Despite having worked
on this issue for a number of years, this
was my first time attending an annual IWC
meeting. I had heard from colleagues
often about just how dysfunctional the meetings
were, and with experience of other international
meetings, like ICCAT, I thought I knew what
to expect.
But in reality it’s
hard to find words to adequately describe
the farrago. There are some 89 countries
who are members of the IWC. They haven’t
all paid their membership, so they don’t
all turn up. Oddly, some who haven’t paid
still turn up and take part, making interventions
and speaking on issues if they like, since
the only thing they can’t do is vote.
Equally oddly, there
hasn’t been a vote on any issue in an IWC
meeting for a number of years. So there
seems to be little reason why you’d bother
paying up – which may explain why some 21
member countries are in arrears.
Why no voting? Well,
because there is a pervasive view that we
should strive to agree everything by ‘consensus’.
In theory this leads to less acrimony, and
less entrenched positions. In reality, consensus
means giving concessions on conservation.
This year’s meeting,
on the face of it, didn’t seem to achieve
much. It took some three days (after many
‘points of order’, ‘questions of clarification’,
and a bit of filibustering) to agree some
changes proposed by the UK on how the IWC
operates, leaving the final day for the
discussion of everything-else-on-the-agenda.
Included in that agenda was the creation
of a whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic.
This was passionately proposed by Brazil
and Argentina, and was a proposal they had
first suggested a whole decade ago, the
last time the IWC was hosted in the British
Isles. There was clearly a majority in support
for the sanctuary in the room – but when
Brazil and Argentina said that they would
push the issue to a vote, a bizarre pantomime
began. Japan, speaking ‘on behalf’ of the
pro-whaling countries said that they would
leave the meeting and make it technically
inquorate – so no vote could take place.
And then they did just
that. Japan’s delegation, along with those
of its pro-whaling allies got up and walked
out. That meant the meeting was effectively
put on hold whilst the various commissioners,
and secretariat tried to work out what to
do. On the last day of business, with lots
of business still left to do, the meeting
was stopped for EIGHT hours.
What was achieved in
that eight hours was even more insulting
to the delegates, observers, and everyone
who had funded their attendance, or anyone
who cares about (whale) conservation. All
that could be agreed was a page of text
explaining what had happened, why it was
unresolved, and that they would try and
work out what to do about it by next year’s
meeting!
That meant everything
else that hadn’t been discussed was also
postponed for a year.
Pretty abysmal when
it comes to any effective international
action on whale conservation, on the whole.
But there is hope (I
have to keep telling myself that!) because
the proposals from the UK that were ultimately
agreed by consensus by attending governments
should pave the way to cleaning up how the
IWC works. It will mean an end to the ability
to turn up with a wad of cash on the day
to pay your country’s fees, and it should
also lead to an overall increase in transparency.
That can only be good news for the IWC,
and everyone who wants to be properly represented
in these meetings by their governments.
So, amidst the morasse
of nonsense, there is at least some good
news from the IWC, and whilst it may seem
modest and unassuming, it is nonetheless
a great achievement by the UK delegation
ably led by minister Richard Benyon.
From this meeting it
seems quite clear that there is still a
long way to go to drag the IWC kicking and
screaming into the 21st Century, and be
able to start focusing on the real issues
– namely conserving the world’s remaining
whale populations, particularly those that
are most endangered – rather than pointlessly
arguing about processes, and making concessions
to appease pro-whaling delegations.
