|
WHALES AND THE IWC: HIGH STAKES IN MONACO - by Kate O'Connell
The 49th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), held in October 1997, was an emotional roller-coaster. Topping the agenda were two highly-charged issues:
1) A proposal from Ireland to lift the current prohibition on commercial whale hunting, in exchange for a so-called "global sanctuary" for whales; and
2) the United States' proposal for a take of gray whales for the Makah Indian tribe of Washington State.
Although several other issues were under discussion, the majority of the time and energy spent in Monaco revolved around these two topics. Nancy Azzam, an at-large member of the ACS Executive Committee, was once again the environmental representative on the U.S. delegation, serving cheerfully and capably.
Global Sanctuary Strategy
The Irish proposal had been under intense discussion for some time prior to the IWC meeting. In a September press release, the Irish government called for the creation of a "high seas global whale sanctuary." Upon arrival in Monaco, Michael Canny, the head of the Irish delegation (and next-in-line to chair the IWC), met extensively with both government and non-government representatives about the proposed sanctuary.
The Irish proposal includes certain key aspects, several of which are viewed with concern by members of the whale conservation community. One of the main components of the proposal is the adoption and completion of the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), which pro-whaling nations have long touted as the principal basis for resumption of commercial whaling.
In addition, the Irish proposal calls for the creation of a whale sanctuary for the global high seas. While such an initiative sounds promising, it would result in leaving outside of the sanctuary almost 40% of the global oceans (that part within each nation's Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ).
The Irish proposal also seeks to limit whaling to nations currently engaged in whale hunts, namely Japan and Norway. Again, although it is a laudable attempt to restrict whaling, there are certain problems with this concept. It would be next to impossible to maintain such a restriction under the terms of international law; to allow commercial whaling by any nation invites other nations to follow suit. Furthermore, an attempt to "cut deals" favoring Norway and Japan is counter to conservationists' attempts to "reward" governments which abide by the rules of international environmental treaties, and their attempts to "restrict" nations in flagrant violation of both the spirit and the letter of such treaties.
Japan and Norway are the only two nations using loopholes in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) to continue whaling on a large scale. Japan kills minke whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and the North Pacific under scientific permits (the meat from these kills is sold in fish markets). Norway lodged an objection to the 1986 ban and therefore the government does not consider itself bound by IWC decisions.
Ironically, other nations which were engaged in commercial whaling at the time of the moratorium decision, including Brazil and Spain, had far more pressing economic concerns than the wealthy Japanese and Norwegian whaling interests. Yet these nations accepted the call for a ban and gave up whaling.
The Irish proposal, an attempt to reach a compromise between whaling and anti-whaling interests, generated much debate in the halls and back rooms of the Sporting d'Hiver, site of the 1997 IWC meeting. In addition to the concerns raised by the conservation community, many governments also spoke out against various aspects of the proposal, among them New Zealand, the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Brazil. The Australian delegation "upped the ante" on the Irish initiative with a counterproposal.
Australia made a formal announcement that it will try and secure a permanent international ban on commercial whaling. The Australian National Task Force on Whaling will work toward a global sanctuary under the IWC, to include all waters (both EEZs and the high seas); and toward prohibition of scientific whaling. The counterproposal also seeks an appropriate definition of aboriginal subsistence whaling and states opposition to creation of any additional categories of whaling, including coastal whaling.
This final point is particularly critical in that the IWC is facing increased proposals for aboriginal takes of whales. In the past, the bowhead whale hunt by the Inuit tribe of Alaska has come under strict scrutiny by the IWC. This hunt is allowed since the tribe fully complies with the requirements of the commission for subsistence takes of whales.
The Commission expressed interest in continuing discussions on the Irish proposal. This issue will resurface at the 1998 IWC Meeting.
Proposed Makah Hunt Resurfaces
Unfortunately, in 1996 the U.S. government dropped a bomb into IWC deliberations with a proposed take of Eastern Pacific gray whales for the Makah Indian tribe of Neah Bay, Washington. Unlike the Inuit hunt, which has clearly met the IWC criteria of "continuing dependence on whales and whaling," the Makah proposal failed at the 1996 IWC meeting to meet the required three-quarters support and was pulled from the debate by the U.S. delegation.
Coming into the 1997 meeting, the U.S. faced vocal opposition to the hunt by many nations in the Working Group Meeting on Aboriginal Whaling held a week prior to the IWC annual meeting. Discussions in the Working Group made it clear that most nations did not believe the Makah hunt met the criteria for aboriginal subsistence whaling as defined by the IWC. In addition, not a single environmental or animal welfare group came out publicly in support of the Makah hunt.
Recognizing the Makah proposal could not stand on its own merit, the U.S. adopted a strategy which resulted in one of the most incredible from-the-floor attacks on a government in the history of the IWC. The U.S. merged the Makah request for gray whales with that of the Russian Federation. The IWC recognizes a legitimate subsistence need for gray whales by the Russian Chukchi natives, and it was clear from the outset that no governments opposed the proposed Chukchi take. In merging the two requests, the U.S. placed other delegations in an uneasy position -- in denying the Makah quota, Chukchi would be denied as well.
In the ensuing debate, some 14 governments questioned the merits of the Makah hunt. Many stated strongly that they did not feel the Makah met the criteria for aboriginal subsistence whaling. The U.S. delegation was forced to sit and listen while many traditional allies lashed out at it for even bringing this issue to the IWC before seeking clarification of the Makah's whaling rights under U.S. law.
|
 SELECTED EXCERPTS
|
Japan was quick to point out that the Makah hunt bears a strong resemblance to Japanese coastal whaling, given that certain products from the Makah take could be sold in the Seattle airport. The Japanese delegation said this new category of whaling should therefore be considered for other groups. The Australians lamented being forced to "clean up the debris of the failure of the American welfare system," while the Mexican delegation deplored the U.S. stand on native rights issues.
In the end, Resolution 49/27 DID pass, but with a critical caveat: the quota will stand for those native groups whose "needs have been recognized." Given the number of assertions in the recorded debate of the meeting stating clearly that the Makah hunt did not meet the IWC needs definition, the U.S. claims of a victory on this issue are premature (see The Spyhopper, 1997 vol. 3). Any hunt by the Makah is likely to face tough legal battles.
In attendance at the meeting were two Makah women representing tribal Elders who have come out against the whale hunt. Both Alberta Thompson and Mabel "Mae" Smith were eloquent defenders of the tribe's traditions and culture, and reiterated the belief of many Elders that the proposed hunt does not satisfy subsistence or cultural criteria as demanded by the IWC.
Also on the IWC Agenda
While the Irish proposal and the Makah issue dominated the discussion in Monaco, other issues were addressed during the meeting.
Two ongoing challenges for the IWC are the illegal trafficking in whale meat products and monitoring whale meat sales. Results of an Earthtrust-funded study presented at the IWC meeting showed a disturbing trend in Japanese whale meat samples -- a growing percentage of dolphin and porpoise meat being sold as whale meat; up from 14.6% in 1993 to 28.8% in 1996. Also in 1996, 2.5% of the samples analyzed came from whale species not currently hunted.
The Commission adopted Resolution 49/44, which calls on governments to provide information to the IWC on the size and species origin of remaining stockpiles of whale meat. This stockpile analysis should help in beginning to control the sale and trade of whale meat. However, the increasing incidence of small cetaceans in the market samples studied raises additional concerns. One of these is the fact that small cetaceans caught off Japan tend to have high levels of heavy metals and organochlorines. Unfortunately, dolphins tend to "fall through the cracks" of the IWC, as many nations do not accept IWC regulation for small cetaceans.
Perhaps in response to the questions raised about the future of the IWC during discussion of the Irish proposal, for the first time in several years the Commission was able to pass very strongly worded resolutions on commercial whaling by Norway and scientific whaling by Japan. The Commission adopted Resolution 49/38, which reaffirms its view that commercial whaling should not take place as long as the moratorium remains in effect, a strong indictment of Norway's commercial whaling of northeastern Atlantic minke whales. The resolution calls on Norway to, among other things, "halt immediately all whaling activities under its jurisdiction." This resolution was co-sponsored by 12 nations, including the U.S., Brazil, Mexico, and Australia.
Two resolutions on scientific whaling by Japan were passed: Resolution 49/36, on Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and Resolution 49/37, regarding Japan's scientific kill of minke whales in the north Pacific Ocean. Combined, these hunts in 1996 accounted for the death of 540 minke whales.
Both resolutions relating to the Japanese hunts clearly state that the scientific programs used as the basis for these hunts "do not address critically important research needs" for the management of whaling. Further, Resolution 49/36 reaffirmed the view of the IWC that nations should not issue research permits that involve lethal takes of whales within sanctuaries. Japan was requested to refrain from further scientific kills of whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
Up Next: Whalewatching
However, attitudes worldwide toward whales have been changing. Recent public opinion polls in the United Kingdom and U.S., sponsored by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) showed clear and overwhelming support -- over 70% -- in favor of continuing the ban on commercial whaling. There are even signs of change in Japan; 80% of the public in a recent poll felt eating whalemeat is not necessary.
Japan is home to one of the fastest-growing whalewatching industries, as is former whaling nation Iceland. Whalewatching currently generates over $504 million in income in 65 countries, according to reports by WDCS. The American Cetacean Society, one of the first groups to sponsor responsible whalewatching tours in both the U.S. and Mexico, can feel proud to have been a founding partner in the movement to promote non-consumptive utilization of whales.
Unlike the scientific and commercial whaling activities of Japan and Norway, which accrue benefits to only small portions of the population in highly-developed economies, whalewatching is bringing increased prosperity to developing communities throughout the world. The U.S. delegation addressed whalewatching during the Monaco meeting, and the issue has been held over for discussion at the next IWC meeting.
As the IWC approaches its 50th anniversary in May 1998, it is in danger of becoming an anachronism of little relevance to modern whale conservation. Founded in the 1940s as a means of ensuring the highest possible catch quotas for whaling nations, the very treaty upon which the IWC is based, the ICRW, is linked to a greed-driven past and not a conservation-driven future.
At its 50th annual meeting, to be held in May in Oman, Persia, the IWC will literally be debating its future. Both whaling and whalewatching will be on the agenda. The outcome of the debate depends in large part on whether the international community and conservation groups such as ACS act decisively.
Kate O'Connell has represented ACS at the IWC Annual Meeting for the past three years. She currently works for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and has for many years worked with other groups including Cetacean Society International and the Humane Society of the United States. Our thanks to Kate for representing us again in 1997.
|
