Press Releases

30 May 1998 - Report on the 50th Meeting of the IWC (held 16-20 May, 1998)

Opening Comments

After attending the 50th IWC meeting held in Oman in March, 1998, I offer this report.
I believe it is important for us all to be kept up to date on the activities of the IWC, but more importantly that we are kept up to date on the areas where WCW can assist whaling communities around the globe who are in need of a united effort. As Mr. Sonny Keraf from Indonesia said:

"For me, and the community of whalers in Lamalera, the most crucial issue at stake in whaling is the issue of the rights of local people, the rights of the community of whalers. From my own experience with the community of whalers in Lamalera, Indonesia, whaling has a direct link with the issue of rights. That is rights not only viewed from an anthropological and existential point of view, but also rights in the very basic meaning of right to survive. In most of the communities like Lamalera we do not talk about life in a comfortable, convenient way; we do not talk about diet in a luxurious manner. When we talk about whaling it means we talk about the survival of human beings as human beings. You can not imagine the starvation that would happen if they stopped whaling."

This is only one example of the assistance and support needed throughout the world. It is coastal communities like this who need our help, and I believe that with the support of WCW and its members we can play a very important role in restoring the cultural relationship between coastal peoples and their marine resources. But most importantly we need to stop the imposition of other people's morals and emotions on whaling societies because it causes unnecessary suffering in these coastal communities. As you can see from the attached opening statement made to the 50th IWC meeting by the World Council of Whalers, we are uniting to try and reconcile this situation.

I am happy to report that the 1998 World Council of Whalers' General Assembly Report is in the process of being distributed. And while at the 50th IWC meeting I took the opportunity to introduce myself to each of the IWC Commissioners and provide them with a copy of the report. If they take the time to read the report they will be hearing directly from the people who depend on the marine resources for survival.

WCW Opening Statement to the 50th IWC

The World Council of Whalers was formed to provide a focal point which would link all whaling nations, whaling communities and whalers from around the world under one umbrella. It is our intention to address their sense of despair and suffering and provide them with a unified voice and a means to educate the global public about the international injustices being imposed upon them by people who do not understand their situations.

WCW is in attendance to scrutinize the 50th IWC meeting and determine whether the IWC will finally begin to fulfill its legal obligations and mandates to regulate the sustainable use of whales for food and economic benefit, thus removing the despair and suffering imposed upon the whaling communities and their whalers.

WCW promotes and supports the concept of regional management regimes. The time has come to recognize that the whaling communities and their whalers hold fundamental traditional values essential in sustainable harvesting, and also historical knowledge necessary for proper management. These traditional values and historical knowledge, in conjunction with science and research, will reveal the need to manage the relationship between humans and the natural resources. It is time for the global public to understand, through education, that sustainable utilization is an important component in maintaining the balance of nature.

To achieve the above, WCW can provide access to diverse expert committees such as the WCW Legal Committee, Education Committee, Health & Nutrition Committee, Ethics Committee and Human Rights Committee. We can facilitate an alternative and friendly non-governmental forum, where whalers, government representatives, researchers and managers can participate in constructive dialogue to seek solutions that will meet the needs and aspirations of whaling communities, their whalers and all those with an interest in the whale resource.

But most important it is time to recognize that the whalers from around the globe have united and have formed an organization that will fight for their rights, re-establish their historic relationship with the marine resources in their respective regions, and protect their cultural identities in perpetuity.

The IWC and the Revised Management Scheme

The Revised Management Scheme (RMS) working group met immediately prior to the IWC meeting. The discussion centred around:

a. who should cover the costs of inspection;

b. whether the monitoring of international trade should be part of the inspection and control scheme;

c. whether the inspection and control scheme would include DNA sampling; and

d. the degree of authority that an international observer/enforcer will hold.

At the conclusion of the working group session, there was no indication of any progress, or agreement to proceed, on the important issues associated with the RMS. However, the IWC Scientific Committee work being conducted on the catch allotment algorithm is progressing. Once again the non-political bodies are finding the will and the means to move forward, while the political bodies of the IWC remain far apart. This provides a clear indication that the RMS has no chance of ever coming to a conclusion. Another clear indication was in the plenary session of the IWC. There was no substantive dialogue on the RMS issue and it did not even come close to a vote.

The IWC and the Irish Proposal

The IWC Commissioners held a closed meeting in the Caribbean prior to the IWC meeting. The only conceivable outcome from this session was a "possible agreement" to continue discussions on the Irish Proposal.

Some of the member nations continue to request that Japan and Norway show some indication that they will compromise. However, anti-whaling nations such as New Zealand, Australia, the UK and the USA maintain their position that they are opposed to any type of commercial whaling activities. Some member countries find the overall concept of the Irish Proposal acceptable, but have problems accepting all of its individual components.

The only agreement that can possibly come out of the Irish Proposal is an agreement to continue to discuss the proposal. This will inevitably result in a stalemate as the anti-whaling nations will not shift from their "No Whaling" position. So it appears this proposal will follow the same path as the RMS, a path to nowhere.

An important observation is that the goal posts are again being moved by the anti-whaling nations. This is clearly shown by their attempt to include small cetaceans in the Irish Proposal which, at this time, the IWC has no jurisdiction over just as it has no jurisdiction over international trade, another item included in the Irish Proposal.

Environmental Groups and the Irish Proposal

There appears to be a split between some of the major anti-whaling Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) over the Irish Proposal. Some, such as the International League for the Protection of Cetaceans (Sidney Holt), feel there would be less whaling taking place under this agreement, some NGOs accept the Irish Proposal conditionally, and the rest are completely opposed to it because it involves the resumption of limited whaling. The latter NGOs are content with the status quo because progress has been successfully immobilized. What must be noted is that some member countries have included anti-whaling NGO members as part of their official delegations, notably the USA.

Aboriginal and/or Subsistence Whaling

The Makah gray whale issue has become a non-issue. There was no resolution, discussion or even one comment put forward on the expected Makah grey whale hunt.

The Saint Vincent and the Grenadines humpback whale hunt had alleged infractions brought to the attention of the IWC by a UK-based NGO, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). These alleged infractions could not be dealt with at this session so will be discussed next year in Grenada.

For the 10th year running, Japan requested a relief allocation of 50 minke whales for four small-type coastal whaling communities, out of a stock conservatively estimated at 25,000. Japan has even gone so far as to produce an action plan to limit the commercial aspects in the distribution of whale products.

Now Japan feels that it has been misled by the IWC, because the IWC has not implemented a resolution adopted in Kyoto in 1995 which obliged it "to resolve this matter quickly".

Clearly what is missing in the IWC is an understanding by anti-whaling members of the cultural and socio-economic needs of these and other coastal communities. However, it is important to note that subsistence whalers are increasing in numbers as historical whaling communities from around the world begin to re-establish their relationship with the whale resource.

Italy, the IWC's Newest Member

Soon after the commencement of the 50th IWC, it became clear that Italy has added another vote to the anti-whaling contingent. It has unequivocally shown its intention to oppose resumption of any sustainable whaling activities now and in the future.

The IWC and Its Scientific Committee

Japan tabled a strong statement regarding the continued need for scientific research, along with a need to improve the process of communication between the IWC and its Scientific Committee. The statement was intended to highlight the fact that the IWC is ignoring the advice of its Scientific Committee, and that Japan's own research program is providing valuable information that will improve the management of whale stocks.

One observation is that the bulk of the Scientific Committee's work focuses on non-utilized whale stocks rather then providing scientific data on stocks that coastal communities from around the world need to access for their cultural and socio-economic needs. Also there appears to be a huge gap that needs to be filled. What is missing is the courtesy of listening to the nations who have a historical relationship to the whale resource.

The IWC and the Secret Ballot

The possibility of introducing secret ballots to the IWC was tabled for discussion and of course was voted down. What must be noted is the shift by some member countries in favour of abstaining during votes. This was not only demonstrated during this issue but also in many of the other issues that were tabled. However, this can not be construed as a sign that the IWC will survive its self-imposed fate of destruction.

Conclusions

I offer the following conclusions based on my observations:

1. There is a lot of political posturing going on at the IWC which is directly linked to matters such as foreign affairs, foreign relations and many other areas within government. The problem is that these political tactics go far beyond the whaling issue and the competence of the IWC.

2. There is, of course, the obvious power struggle between the anti-whaling nations, who hold the majority of power now, and the whaling nations. However, should the IWC Scientific Committee's recommendations be adopted, control would shift from the anti-whaling nations to the whaling nations and sustainable whaling would resume. The anti-whaling majority continually disregards the arguments and good-will efforts of the minority whaling countries to open up genuine negotiations, just as it disregards the well-considered science-based reasoning of the IWC Scientific Committee that states that some stocks can now be sustainably used in accordance with the terms of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

3. Anti-whaling nations come to the IWC in the belief that public opinion in their countries is strongly opposed to whaling. They should come with the knowledge that they are signatories to an international treaty and that they have a solemn duty to uphold the terms of the treaty. If they cannot do so, then, in the interest of upholding the law, they should leave the IWC, thus ending their duty to respect the treaty. Disregarding an international treaty is not in their (or any nation's) long-term interest, even though it may satisfy short-term national or domestic political goals.

4. There is the need to look closely at why some of these member countries and their delegations are participating in the IWC. We need to look at the compositions of their delegations and identify what, and how, they are contributing to the process other than adding another "no" vote for the anti-whaling lobby. For example, there are a number of countries that do not participate in the Scientific Committee but are taking a very hard line against the resumption of whaling.

5. Throughout the meeting I found it very sad to see both sides of the issue using the rules of procedure as a tool to delay or stop dialogue. This strategy ultimately prevents the IWC from making meaningful decisions.

6. The whole exercise reminded me of a religious struggle to impose questionable morals and personal emotions on a people or nation, rather than focusing on their legitimate needs and legal rights as signatories to an international treaty.

7. Finally, the commercial aspect of whaling activities seems to be the most common point of attack among the anti-whaling contingent. Every opponent of whaling that I talked to, who looked into my dark first-nation face, told me that they have no difficulty accepting aboriginal subsistence whaling. So I leave you with this thought: when a non-endangered species is sustainably harvested, the distinction between commercial and subsistence whaling has no conservation significance.

Tom Happynook

Chairman, World Council of Whalers