Now, this may seem odd - and it may seem even odder that we're not going crazy about this. But it's worth bearing in mind that Greenpeace doesn't oppose small-scale subsistence hunting - we oppose large scale commercial whaling - especially commercial whaling that pretends to be scientific. Whaling quotas, like that of the bowheads in the United States, are aimed at feeding isolated communities a cheap local source of protein - it's seen to be a continuation of centuries of tradition. Personally, I don't like the idea of whales being nobbled for a food source but I do recognise the rights and needs of the people doing subsistence hunts.

However, a proposal from Greenland, via the Danish delegation, asked for an increase in annual "takes" of several whale species - from the current 175 minkes to 200, and from zero humpbacks to 10. This got shot down by several delegations, and failed to reach a consensus - the science behind the take, as well as the motivation behind an increased hunt raised several questions. Denmark's got to find some friends overnight to build consensus for their proposal.

A fairly bizarre piece of the Greenland proposal came from a local whaling captain who added his voice to the proposal. He complained about how problematic whales were becoming in Disco Bay - to the point where boats were having to zig-zag around the whales as they went about their non-whaling business. He's obviously not heard of non-consumptive use... whale watching?

The IWC Love In
After lunch, the meeting continued under the title "The Future of the IWC". For the uninitiated, this was quite a weird discussion - after the various meetings around the world - the South American countries who have been working together, the Japanese "normalization" meeting in Tokyo and the Pew Foundation meeting in New York, the IWC members have decided, it seems, that fighting with each other all the time isn't working, and that an impasse has been reached. So they all wanted to kiss and make up

And so, one by one, a litany of the world's finest nations issued statements on how it was time for conciliatory tones at the IWC, and that yes, it was time for the IWC to move forward for "the common good". While the various countries seemed to have varying motives and even headings for moving forward, it was getting a bit lovey-dovey.

The problem is, countries like Iceland, Norway, Japan and its vote-bought buddies are all for reform in the IWC... but they use the word "normalization" - meaning that they want to return the IWC back to its original 1940s mandate - commercial whaling.

The anti-whaling countries on the other hand, use the word "modernization" - which includes "non-consumptive use" i.e. whale watching, in the IWC's list of responsibilities.

If you'd like to see how each country views whales and whaling, see our league table »

But at the end of the discussion, it seemed that all countries had agreed that aggressive language would be dropped in the future, and a more peaceful means of sorting out IWC problems would be considered. Words like "polarized" were used to describe the current situation (by Japan) while Sweden suggesting "harmonization". Japan suggested that the IWC was on "the verge of extinction". St. Lucia launched into a fairly colourful tirade about the complete lack of reason in the IWC. It was entertaining, but I'm not sure I understood it all.

Only the UK, Australia and New Zealand spoke up properly - saying more than "something must be done because nothing is being done". The UK's Biodiversity Minister Barry Gardiner talked about scientific whaling and how it needed to be appraised only the IWC's scientific commie - and not by the country carrying out the research - as Japan is now doing (but then Japan's whaling is really commercial whaling in disguise". They also mentioned animal welfare in terms of how whales are killed, but also in reference to whale watching. Australia's Environment Minister Malcolm turnbull contemplated "whales in the water vs. whales on the butcher's hook", and how scientific whaling needed to have independent assessments - and not just a token deference to science.

Australia didn't mention Japan by name, but the inference was clear - Turnbull stated that the current scientific whaling situation in the Southern Ocean is causing the IWC's credibility to seep away.

New Zealand's Sir Geoffrey Palmer pointed that the term "scientific" in Article 8 of the convention was being treated with a great deal of elasticity - he referred, of course, to Japan's scientific whaling programme.

Chile's commissioner hit the nail on the head. Rejecting "normalization" he struck out for "modernization" - on the basis that we're living in a very changed world from the IWC of 59 years ago.

South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary
After all the diplomatic kissing and making up, there was a joint proposal from Argentina and Brazil on a Southern Atlantic Whale Sanctuary, which seems like a damned good idea to me. It was pointed out that no southern hemisphere nations are currently involved in hunting whales - but many are involved in whale watching industries, which Costa Rica said wasn't just about big business - that local people benefitted.

Then the love got thrown out the window, and the sniping started again. Iceland created a minor a fracas, accusing the proponents of contravening a href="http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm" target="_blank">the convention. I personally had problems understanding the subtleties of why the Icelandic commissioner had a problem with it. In any event, he got shot down by the chair, Mr Hogarth, who more or less told him that he was plain wrong.

The Iceland commissioner said that the creation of such a sanctuary does not consider consumer of whale products - Brazil answered back, point out that whale watching is a whale product, albeit a non-lethal one. They got a round of applause for that one - an unexpected show of emotion from hundreds of diplomats.

Surprisingly, several African nations - like Gabon, Senegal and Cote D'Ivoire - who had been involved in the process for creating the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary - suddenly started opposing it - saying that they hadn't signed up for it! Interestingly, these are all pro-whaling countries, and all receive fisheries investment from Japan... but wait a moment. The Argentinian commission speaks up again - he apologises, these African countries have misunderstood him - he never said they signed anything. Instead, he says that their esteemed colleagues at the UN had put their names to some initial work on the sanctuary.

At this point, Bill Hogarth called a truce. I think he was interested in getting to the bar. Maarten and I headed out for, funnily enough, Japanese food.

IWC documents can be found here »

Notes from Day #2

More tomorrow...

- Dave