The clue's in the title. It's not the International Whale Commission, it's the International Whaling Commission - set up 59 years to ago to regulate the whaling industry. Times have changed, however, and instead of the IWC of being a regulatory body for the earth's whaling nations, the pro-whale members have managed to push the organisation towards conservation - with a recognition that whale watching can be a far more lucrative use of marine "resources" that killing them. This conservation approach led to the 1986 moratorium - an ongoing ban - on commercial whaling.

Bill Hogarth, chair of the IWC

But although only three nations are still involved in commercial whaling - Norway, Iceland and Japan (plus the countries who've had their votes "bought" by Japan, much of the IWC's language is still bogged down in whale hunting rather than conservation. Even today, as I sat at the back of the room, with translation headset on, and listening to a Scientific Committee report on bowhead whales in the eastern Arctic, I realised that committee member was discussing "stocks" rather than populations. The IWC is basically made up of two camps - the whalers and the anti-whalers. The former use the IWC to further their ailing industry, while the latter seeks to protect whales. The fine details of the IWC's structure and operation is too complicated to get into here - let's just say it's archaic and stuffed with some ludicrous language. The meeting seems to move slowly, in a differ net timescale to the outside world - maybe we're working on whale time?

Often, in casual conversation with friends, or even strangers I meet when travelling, I'm asked, "why doesn't the [insert country] government stop whaling?" or "why doesn't the IWC stop Japan from whaling".

If only it were so simple. Instead, today, I had to listen to objections from Japan and Norway about the inclusion of "whale watching" as an item on the IWC's agenda, while a whole section of the day's proceedings were about "methods of killing whales" - everything from causing an expedient death to the type of weapon used. Hardly the concerns of an organisation 100% devoted to conservation.

However, the IWC's all we've got to work with right now - and the next few days should be interesting. At a lunchtime press conference by a coalition of "likeminded" anti-whaling countries, Brazil, USA, UK, Germany, New Zealand and Australia called for Japan - as a sign of goodwill - to not kill 50 humpback whales this season. Both Chris Carter of New Zealand and Malcolm Turnbull of Australia both called this move by Japan "deeply provocative", as they feel that the people of their countries - as well as other South Pacific peoples have a deep connection with the humpback whale.

While this is hugely commendable position on the part of these governments - well, it's just not enough - the Japanese whaling fleet shouldn't be commercially whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary at all.

Why not?

Well, for a start, it's a whale sanctuary. And while Japan's IWC commission might splutter about the merits of scientific whaling, Japan's ongoing lethal "scientific" research has killed thousands of whales, has not stood up to peer scrutiny, and has come up with precious less results (except, as I noted earlier this, the fact that whales die when you shoot them with a harpoon).

Secondly, it's not "scientific" whaling - it's commercial whaling dressed up with a veil of science. Last year the Japanese fisheries minister let slip the government's target tonnage of whale meat for the season - suggesting that the whalers are slaughtering whales to fulfil a business quota, not a scientific one.

But here at the IWC - where every comment or intervention by a member country is knee-deep in convoluted, mindbending diplomatic language, the "likeminded" countries' move is actually quite bold.

Here's a sample statement, the kind made by a pro-whaling country:

"I want to thank the Australian commissioner for his interesting comments, which we agree with on principle, but there are some minor facts we will be taking into account, and studying closely. We would also like to see more fostering of goodwill within the IWC."

Roughly translated:

"We could have done without the Australian commissioner's whale loving rubbish, and we don't agree with a word he just said, and we're now going outside to burn the documents he gave us. As for the goodwill - we'll we're going to continue whaling anyway..."

More as I figure it all out...

- Dave

Alaskan native performance, at the IWC

Alaskan native performance outside the Captain Cook Hotel, at the IWC