U.S. Joins Japan to Lift IWC Whaling Moratorium!
April 9th, 2010
In 1986, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) implemented a moratorium on commercial whaling. Many people believed that this would save the whales and end forever the industrial slaughter that had decimated entire species.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/i...0aef87a15b.jpg
Not so. A proposal before the IWC could lead to the resumption of commercial whaling as early as next year. If it passes - and there is a real chance that it will - one of the greatest conservation successes of our time will be wiped out.
Even with the moratorium in place, hundreds of whales are still killed every year. This is because the IWC allows members to make unilateral objections to its decisions. Norway objects to the moratorium and hunts minke whales commercially. The IWC also allows nations to grant themselves "special permits" for research. Japan exploits this provision for commercial ends through so-called "scientific whaling" in the north Pacific and the Southern Ocean - even though the IWC has designated the area as a sanctuary. Iceland left the IWC in 1992 but rejoined 10 years later with a controversial "reservation" to the moratorium. It, too, continues to hunt commercially. The three whaling nations now kill around 1600 whales a year.
This is a source of conflict at the IWC. One indicator of the scale of the conflict is the remarkable expansion of the IWC from 41 members in 1986 to 88 today, as pro-whaling nations recruit allies to their cause and anti-whaling nations follow suit to maintain parity. Neither side is close to securing the three-quarters majority needed to make binding decisions, but the whaling nations have enough votes to prevent their opponents from tackling their self-allocated quotas.
It was against this background that in 2007 the US, historically an anti-whaling nation, took the chair of the IWC and initiated a peace process. Its proposal contained nothing substantially different from previous attempts to find a compromise. What differed, however, was the impetus that the US's leadership gave. Many believe that the US's motivation for pursuing a deal was the humiliating defeat that it suffered in 2002, when Japan and its allies blocked its proposal to renew the Alaskan Inupiat's "subsistence quota" of bowhead whales. The US got its quota in 2007, but the suspension of hostilities was short-lived.
In 2009, the "peace" negotiations moved to a new level. Chile, the new IWC chair, led a group of 12 countries, including Japan, Iceland and the US, in a series of meetings behind closed doors to thrash out a compromise. Its draft proposal was published in March; a revised version is expected to be voted on at the IWC annual meeting in Agadir, Morocco, in June.
At the core of the proposal is a 10-year suspension of the moratorium. This would legitimise Japan, Norway and Iceland's whaling, allowing them to carry on hunting whales commercially without recourse to special permits or objections. Negotiations are now under way to set quotas for the species that will be commercially hunted: humpback, sperm, minke, sei, fin and Bryde's whales.
Negotiations are now under way to set quotas for sperm, minke, sei, fin and Bryde's whales
The package has some fine "trimmings", including an aspiration that the IWC will focus more on conservation and environmental matters - something that many would say it should do anyway. Its backers also emphasise that it will reduce the number of whales being caught by Japan, Iceland and Norway.
In truth, the suspension of the moratorium would be a huge step backwards. Opponents, including our organisation, believe the deal would richly reward the whaling nations for their intransigence over the years and risks too much. Without exception, conservation bodies oppose the package, calling it a plan to "save whaling, not whales".
Even if a reduction in whaling is achieved in the short term, we believe this will be at the cost of legitimising commercial whaling, leading to a proliferation of international trade in whale products which, in turn, will stimulate more hunting.
Other problems include loopholes that would still allow whaling under objection or special permit. There are fears that the lifting of the moratorium will embolden nations like South Korea, which have expressed the desire to resume whaling, to exploit them. The proposal also accepts whaling in the Southern Ocean sanctuary and lacks a sound scientific basis for determining quotas.
At the time of writing, the fate of the deal is unclear, particularly as the European Union, which holds enough votes to defeat it, is in disarray over its internal decision-making. Unless the 25 EU members of the IWC can reach consensus (which is virtually impossible) they will probably have to abstain. EU nations might like to recall that whales are entirely unsuitable for sustainable use, being long-living, slow-reproducing animals, which are incredibly expensive to monitor adequately. Whaling is also irredeemably inhumane.
Overall, the package is a good deal for the whalers and a poor deal for the whales.
If the proposal is defeated, it won't necessarily mean a return to the status quo. It is likely that Australia will proceed with plans to take Japan to the International Court of Justice over its whaling in the Southern Ocean sanctuary. Other diplomatic and NGO-led efforts to persuade Japan, Norway and Iceland to cease whaling will continue and we believe that change will ultimately come from within. Public opinion in these countries is changing, demand for whale meat is in decline, and the whaling industries are heavily subsidized. The moratorium is beleaguered, but it is still the best hope for an end to whaling.
source: Mark Simmonds- international director of science for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
Sue Fisher is the director of policy for WDCS North America and leads the WDCS's anti-whaling programmes
