's an attempt to re-open commercial whaling.

Another speaker now is noting that the IWC has recognised the needs of these coastal communities. The speaker hopes that the IWC will no longer continue to ignore Human Rights in denying these quotas.

Iceland supports the proposal and consistency

St Lucia does as well, and the information from the Scientific Committee notes that there is no negative impact on the 'O' stock by this whaling. St Lucia is speaking out in support of tolerance for cultural diversity.

St Vincent is also speaking in support.

Denmark has two requests to Japan. It would be easier if the proposal had passed through the Scientific Committee before it comes to the IWC, in the future (it was last year, but not this year). Denmark wonders whether it would be possible to modify the proposal to just 3 years, rather than 5.

India supports need, but doesn't believe that Japan's proposal represents this, as there is a specific quota requested.

Austria associates itself with the UK.

The USA requests Japan to frame the request differently, the US can't support commercial whaling.

St Kitts & Nevis speaking in support of Japan.

Monaco understands that there is a stockpile of whalemeat available. So lack of whalemeat is not the issue. Monaco is prepared to support the request once Japan gives up it's scientific whaling programmes.

NZ notes that it understands that the SC has not finished work, and is concerned about the mixing of stocks, the lack of abundance estimate. So NZ thinks it would be irresponsible for the IWC to accept this. NZ states that the proposal has some worthy elements, but that they are emotional, not scientific (Cedric Liburd is laughing visibly in the background).

Australia notes that the safeguards noted by Japan are not included in the schedule amendment itself.

Russian Federation notes that the history of whaling on earth began in Japan. This isn't an issue of need that can be met be scientific whaling. Some people think that bread grows in stores. The traditions of these people must be preserved. Russian Federation supports the proposal. There is enough scientific data that shows there would be no effect on the stock.

From the SC, in 2003 the stock was reviewed and they completed the implementation process. Differing views on how the catches could be managed were presented to the commission. Currently a new review is underway on the stock. The Secretariat has not yet run the CLA to determine the quota that would be produced by the SC, because the IWC has not requested this to be done.

Japan is prepared to answer Denmark's request. Firstly, Japan expresses gratitude to those countries who will support their proposal. Some wrong information has been presented by other nations. NZ's representative seems to be confused over the 'J' stock and the 'O' stock. The SC has finished work on the 'O' stock, for which the proposal is for.
If you go to the effort of turning the page, the proposal does describe the safeguards. The schedule amendment is just for the catch limit, but Japan is prepared to put the safeguards on paper if desired.
It is irrelevant that there is a stockpile of whale meat. This is no reason to deny these people their rights to be engaged in whaling.We should not be fooled by such false logic. Japan believes that even if the quota were just for 1 or 2 whales, those anti-whaling nations would probably not accept it even then.
Japan accepts Denmark's request to shorten the quota from 5 to 3 years.

[06:44 JST] Japan now putting this proposal to the vote.

[06:50 JST] Voted down again, this time closer - 30 in favour to 31 against. A number of nations chose to abstain that have supported Japan on other issues: Senegal is not present, the Solomon Islands, China, Kiribata, Korea abstained, Guatemala of course still not present.

Japan will still be somewhat happy, as this is about as close as they have ever come to a simple majority. Were Senegal present, the numbers would likely have been tied.

[07:01 JST] Agenda item 14 now (cooperation with other organizations)

[07:12 JST] And the meeting is now adjourned for the day. One way of looking at that vote is that less than half the IWC member nations opposed Japan's proposal.

Comments:
Fischer is quite red. There must have been good alcoholic drinks at lunch...;)

Let's see how the paper from Japan will be debated.
 
I wonder how many countries will respond to Japan's invitation to gather at lunch time on the 19th to discuss topics, dates and place for the new body Japan wants to create outside of the IWC to normalize it.

Of course, NZ and Australia's Carter and Campbell can't help speaking non-sense...

Do they know that Blue whales and Humpbacks were already protected before the moratorium was adopted?
 
Are there parts of the world where whaling is "CULTURALLY" unacceptable???
Isn't it "POLITTICALLY" Unaccepted, that Brazil meant?
 
Belgium is satisfied to find mention of "good governance" in Japan's paper.
They also think that the word "modernisation" would have been better than "normalization" in the title, with regards to the development of the whale watching industry worldwide.
Belgium also says that it wants to keep the RMP as it is and is against any modification of it.
 
I missed the name of the country speaking after Belgium...but the representative voiced his country's concern about the lack of evolution in the discussions on the RMS and declared its willingness to take part to Japan's initiative.
 
Man! The commissioner from St Kitts & Nevis is great!
What he says is so true.

This country's membership is far more meaningful than that of NZ or Australia.
 
Yeah, St Kitts and Nevis was great. So straight up - no BS, calling all the nonsense and contradictions of NZ and Australia.
 
Morocco regrets the stalemate and the fact that scientific whaling puts whales stocks under threat.

The commissioner is comparing the use of "normalization" to militarist pasts and says that it is contrary to the concept of modernization.

Morocco calls to Japan to take into account the diversity of nature and, also, opinions inside the IWC.
Therefore Morocco rejects the idea of "normalization", comparing to George Orwell's 1984 novell.
 
Was that Morocco, or Monaco? Monaco, I presume!
 
Ivory Coast recognizes that the IWC is in an end-alley. They call the members to remember that IWC is a body for management.

Ivory Coast explains that its participation to the IWC, as for many other countries, is linked to its will to manage sustainably natural ressources, which includes.

The commissioner explains that there are competition for food ressources between humans and predators, and that the management of these predators, such as whales, is thus also needed.
 
That was Morocco...i think
 
Oh... shit :-) Morocco vote with Japan, usually...
 
I like that commissioner from Antigua & Barbuda. She's great!

The eloquence of commissioners from St Kitts & Nevis or Antigua & Barbuda; shows that they aren't Japan's puppets, contrarily to what anti-whaling NGOs mays say.
 
France says that it will do everything possible to make IWC a functional body and sympathize with Netherlands.
 
The delegate from Japan did a mistake : he said that the moratorium was adopted by a two-thirds majority.

Of course it is a three-fourths majority, isn't it?
The mistake is often made in the media, confusing IWC and CITES, I guess.
 
to be honest, I did not hear it :-) Still struggling to stay awake!
 
You can listen back to what Japan said by moving the "playing cursor" backward.

Have some coffee, like the commissioners. ;)
 
The Japanese coastal whaling item is the one I'm the most interested in.

This is one of the rare occasion for whaling communities to make their voice heard.

Anyway, there won't be a 3/4 majority to allow some coastal whaling quotas...
 
The story of the "ôsemi-nagare" is certainly interesting but I'm not sure it will convince commissioners to allow coastal whaling in Japan...
 
The guy from Monaco is really a c*nt!

It's not about having meat available to whaling communities, but let the whalers in these regions practice their tradition.

Silly Monaco.

I don't even speak of the perfidous Albion...
 
Japan proved its ability to accept compromise.

Even if there is not a 3/4 majority, I hope there'll be a simple majority.
 
Lost again.
I have 31 against to 30 for. 4 abstentions...specially China and S. Korea.

Too bad.
 
Good morning! All.

Short comments.

1. Japan should reconsider the amount of ODA to Brazil.

2.China and South Korea are likely
to oppose any proposal from Japan.
Especilally,they are nervous to their sea area.

Thank you.
Y/H
 
'Morning!

Here's what you can read on Greenpeace's website :
"This year we will once again challenge the whalers on the high seas (...)"

Does that mean that the Nisshinmaru will be rammed gain during next austral summer?

At least, we can say that GP cannot be trusted, after saying that they won't go the South Ocean anymore and will stop their dangerous behaviour...and then announcing that they will the same again.

I hope a resolution condemning their actions will be adopted at the IWC.
 
WaaaaaAAAAAaaaaaaAAAAAaaAHHHHOOOOOooooOOOOO!!!!!

GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at this:
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/whalers-fail-iwc

Kjell
 
Morning isanatori :-)

Yes, I saw that as well.

Greenpeace obviously needs the donations from this campaign.

I hope that other organizations will come to the fore to expose Greenpeace's misleading propaganda campaigns, which are evidently driven by a thirst for donations.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Archives

June 2004   July 2004   August 2004   September 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   January 2010   February 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   February 2011   March 2011   May 2013   June 2013  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?