Whales swim backwards
As regular readers of this blog will know, 2009 could be as significant for whales and whaling as for climate change.
For half a year formally, and for much longer than that informally, governments in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) have been talking about the possibility of finding a "compromise" package that could satisfy both the pro- and anti-hunting blocs - or, if not really satisfy them, then at least provide something they would prefer to the current situation.
I spent the beginning of the week in Lisbon at a seminar organised by the Pew Environment Group, the last in a series aimed at bringing important players together in an off-the-record setting where possible parameters of such a package could be thrashed around - which gave me the chance to gauge reaction to proposals which an IWC small working group released a couple of weeks ago.
They're basic and broad-brush, but the central short-term element of the possible deal they suggest is that Japan scales down its Antarctic hunt - conducted under rules permitting whaling for "scientific research" - and ramps up catches around its coasts.
The reception this idea received in the big world was generally hostile. Anti-whaling governments said there should be an immediate end to Japan's Antarctic hunt without any commercial or quasi-commercial coastal quotas; while in Tokyo, fisheries minister Shigeru Ishiba said he would accept nothing that compromised Japan's "research whaling".
Anti-whaling organisations, whose attitude is crucial to the prospects of the peace talks, were generally scathing of the "package", but not in terms so scarlet as to indicate total, irrevocable opposition.
But they're not falling over themselves to make it work either, in public or in private - and given that it could bring a substantial reduction in the number of whales Japan kills each year, that is significant.
A key question, then, is whether the public stances of the various parties leave enough wiggle room to concoct a workable compromise.
My instinct, following the Pew meeting, is that a form of words could be found that both sides could eventually live with.
But despite that, I would now bet against a deal materialising.
Why? Well, for one thing, it is not entirely clear what Japan's priorities are.
For many years it has argued [pdf link] that four of its traditional whaling communities need an annual take of minke whales, for nutritional, cultural and economic reasons.
But there is also a fundamental philosophy alive in Japan and the other whaling countries that sees whales as wild creatures to be hunted like any others and whalemeat as a commodity to be traded like any other.
Politically, gaining the coastal quotas would almost certainly mean sacrificing this principle, because I don't believe the anti-whaling side will accept a deal that leaves Japan's biggest single hunt (the Antarctic) open for more than a few years or that allows international trade at all; so there is a choice to be made.
A second reason is that as it stands, the package leaves out many issues important to the anti-whaling side. They want trade banned, they want bycatch [pdf link] (accidental, and sometimes not-so-accidental, entrapment in fishing nets) dealt with, and they don't want Norway's annual hunt (with quotas almost as big as Japan's) to be ignored.
A third, and somewhat cynical, reason is that some on both sides of the whaling issue have much to gain from maintaining the status quo. One voice in the anti-whaling camp tells me that some campaigning organisations raise more money through running adverts lambasting the Japanese "slaughter" than through anything else they do; while on Japan's side, the Institute of Cetacean Research, which runs the scientific whaling programmes, would presumably diminish in prestige and budget if those programmes were to shrink markedly.
A fourth reason is simply inertia. Everyone involved has lived with the current impasse for years. There is suspicion on both sides, many key details remain to be sorted out, time is short, and a single perception of betrayal or dirty dealing could be enough to make either side walk away.
But the clincher is that none of the small working group's members who I have asked directly are now optimistic about the process's success - a distinct change, in some cases, from their views just a few months ago.
Another factor, possibly significant, is that Japanese officials are involved with a plan [pdf link] to set up an alternative international treaty organisation if the IWC fails to "normalise" - ie to return to its original purpose of regulating commercial whaling.
Some anti-whaling groups regard this as just a negotiating tactic. But, I gather, the process has advanced to such a stage that an entire draft convention exists, including a requirement that any country signing up would have to leave the IWC.
It also includes wording to the effect that culling cetaceans could be employed as a method of increasing fisheries yield - an argument that has long been anathema to many fisheries scientists, and that is challenged once again by a paper in this week's Science journal.
Could such a treaty come to fruition, gain members, and effectively replace the IWC?
Certainly there would be legal challenges; certainly there would be political difficulties; and it's not certain that even the Japanese government would decide to jump ship into waters so bloody with confrontation that today's turbulent seas would look like miso soup by comparison.
For the anti-whaling nations, Japan's involvement with such a venture is a sign of bad faith. Japan counters that the real bad faith lies in the anti-whalers' failure to abide by the wording of the 1982 commercial whaling moratorium, which committed the IWC to review by 1990 the impacts of the moratorium on whale stocks and consider revising it.
Portugal will host this year's IWC meeting; and as one of the Portuguese delegates at the Pew symposium said, they will try to make the "package" process work, not least because "you don't want to invite someone to dinner and then see him die at your table".
Some delegates believe the death will come sooner - next month, in fact, when IWC commissioners meet privately in Rome to discuss the small working group's proposals.
The experts Pew assembled this week concluded that a high-level meeting of government ministers would be needed to break the deadlock. It's far from certain, though, that even that would succeed. It is, after all, government ministers who have been making the most strident comments in the last two weeks.
Is a deal salvageable? Probably, I think, it is, just; but if it is to happen, I believe anybody who really wants it is going to have to come up quickly with something significantly more bold and generous than we have seen so far.
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~07~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
please, stop pretending whales are some special, they do not sing or talk , only in disneyworld.
whales are a natural resource that should be used in a responsible, controlled manner.
there are enough for some whales to be eaten and a lot left to be watched.
stop supporting the hysteric actions of those bleeding hart fanatics and focus your rersources to protect species that are under real threat of extinction.
what is the diffrence between a inuit eating whale and a japanese anyhow ????
Complain about this comment
please, stop pretending whales are something special, they do not sing or talk , only in disneyworld.
whales are a natural resource that should be used in a responsible, controlled manner.
there are enough for some whales to be eaten and a lot left to be watched.
stop supporting the hysteric actions of those bleeding hart fanatics and focus your rersources to protect species that are under real threat of extinction.
what is the diffrence between a inuit eating whale and a japanese anyhow ????
Complain about this comment
Well ... one difference I would put (in a symplistic way, ok) is that the Inuit catch is "artisanal"(not that they go out with kayak and harpoon, but rather the efficiency and number of whales they hunt) while the Japanese is rather "industrial" ...
Richard ... I fear points 3 and 4 hit the nail ...
And again ... both sides are "posturing" ... to impress the other side. Same as always ...
And the whales are still in between the fronts and get the worst part of this "game" ...
Complain about this comment
bluemaumau #2
I have sailed down the California coast at night and listened to whales talking and singing. Yes, they really do. It's eerie and magical to experience and to be a part of. I have swam and played with dolphins off the coast of New Zealand and with sea lions in the San Francisco Bay. They are all very communicative in a very deep and natural way.
I also understand the natural predator instinct within us all and the way that nature supports a hierarchy of who feeds on whom.
The resolution of my conflict between these two positions is something I have struggled to reconcile all my life. I am in deeper conflict now than ever. It’s not a simple matter of “stop supporting the hysteric actions of those bleeding hart fanatics”. This question challenges our whole being and existence.
I find I'm continually looking for an answer which never comes.
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey:
You mentioned in your post #30 of the previous article, "Fin Worlds...", that a "love of nature" is perhaps the reason a few of us, (perhaps most of us ?), write on this website.
I hope you are right, and I think you are.
The current topic under discussion allows us to focus on one issue, but underneath all that is the great puzzle. Who are we, why are we here, where are we going, and perhaps, are we alone in this vast and incredible universe?
My favorite description of 'who we are', comes from the revisionist historian Ronald Wright, in his book, "A Short History of Progress" (2004). And his final thoughts in this book bear on the whale-hunting issue being discussed here, and on the environmental pickle we seem to have gotten ourselves into. From the final page of his book:
"Homo sapiens has the information to know itself for what it is: an Ice Age hunter only half-evolved towards intelligence; clever but seldom wise.
...We have the tools and the means to to share resources, clean up pollution, dispense basic health care and birth control, set economic limits in line with natural ones. If we don't do these things now, while we propsper, we will never be able to do them when times get hard. Our fate will twist out of our hands. And this new century will not grow very old before we enter an age of chaos and collapse that will dwarf all the dark ages in our past."
That about sums it up for me, although I think times may have to get much harder before we are convinced of the need to act.
In your post #30 you also mentioned the constant return to the topic of rapid climate change/global warming - i.e., AGW.
That is because I now have a four year old son, and I consider this issue numero uno for his future.
We have been caught unawares. The science coming in as we speak has the deep past scientists finally talking to and writing papers with the Pleistocene specialists, and the results are unnerving.
Though I respect everyone's right to their opinion, to me the Churchilean storm clouds have already gathered, and are already breaking over our heads. Churchill's 'pent-up fury of the strom' is not yet here, but I think it will be soon.
That is also why I am writing here today.
You know, the real acid test of any new theory is always the same - prediction!
If the AGW people are correct, then as we continue our anabated and accelerating burning of fossil fuels, the coral reefs will continue to die in a warming and 'acidifying' ocean, our fisheries will continue to decline, and the base of the oceanic food chain will change to one favoring the anaerobic microbes, rather than the oxygen-lovers of this planet.
I certainly wish this wasn't the case, but in the words of the West's great singer, Ian Tyson, "wishin' don't make it so'.
- From Calgary -
Complain about this comment
how many people in japan eat whale today?
it is next to none.
japan has a very bad reputation on over fishing. ask everyone living around japan if that is truth!
every country around here(japan) got hurt by the japanese over fishing culture.
they even extent their unwanted culture to hunt the whale in the southern ocean.
stop them! stop the greedy.
Complain about this comment
Very strong words by sickearth- 'unwanted culture', 'greedy'!
This embodies what this whole debate is about. It is trully a clash of culture and tradition. People who see whales as cute and off limits to the hunt, and people who see them as fair prey. Of course, IF some species are threatened then absolutely they should be protected from further commercial AND indigenous exploitation. But that is not the issue any more as we all know. The debate has shifted to highlighting the 'brutal' killing of these 'beautiful' and 'intelligent' creatures because the numbers are just too uncertain to rely on to push this point.
If that is what it boils down to (and it does), then what if the Hindu world banned beef burgers? The Muslim world banned pork chops?
Richard's comments about the AW NGOs gaining much from the stalemate is probably true, and maybe vice versa.
I mean, best bash Japan (and leave out Iceland and Norway -even BBC does this routinely- because it places Japan in the 'civilized' group) who will not strike back as hard as say, some companies digging precious metals and fossil fuels in parts of the world the lay person would never know. So the locals suffer from various poisining and forced migration without the world knowing. Mess with this kind of power structure and you can be killed. But mess with Japan, and you can raise more money! You can even throw acid bombs at innocent sailors and it's evidint who's side the BBC and other Western media will take... They'd be called 'terrorists' if the roles were reversed.
Btw, don't mention that tradionally Japanese whalers have erected shrines and prayed for the dead whales, utilized every single piece of the whale while the non-tradional whalers (ex. UK and US) took only the blubber and discarded the rest.
Sorry for the long post. I am an environmentalist and also work day and night to protect the world's last few remaining tropical forests. It's just not acceptable to put down a country because it has a different culture than yours. The environment needs a more mature debate to save it. I can only hope.
Complain about this comment
Given the rapid decline in the ocean ecosystem due to overfishing, climate change, land-based sources of pollution etc. whales are getting it from all sides - not just hunting.
I love whales as much as the next person (perhaps even more -- I've spent a fair amount of my life campaigning to save them), but it seems to me that it's time to bury the hatchet and resolve this issue once and for all. The vast resources devoted to this campaign should be put to work addressing the far greater threats facing not only whales but all of the oceans' biodiversity.
Complain about this comment
The easiest solution is to split the world's oceans up into zones and auction off the rights to catch whales in each of these zones to the highest bidder (with restrictions on the number and type of whale caught)
The winning bidder is then the only country / organisation allowed to catch whales in that zone. Each country / organisation is allowed to bid for as many zones as they would like and is not limited by only being able to bid near territorial waters.
Any money raised in the auction would be used for scientific research into oceans and ocean-life.
This way we return to limited whaling as originally envisaged by the IWC but, importantly, also put a commercial / ecological price on it.
By opening the auction up to everybody the various environmental charities can group together to buy up the rights to each whaling zone and, effectively, outbid everyone else. This is, of course, only if people care enough to give them the funding to do so.
Countries, such as Japan, would put a price on value of the whaling industry and, economically, this would be a limit to the amount that they would bid. They may bid more for political reasons but it does also provide an excellent method of stopping whaling without having to endure a loss of face (which is an important part of Japanese culture).
Some of the initial auction funds could be used to compensate people for loss of work & money due not being able to hunt whales.
If the auctions happened every 5 years or so then this would increase the funding for scientific research and, over time, the amount required to bid for all of the zones would decrease due to nobody having the capability or desire to hunt whales.
As it is the environmental organisations already provide a lot of money for scientific research so this also wouldn't be too great a cost for them and may, in fact, increase donations in the relevant auction years.
Complain about this comment
Boring_username #9
I'll second your idea. It has the essence of a solution.
I'm of the view that countries divide up the oceans and become responsible for their territories. Like giving ownership rights to land it tends to be better looked after.
You have put some meat arround how to achieve it. It has a lot of merits.
Complain about this comment
Re posts #9 & 10 - selling the oceans to the highest bidder:
Sounds like a song I once heard - "The rich get rich and the poor get poorer".
No thought of 'the commons' here. The world oceans as the common heritage of mankind and perhaps, of all the lifeforms living there?
So afraid of the United Nations - so afraid of putting trust in your fellow man.
I think it's why there is so much opposition to anthropogenic global warming. It has little to do with the science of it, and much to do with - FEAR. Fear of trusting the climatologists, fear of having to change, of having to admit that, once again, we have got it wrong. Fear of moving on anyway, and trying to get it right.
Moving on doesn't mean doing the same thing over again, and expecting different results. That would be Einstein's definition of insanity.
- From the eastern slopes of the Rockies -
Complain about this comment
I also have had the chance to see Whales up close, and what a beautiful sight they are, that does not mean that the pro-whaling countries are wrong to wish to eat whale meat, I think it is wrong, but if you had substituted whale with rat then I would have said nothing, which probably makes me a hypocrite.
teamgreen1, agree with most of what you say, looks to me as if you might be the sort of environmentalist who can listen to both sides of a story, and that is very refreshing compared to most of the environmentalists who attack anyone who dares to disagree.
Complain about this comment
We should not kill a creature in such a cruel way for one thing. If whale meat is acceptable for a few than everyone has the right to eat it and within a few years whales will be facing extinction again! Human greed needs to be controlled if those of us who have morality are not to be damned in the future, for standing by and doing nothing while the selfish and callous amongst us rape the planet!
Complain about this comment
hm, hm ... I find it interesting that "atmosphere" and "spirit" ... are something described as "concrete" ...
Jjust musing about the wording ... for the rest ... it's "Business as usual" ... hopefully I'm wrong, but ...
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS