Official newsletter of the WCW
#2 June 1998 - 50 IWC SPECIAL EDITION
IWC and the Revised Management Scheme
Environmental Groups and the Irish Proposal
Aboriginal and/or Subsistence Whaling
Italy, the IWC's Newest Member
IWC and Its Scientific Committee
IWC and the Revised Management Scheme
The Revised Management Scheme (RMS) working group met immediately prior to the IWC meeting. The discussion centred around:
- who should cover the costs of inspection;
- whether the monitoring of international trade should be part of the inspection and control scheme;
- whether the inspection and control scheme would include DNA sampling;
- 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, however the political bodies of the IWC are extremely far apart. This provides a clear indication that the RMS has no chance of ever coming to conclusion. Another clear indication was in the plenary session. There was no substantive dialogue on the RMS issue and it did not even come close to a vote.
The IWC Commissioners held a private meeting in the Caribbean prior to the IWC meeting. The only conceivable outcome from this session was the "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, the anti-whaling nations like New Zealand, Australia, UK and the United States maintain their position that they are opposed to any type of commercial whaling activities. Some member countries feel the concept is OK but there are components within the proposal that they have problems accepting.
The only agreement that can possibly come out of the Irish Proposal is an agreement to continue to discuss the proposal. This will obviously result in a stalemate as the anti-whaling nations come to the table with a "No Whaling Position" rather than with their interests. 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 into 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 NGO's over the Irish Proposal. Some NGO groups such as the International League for the Protection of Cetaceans (Sidney Holt) feel there would be less whaling activities taking place under this agreement. Some NGO groups accept the Irish Proposal conditionally and the rest are completely opposed to it because it involves the resumption of some whaling activities. These NGO's 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 delegation, 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 has brought "alleged infractions" to the attention of the IWC. These alleged infractions could not be dealt with at this session so will be discussed next year in Grenada.
For the 10th year the Japan Small-Type Whalers have requested a relief allocation of 50 Minke whales out of a conservative estimated stock of 25,000. They have even gone so far as to produce an action plan to limit the commercial aspects in the distribution of whale products. Japan is now feeling that they have been misled by the IWC because they have not implemented the resolution adopted in Kyoto in 1995 which obliged the IWC "to resolve this matter quickly". Once again Japan tabled a proposed schedule amendment but of course it was defeated.
Clearly what is missing is an understanding by the anti-whaling members about the cultural and socio-economical needs of these coastal communities. However, what must be noticed is that the 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
After the 50th IWC session it is clear that Italy has added another vote to the anti-whaling contingent. They have conclusively shown their intentions to oppose resumption of any sustainable whaling activities now and into the future.
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 resolution was aimed at pointing out that the IWC is ignoring the advice of its Scientific Committee and that this research program is providing valuable information that will improve the management of whale stocks.
One observation is that the scientific research is focussing on the non-utilized species rather then providing scientific data on the species that coastal communities from around the world need to access for their cultural and socio-economic needs. 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 issue of a secret ballot was tabled for discussion and of course was voted down. What must be noted is the shift in some member countries to use their abstention vote. 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 dissolving.
Chairman's Opinion
By Chief Tom Mexsis Happynook
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.
It appears that there is not only the obvious power struggle between the anti-whaling nations, who hold the majority of power now, and the whaling nations, but should the IWC Scientific Committee's recommendations be adopted the control would shift from the anti-whaling nations to the whaling nations and sustainable whaling would resume.
The anti-whaling majority 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 whaling treaty.
The anti-whaling nations come to the IWC with the perceived belief that their nations are 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 commission, thus ending their duty to respect the treaty. Disrespecting an international treaty is not in their (or any nation's) best long-term interest, even though it may satisfy short-term national or domestic political goals.
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 factions. 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.
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 stopped the IWC from making a decision. The whole exercise reminded me of a religious struggle which in my opinion is grounded on imposing questionable morals and personal emotions on a people or nation rather than focussing on their legitimate needs and legal rights as signatories to an international treaty.
Finally, whaling activities with a commercial aspect seems to be the anti-whaling contingencies' most common argument. Everyone of the anti-whaling proponents I talked to, who looked into my dark first nation's face, told me that they have no difficulty with aboriginal subsistence whaling. So I leave you with this thought: When a non-endangered species is sustainably harvested, distinction between commercial and subsistence whaling has no conservation significance.
The WCW First General Assembly report is now available and can be ordered from the WCW office at a cost of $20.00 Canadian, including postage and handling. Order from: WCW, PO Box 291, Brentwood Bay BC, Canada V8M 1R3.
WCW would greatly appreciate any donations. If you would like to help WCW and you feel this is an important endeavor, then please help us reach that goal by making a small donation to the WCW effort. Your support is deeply valued. Thank you.