International Whaling Commission 2006
AFP - Japan will leave annual global whaling talks after landing its heaviest ever blows against a 20-year moratorium on commercial whale hunts.
Environmentalists and anti-whaling states entered the five days of annual talks in the Caribbean worried that Tokyo would finally wrest control of the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
Their fears have been at least partially realized, and they are styling Japan's advances and the expanding pro-whaling bloc in the body as a "wake-up call" for their never-ending battle to save whales.
In a sign of the stepped up anti-whaling campaign that activists have promised, iconic group Greenpeace staged a beach landing protest in the final hours of the IWC talks, leading to the arrest of 10 of its members.
Four protestors waded ashore through clear blue waters from high-speed launches after leaving the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise, waving banners in the shape of a whale fin bearing the slogan "R.I.P."
They were joined by another six Greenpeace activists already on the beach of the luxury resort hosting the talks.
Protestors were restrained with plastic cuffs and led away by St Kitts police officers.
"As far as we are aware they have entered the federation without the consent of an immigration officer," said St Kitts and Nevis police chief Robert Jeffers, adding that the protestors would be charged with infringing immigration laws, obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest.
Japan's pro-whaling coalition slumped to defeat in a string of early votes at the meeting, including on crucial issues like Japan's desire for secret ballots to be introduced to IWC meetings.
But the anti-whaling states couldn't hold the line, and 33 pro-whaling states Sunday mustered their first majority in more than two decades, by one vote, on a highly symbolic resolution on the future direction of the body.
Tokyo immediately set a controversial course for a return to commercial whaling, welcoming 37 IWC members to a special meeting to discuss reform plans.
The focus of Monday's session -- outside IWC auspices -- was restoring what Japan sees as the body's original 1946 mandate -- regulating sustainable hunting.
"We are not trying to exclude, or separate, or divide this organisation," said Joji Morishita,
Japan's IWC alternate commissioner, at the talks in a dimly lit nightclub in the resort.
Japan called the meeting to discuss a date and venue for three days of formal talks -- outside the IWC and before its next annual meeting in Alaska -- for nations that support its reform drive, a process Tokyo calls "normalization."
Environmental groups accused Japan of trying to take the IWC back 60 years, arguing that its thrust for commercial whaling had no place in the modern world.
"Regardless of the rhetoric and posturing here, very little has been achieved, either for whales or people this week," said Susan Lieberman, director of WWF's global species program. Environmentalists, who believe Japan wants to stifle conservation efforts on the commission, slaughter more whales and chip away at the moratorium.
However, the moratorium, enforced in 1986 as one of the environmental movement's proudest achievements, is not in immediate danger, as it needs a currently unobtainable 75 percent majority to be overturned.
Japan abides by the moratorium, but conducts some "research" whaling through what opponents say is a loophole in the IWC charter, as does Iceland.
Norway ignores the moratorium all together. Around 2,000 whales are taken a year by the three nations. - Reproduced from Yahoo, 21st June 2006.
This news on whaling caught my attention.
Initially, my first thought was no to whaling on all levels. Primary its because I thought whales are actually endangered species. But on 2nd thought, I remembered that I do not support vegetarianism and the banning of farming of livestock, i.e chickens, cows, pigs etc. So what is this all about ?
Went to IWC website but found it too incomprehensible with all the big words and stuff. So I tried Wikipedia which is more helpful to understanding the whole issue.
This Blog by David, a New Zealander living in Tokyo, who actually covers this whole issue in depth. He had also set up this page to answer the 3 most asked question about whaling. Though his blog is slightly towards pro-whaling but it still can be read to know gain some insight into the pro-whaling camp.
Basically, there are the pro-whaling camp (like Japan) and Anti-whaling camp which make up the IWC. “The IWC remains a deeply polarised body, with little compromise possible between two entrenched positions; one that regards whales as a food resource like any other, and the other that sees them as special, sentient creatures which should never again be hunted.” (quoted from BBC) The IWC is actually voluntary and members can opt out of a resolution, delay implementation of the agreement or leave the IWC totally if they want to, which basically also meant that the IWC has no teeth.
In 1986, a moratorium was passed by the then-members to adopt a global ban on commeical whaling but allows for a loop hole through scientific whaling, which meant that whales that are killed for scientific studies can be sold commercially as it would be a waste otherwise. There is also an exception made for aboriginal subsistence whaling where the IWC consider it to be of a different nature to commercial whaling due to cultural and subsistence issue.
All was well and good for a while, with both camps trying to pull votes every year.
That is until this year. Japan, being the leader of the Pro-whaling camp, got enough votes to start looking for ways to reverse the 1986 moratorium but not enough to repeal it totally this year.
Now that the population of Whales has stabilized (if its really true), i suppose there is no reason not to support the idea of sustainable whaling. But the issue of actual implementation and enforcement, formulation of quotas and accurate accounting of the actual stock left would make this a slippery slope that might accidentally result in their extinction. As long as the IWC can agree on reasonable measures, i guess its all right.
Might as well everyone be dammned together, i say, if this can't be stopped.
Personally its a no for me because i don't trust people generally but logically its just another thing altogether.
Environmentalists and anti-whaling states entered the five days of annual talks in the Caribbean worried that Tokyo would finally wrest control of the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
Their fears have been at least partially realized, and they are styling Japan's advances and the expanding pro-whaling bloc in the body as a "wake-up call" for their never-ending battle to save whales.
In a sign of the stepped up anti-whaling campaign that activists have promised, iconic group Greenpeace staged a beach landing protest in the final hours of the IWC talks, leading to the arrest of 10 of its members.
Four protestors waded ashore through clear blue waters from high-speed launches after leaving the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise, waving banners in the shape of a whale fin bearing the slogan "R.I.P."
They were joined by another six Greenpeace activists already on the beach of the luxury resort hosting the talks.
Protestors were restrained with plastic cuffs and led away by St Kitts police officers.
"As far as we are aware they have entered the federation without the consent of an immigration officer," said St Kitts and Nevis police chief Robert Jeffers, adding that the protestors would be charged with infringing immigration laws, obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest.
Japan's pro-whaling coalition slumped to defeat in a string of early votes at the meeting, including on crucial issues like Japan's desire for secret ballots to be introduced to IWC meetings.
But the anti-whaling states couldn't hold the line, and 33 pro-whaling states Sunday mustered their first majority in more than two decades, by one vote, on a highly symbolic resolution on the future direction of the body.
Tokyo immediately set a controversial course for a return to commercial whaling, welcoming 37 IWC members to a special meeting to discuss reform plans.
The focus of Monday's session -- outside IWC auspices -- was restoring what Japan sees as the body's original 1946 mandate -- regulating sustainable hunting.
"We are not trying to exclude, or separate, or divide this organisation," said Joji Morishita,
Japan's IWC alternate commissioner, at the talks in a dimly lit nightclub in the resort.
Japan called the meeting to discuss a date and venue for three days of formal talks -- outside the IWC and before its next annual meeting in Alaska -- for nations that support its reform drive, a process Tokyo calls "normalization."
Environmental groups accused Japan of trying to take the IWC back 60 years, arguing that its thrust for commercial whaling had no place in the modern world.
"Regardless of the rhetoric and posturing here, very little has been achieved, either for whales or people this week," said Susan Lieberman, director of WWF's global species program. Environmentalists, who believe Japan wants to stifle conservation efforts on the commission, slaughter more whales and chip away at the moratorium.
However, the moratorium, enforced in 1986 as one of the environmental movement's proudest achievements, is not in immediate danger, as it needs a currently unobtainable 75 percent majority to be overturned.
Japan abides by the moratorium, but conducts some "research" whaling through what opponents say is a loophole in the IWC charter, as does Iceland.
Norway ignores the moratorium all together. Around 2,000 whales are taken a year by the three nations. - Reproduced from Yahoo, 21st June 2006.
This news on whaling caught my attention.
Initially, my first thought was no to whaling on all levels. Primary its because I thought whales are actually endangered species. But on 2nd thought, I remembered that I do not support vegetarianism and the banning of farming of livestock, i.e chickens, cows, pigs etc. So what is this all about ?
Went to IWC website but found it too incomprehensible with all the big words and stuff. So I tried Wikipedia which is more helpful to understanding the whole issue.
This Blog by David, a New Zealander living in Tokyo, who actually covers this whole issue in depth. He had also set up this page to answer the 3 most asked question about whaling. Though his blog is slightly towards pro-whaling but it still can be read to know gain some insight into the pro-whaling camp.
Basically, there are the pro-whaling camp (like Japan) and Anti-whaling camp which make up the IWC. “The IWC remains a deeply polarised body, with little compromise possible between two entrenched positions; one that regards whales as a food resource like any other, and the other that sees them as special, sentient creatures which should never again be hunted.” (quoted from BBC) The IWC is actually voluntary and members can opt out of a resolution, delay implementation of the agreement or leave the IWC totally if they want to, which basically also meant that the IWC has no teeth.
In 1986, a moratorium was passed by the then-members to adopt a global ban on commeical whaling but allows for a loop hole through scientific whaling, which meant that whales that are killed for scientific studies can be sold commercially as it would be a waste otherwise. There is also an exception made for aboriginal subsistence whaling where the IWC consider it to be of a different nature to commercial whaling due to cultural and subsistence issue.
All was well and good for a while, with both camps trying to pull votes every year.
That is until this year. Japan, being the leader of the Pro-whaling camp, got enough votes to start looking for ways to reverse the 1986 moratorium but not enough to repeal it totally this year.
Now that the population of Whales has stabilized (if its really true), i suppose there is no reason not to support the idea of sustainable whaling. But the issue of actual implementation and enforcement, formulation of quotas and accurate accounting of the actual stock left would make this a slippery slope that might accidentally result in their extinction. As long as the IWC can agree on reasonable measures, i guess its all right.
Might as well everyone be dammned together, i say, if this can't be stopped.
Personally its a no for me because i don't trust people generally but logically its just another thing altogether.
posted by 逍遥老头 at 7:33 PM
2 Comments:
Hello!
I guess my comment is way too late, but I thought I would write a note anyway since you kindly linked readers through to my blog.
Indeed, as you mentioned I definitely cover the issue from the "pro-whaling" perspective (it's more about tolerance for it than being "pro" it for me, but I'm be happy with the "pro" label if some level of whale utilization has positive benefits for the ecosystem as a whole)
> Now that the population of Whales has stabilized (if its really true),
Very important to note that this is only true of some stocks of some whale species. Many stocks of whales remain in a fairly depleted state, and a couple of these stocks are struggling to survive.
For example, the Northern Right whale which hangs out on the north east coast of north america apparently numbers as few as 300 individuals.
The Western grey whale in the North west Pacific is in an even worse state, with perhaps only 100 or so at the moment.
On the other hand, the Easter grey whale which migrates down the west coast of North America is basically as big as the ecosystem can sustain - with more than 20,000 grey whales, scientists believe that this particular stock is at it's carrying capacity.
In the Antarctic, the story is fairly good all around:
The Antarctic minke whale which Japan hunts under it's JARPA II research programme is also believed to be at pretty much it's carrying capacity, with a population in the hundreds of thousands. The IWC's Scientific Committee is going to agree on a new estimate next year, but from what I've read it seems likely that the estimate will probably be around the 400,000 ~ 500,000 mark. I'm not a cetacean scientist though, so do not quote me.
The humpback population in the Antarctic has also increased from around 10,000 whales 25 years ago to more than 40,000 today. It's especially populous off the west coast of Australia, and to a lesser extent, the east coast of Australia. Japan plans to start hunting 50 of these each year from the austral summer of 2007/2008.
Even the Blue whale is known to be increasing in numbers in the Antarctic now as well. IWC Scientists have estimated growth to be at a rate of around 7% each year. The over all numbers remain low however, with an abundance estimate of only 1,500 or so. Nonetheless, if the species continues to grow at this rate each year it will gradually recover. Due to the low abundance of this species, Japan has no (immediate) plans to hunt them.
> i suppose there is no reason not to support the idea of sustainable whaling.
That's exactly what it is all about for me. I am tolerant of whaling activities because I believe in the principle of sustainable use. How different people from different backgrounds and cultures wish to interact with wildlife is not my concern, providing that they do whatever it is they do sustainably. I can't see anything wrong with people hunting animals for food, so long as it is sustainable.
> But the issue of actual implementation and enforcement, formulation of quotas and accurate accounting of the actual stock left would make this a slippery slope that might accidentally result in their extinction.
Implementation and enforcement is indeed the real issue right now. Personally I'm not concerned, as I can't imagine that the Japanese whalers in the Antarctic would be able to avoid the ever-watching eyes of groups like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, who will search for any sign of wrongdoing as a new argument to call for the cessation of whaling.
Could illegal activities bring about extinction, accidentally?
First thing to consider is that even in the old days when there were no regulations, the oil whaling industry failed to drive a single species of whale to extinction.
Second thing to consider is that under IWC sanctioned commercial whaling, the only stocks of whales that could be hunted would have to be at at least 54% of their estimated carrying capacity - the number of whales that the IWC Scientists think the ecosystem of those whales can support. If any stock was ever found to be below 54% of it's estimated carrying capacity, the IWC could immediately class the stock as one for protection again.
Under IWC rules, the number of whales that could be taken from a stock is likely to be around 0.5%, to start with (i.e., 100 whales a year for a stock of 20,000). The number would only be increased cautiously if it was evident that the stock was continuing to increase in numbers despite the limited hunting.
> As long as the IWC can agree on reasonable measures, i guess its all right.
I think it should be, as well. At least, even if something did go wrong, I think the scientists would have no trouble recognising the problem well before it was too late.
Hey David
Thanks for the clarification. Enjoy your holiday over there.
J.
Post a Comment
<< Home