The whale papers
After more than two years of somewhat abstract talks about a possible "compromise package " between pro- and anti-whaling nations, the first signs of what such a compromise might look like have just surfaced.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has been riven into two factions for decades, but there is a view, shared by some on each side, that chucking verbal harpoons at each other once a year is achieving nothing.
The current IWC chairman, Bill Hogarth, has been driving a process aimed at finding a compromise. And as the Washington Post reported on Sunday, the possible parameters of that compromise are now being put into writing.
On my desk, I now have the text that went into a small meeting of delegates from six IWC member countries, plus a few other key players, held at the weekend in Hawaii.
The issues it concentrates on aren't surprising. The major component of deals proposed in previous years, and the major component of this one, is that Japan stops or reduces in a big way its annual operation in Antarctic waters - currently conducted under rules permitting hunting for scientific purposes - in exchange for which it gains the right to catch more whales near its coastline.
But there are many, many details to be worked out.
What reduction in Antarctic catch? How will it be monitored? How big and how commercial would the expansion in coastal whaling be?
What would ensure that the coastal catches did not become unsustainably large? What would prevent other countries - South Korea for now, possibly others later - duplicating the Japanese operation?
In terms of how it's answering those questions, the discussion paper doesn't generally make happy reading for people opposed to whaling.
There are two draft "compromise packages" proposed for scientific hunting. One envisages a progressive downscaling of the Antarctic minke whale catch over five years and an end to hunting fins and humpbacks; the other would set maximum catch limits for the five year period.
Nowhere is there mention of the anti-whalers' main goal - a complete end to scientific whaling, or at least its placement under international jurisdiction.
Japan currently aims to catch about 1,000 whales in the Antarctic each year. But the paper says that a decrease in the Antarctic haul would be "linked" to the coastal whaling quotas; that's not quantified, but implies that the more Japan cedes ground in the Southern Ocean, the more it will gain around its coasts - although the coastal catch would have to remain within limits set by the IWC's scientific committee.
There are more details in the document, on sanctuaries, bycatch and monitoring; but the scientific/coastal hunting trade is the most important.
The US could, presumably, live with all this - although there's been no word yet on whether the Obama regime would endorse this potentially unpopular initiative, stemming as it does from Mr Bush's time in office.
Some other governments are going to find it difficult, particularly those such as Australia and the UK that usually take a hard-nosed anti-whaling stance.
And what about the environment groups which campaign so eloquently on the issue?
I called up Patrick Ramage, who heads the whale programme at the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) - one of the most vocal anti-whaling organisations - to see what he made of it.
"It's a bit of a surprise to understand that it's not 'if you exit scientific whaling then we'll give you something on your coast'," he said.
"The endgame appears to contemplate a legitimisation of scientific whaling and gives them coastal whaling.
"For any government serious about whale conservation, it's going to be difficult to sign up to a package that means the end of the moratorium - with whatever weasel words - and a legitimisation of both coastal and scientific hunting."
If what's included is causing such groups concern, what's not included may turn out to be even more problematical for them.
Norway hunts almost as many whales each year as Japan, though restricting itself to a single species, the minke. The document makes but one brief mention of this annual haul, and no mention at all of Iceland's.
These two countries are keen to export meat to Japan, which is one reason why anti-whaling groups have chased a trade ban for so long. But trade, it appears, is not on the table.
A technical point - but a highly important one for the future - concerns what category of whaling the new proposed Japanese programme would fall into.
Currently, the IWC recognises three categories - commercial, subsistence and scientific.
The new coastal whaling can't be commercial, because the 1982 commercial moratorium will stay in place, according to the document.
It doesn't appear to fit into the subsistence or scientific categories either - yet the text also says it "would not be considered to constitute a new form of whaling" - so what is it, what are the parameters, and what's to prevent any other country deciding they would like a slice of it too?
A source close to the negotiations tells me there would be restrictions on how the meat can be distributed but it wouldn't be considered to be something new. So what should we call it - commercial-lite? Subsistence-commercial?
The same source tells me that other countries would be prevented from following suit by simple politics. Voting the package through will require a three-quarters majority of IWC members - although Dr Hogarth will be doing everything he can to have consensus - and the same three-quarters majority could easily block bids by other countries to follow in Japan's shoes.
In a nutshell, then, what we have is a political package. It aims to deliver certain things that each camp might demand; but as it now stands, it would not enshrine these ingredients in the international whaling convention in a way that fundamentally changes the way the industry is regulated.
In terms of what's on paper, it appears to give more to Japan (and, by omission, the other whaling nations) than it does to the anti-whaling bloc.
So far, it only works for the anti-whalers if they believe Japan will follow through on the spirit of the compromise as well as the letter, and will agree to further restrictions in the years to come.
My sense is that some of the anti-whaling delegates involved in the talks do believe that. But it will come harder to many outside.
Some who oppose whaling in principle may still argue that from these beginnings a final text can be wrought that satisfies them more than the current situation.
But you can get a foretaste of the opprobrium that anti-whaling countries will get if they follow this process through from the angles that some of their news organisations are now putting on the story - "Outrage at plan for Japan to kill whales in North Pacific" (ABC); "Secret Japan deal to trade whale kills" (The Age); "Proposal could see Japan hunt more whales" (Radio New Zealand).
The very least they will need to appease their electorates, newspapers and activists is a deal that reduces Japan's total whale kill markedly on a long-term basis - and a signed piece of paper demonstrating that.
So far, they don't have it.
My bet is that anti-whaling countries are going to demand a lot more details, safeguards and concessions than they have at present when commissioners of IWC countries next meet in Rome in March.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Here is a photo from the moon, taken by the Japanese space agency, JAXA.
http://www.lpod.org/?p=1517
This is the same government which OK's whaling.
I want to ask the group a question. How are whaling and space exploration related, specifically, as regards Japan?
And what does that tell us about human nature, for we are surely part of nature, woven into its proverbial web just as surely as are the whales?
Can you ask hunters not to hunt? And if you do, don't you have to have an alternative, and a worthy one, if you are honorable?
And aren't the alternatives, or perhaps finding them, really what we should be discussing here?
Complain about this comment
The whole idea of whaling is obnoxious. There is no justification for whaling, whether sustainable or not. It is not a necessary source of animal protein.
Especially as it is not possible to kill them in any way that is faintly humane.
Complain about this comment
a subject close to my heart. I made this in response to many things...but the main one was whaling.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6f7xRfVLYss
adking
Complain about this comment
This is a very emotive issue, because of the way whales have been given special status in the human psyche by the anti-whaling fraternity.
I know I will be screamed at for this comment, but, taking a step back and trying to be objective about this, I can see no reason why whales cannot be hunted for their meat, as any other animal - we are after-all omnivores and I can see no reason why Alaskan Inupiat are allowed to use whales as food, but the Japanese aren't. As usual we have to be careful that they are not hunted to extinction.
As far as hunting for scientific purposes, I recalled an article on Australian scientists coming up with a way to work on whales without killing them - it's here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1802578.stm - although I don't think I would want to be on the dirty end of harvesting whale poo!
Complain about this comment
@ManySummits
I didn't understand any of your arguments. Iceland has a whaling industry, and isn't on the moon. India is at the moon, but has no whaling industry. Simply because a country does two activities, doesn't necessarily form a link between them in their culture. I find no link between them (from a non-Japanese native point of view) apart from the fact both of them are performed mainly by Japanese nationals.
And is hunting something that hunters must do? If that was the case, we humans would still be hunter-gatherers, as we had been doing that for longer then we have ever been farming.
So yes, we can ask them to do something else, and there are many arguments why both themselves and the planet in general would benefit.
Complain about this comment
please stop this antiwhaling hysteria.
there are more pressingt matter.
Rhinos, Asian Elephants, Tigers and scores of other species are poached into extinction right under your noses whilst you are promoting the waste of valuable resources.
there are enough whales for people to eat a few and for other to watch them.
Complain about this comment
If people would just boycott Japanese products the whaling would stop. Let everyone know that by supporting the Japanese economy they are encouraging whaling. Such a boycott would cause their government to consider the financial cost of this barbaric custom.
Complain about this comment
Never mind commercial or scientific, and all the nit-picking agreements: there should be no compromise on murder.
CuckooToo writes: 'I can see no reason why whales cannot be hunted for their meat, as any other animal'. This would be true if it were justifiable to hunt any animals for their meat, but it isn't. We don't need meat for health or life, and I see no reason why the lives of non-human animals should not be respected, just as those of humans.
Complain about this comment
@dhammadinna
I agree with being humane in our treatment of animals, but we are omnivores, not herbivores.
What would the Alaskan Inupiat eat if they can't eat meat?
Complain about this comment
Whaling is wrong and unecessary, as are hunting and farm methods of producing meat. We are humans, we have a choice, we can do things differently and we can eat differently, we don't HAVE to eat meat. I think we got two directions as regarding our relationship with the planet and everything else on it: we can either relax and go on with our ways, consuming all to exhaustion or decide to take care of it all.
Complain about this comment
In other news, the Sea Shepherd announced a new major quota on whalering. This met vocal opposition from critics, who argued that whalers, as an endangered species, should not be targeted for any reason. They especially questioned the increase in quota of Icelandic whalers, up to 150 from 7 last year.
The Sea Shepherd defended its move as a "direct action" countering Iceland's moves towards new quotas. It defended whalering as a cultural phenomenon unique to its members since their origin - an aboriginal origin if you will. A spokesperson, who wished to remain anonymous said, "Sea Shepherd activists have been hunting Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic whalers for decades now. To deny us this basic right would be to deny us of our culture".
Due to international pressure in the last few decades, the Sea Shepherd has tremendously cut down on whalering, allocating quotas allegedly only for "scientific purposes". The spokesperson said that the whalers would be psycho-analysed to "find out the unique traits that make them crave whale" and embark on scientific censuses that would help the world understand more about the prevalence of this uniques species among human beings.
It remains to be seen whether the new quotas will buck this trend, or is just being used as a threat that will be withdrawn when the new Icelandic government comes in and reverses the quotas.
Complain about this comment
To "BrisbaneBen":
I'm still getting the hang of this internet forum business. I will try and be more clear.
Human nature interests me, as I imagine it does all human beings. I think also nations and individuals display fractal characteristics, i.e., both are complex, and are surprisingly self-similar in their thinking, actions, and long and colorful histories.
Quite rightly you point out that we were hunter-gatherers for much more time than we have been either farmers or industrialists or city-dwellers.
In our endocrine systems and in our brains we are coded as hunters and gatherers, and as omnivores. We sometimes have compassion, and that is where whaling strikes a chord. Good for us.
The reason for the moon photo was this. Japan, a powerful nation, in both hunting whales and going to the moon, is displaying two very human traits or instincts - the need to explore, and the need to hunt. It is only circumstance which is different in the case of Iceland and India, to look at two of the countries you mentioned. But both India and Iceland will I am sure be found to manifest both the need to hunt and the need to explore, both in the present and in their respective pasts. Because we are all human.
The main problem I see in our 'civilized' world is our detachment from the natural world. We talk about the natural world, we learn about it, but this is not the same, nor does it produce the sanity of actually contacting the great outdoors on an emotional level.
And until we do this on a regular basis again, I see little hope for us as a species. We can continue to be technologists, that has always been us, but we must at the same time get back to our roots. We must grow up, knowing who we are, what our strengths and weaknesses are, and develop a lifestyle which will keep us grounded.
The moon shot is evocative. Why? And why not go with it, why continually deny our nature? Japan will one day probably stop whaling. But what are we going to do in the meantime? Wait and protest only? How about looking in the mirror, before throwing the first rock? It's so easy to be a critic, and so hard to actually be true to ourselves. We are all neurotic in these civilized times. Lets work on that.
Complain about this comment
You are either ok with the principle of killing an animal for food or you're not, cow, pig chicken, whale, there is little difference.
If you are opposed to whaling but you are not a vegetarian, I'm sorry but you're a hypocrite.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
glitternorms, you're right and wrong.... It's all a question of genuine measure. And whenever profits are involved, measure goes out the window. Same with oil, by the way, and energy in general. There is no real reason to kill thousands of whales.
And in general: We are sawing at the branch upon which we are sitting.
When you realise how much food supermarkets and restaurants and families chuck out in our western societies, you realise that our system has become obscene.
Complain about this comment
While there may be a case for 'culling' certain species of whales the simple fact that blue whale and other rare and protected species turn up on Japanese plates means these people cannot be trusted with a harpoon. If they can identify the worlds largest living animal ......
Complain about this comment
While on the subject of Whales, please give thought to the Severn Barrage (ok it's Wales!).
There are much better solutions than the choice of these alluvial feeding grounds of national importance. Morecambe Bay (with sand and a tidal flow near to the Severn's) is a much more viable solution. But I expect Ed Miliband's advisors' have alreadt decided.....
Complain about this comment
I am personally against whaling, however, I wonder if I was brought up in a country, such as Japan where eating whale meat is presumedly normal would I have such anger about whaling.
As I enjoy eating meat, I feel that it is hypocritical to attack the Japanese for enjoying whale meat.
Complain about this comment
According to IWC, the number of Minke whales is between 600,000 and 700,000.So the species is not endangered.
Next, Japan, Norway and Iceland have enough reason for whaling.We should respect other cultures and traditions.Just imagine as we eat beef, however, the India don't criticize us although they worship the cow as Divine in Hindu.
We should think scientifically and culturally, instead of emotionally.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
To U565650:
You're welcome, and thanks for your comments. I like your sense of humor (homo imbecilis). We could all use more laughs these days, I think.
Here's the way Ronald Wright finished his book, "A Short History of Progress," (2004)
"Homo sapiens has the information to know itself for what it is: an Ice Age hunter only half-evovled towards intelligence; clever but seldom wise."
You know, the revisionist history being written these days by authors like Ronald Wright, Jared Diamond etc..., it is a hopeful sign.
As for your comments regarding womens' heightened sense of sustainability - I agree 100%. It is very interesting to me that several of North America's aboriginal peoples did in fact give women a much more exalted place in their society than I think we do, even in this modern age. On a personal note, my wife and I are raising our son, 'like an Apache'. While this would take too much time to delve into here, it is an indication of the profound distaste with which we view many of the machinations of 'Western Civilization'.
In the comments on this page, there seems to be, if not a concensus, at least a leaning towards - tolerance and respect for other cultures.
Perhaps the late Carl Sagan was right when he said, in his last book, "Billions and Billions," (1998)
"Out of the environmental crisis of our time should come, unless we are much more foolish than I think we are, a binding up of the nations and the generations, and even the end of our long childhood."
Saludos, Aloha ... & Cheers
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS