Whaling: Chaos or compromise?

 
Whales The wrangling means issues such as strandings, ocean noise and ship collisions are not addressed

From the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Jersey:

The chaotic close of this year's IWC meeting had to be seen to be believed.

And for those who argue the body is ill-fit for purpose, archaic, hopelessly riven and suited only for the scrapyard, it provided perfect ammunition.

Let me try to set the picture out for you as best I can.

At the start of the final day, the Buenos Aires group of 14 Latin American countries demanded that their bid to have the South Atlantic Ocean declared a whale sanctuary be heard, debated and resolved, and voted upon if necessary.

This was despite the fact that there was no chance of them gaining the three-quarters majority needed to usher it through.

For the "pro-sustainable-use" bloc, headed by Japan and Iceland, this was unacceptable.

At the last two IWC meetings, the proposal had formed one small component of a much larger compromise package that also included acceptance of Japan's Antarctic whaling programme in scaled-down form, and quasi-commercial quotas for their coastal whaling towns.

The package was formally declared dead at last year's meeting, with each bloc blaming the other for intransigence.

So for Japan and its allies, to have the sanctuary proposal aired again in isolation, when they had been prepared to concede it as part of the big package if they also gained things they wanted, was just unacceptable.

Once it became clear that the Latin Americans were determined to have a vote, the pro-whaling countries got up and walked out, in a bid - as they made clear - to make the meeting inquorate.

The solution was for national representatives to go into a private meeting, to try to find a mutually acceptable way forward.

Guide to whales (BBC)

Even more extraordinarily, the meeting also had to discuss and decide what was meant by "quorate".

Half of the organisation's countries need to be present in order for votes to count; but was that half of all members, half of countries present at the beginning of the meeting, half of the number in the room at the time of the vote?

Different delegates gave me all three definitions; and despite the IWC having existed for 65 years, it's clear that no-one really knows.

You might also be wondering why the chairman and so many of the delegations were anxious to avoid having a vote.

After all, decisions are taken by voting in most national parliaments and in many other international organisations as well.

A two-week meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) might have 50, maybe even more - and it doesn't fall apart.

The issue here is that votes in the IWC used to be ritualised, meaningless, ridiculous, an exercise in grandstanding - because neither bloc was ever going to come near to gaining the three-quarters majority needed to make major changes.

During the two-year "peace process", IWC governments agreed new rules mandating they would strain every sinew to reach consensus where possible, and avoid going back to the years of pointless fractious discord.

The pro-whaling countries said the Latin Americans were doing precisely this, by calling a vote on something that was extracted from a bigger compromise package and which they could not win.

Behind closed doors, reportedly, quite a few other anti-whaling countries told them the same thing - the US and some Europeans, at least.

On the other hand, the Latin Americans insisted that the sanctuary was important to them and they were entitled to call for a vote - which, of course, they were.

Eventually a compromise was found... but finding it took nearly nine hours, time the meeting did not have, as it was already many hours behind schedule.

What the document says is that further efforts to find consensus will be made before the next meeting - and if it can't be found, the issue will go to a vote as the first item on the agenda next time.

The coming year will also be spent deciding what a quorum means in the world of the IWC.

In a sense, what was agreed is less telling than the fact that the process happened in the way it did.

This is my seventh IWC meeting. But many of the other journalists here were on their first - and there's been widespread and wide-eyed amazement along the press balcony at how little time is spent discussing things like whales, or even whaling.

And if next year does see a return to the old days of sterile stand-offs and unwinnable votes, we'll probably see even more points of order, procedural matters and accusations of bad faith - and even less time spent on the things this commission is supposed to be here to do.

Officially, every member government wants to be constructive and take things forward.

But there are two distinct versions of what "forward" means; and beneath the veil of harmony heaves a roiling discordant stew that occasionally, inevitably, boils over.

It's hard to see how this can change unless each side is really willing to yield ground.

This week, the Latin Americans weren't prepared to yield anything because they believe they are right in trying to bring extra conservation measures into force, because they believe the world should be about saving whales, with hunting consigned to the past.

The problem they face is that the other side believes it is right as well.

 
Richard Black, Environment correspondent Article written by Richard Black Richard Black Former environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading

This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 29.

    By the way, no one catches whales that "are used non-lethally by [y]our own coastal communities". I think anyone lucid can clearly see which side is lacking tolerance when reading your comments.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 28.

    Jose, do you realize that the IWC's purpose is to regulate whaling (and make sure whales resources aren't depleted)? As a member country to the IWC, Japan has a right to ask for whaling quotas (or make use of article 8). There's nothing that forbids a "lethal use" of whales if it can be done sustainably (which it probably is now).

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 27.

    Imposing their slaughter against our shared whale populations is a violation of international sharing of biodiversity benefits. It is an act of racism, moreover. So it´s not a 'how many whales' game - it´s a much deeper, serious situation we´re fighting against. And it´s a pity that Northern journalists and some other folk just don´t get it, ever.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 26.

    It´s not about how many whales are out there. It´ps about one nation resorting to wanton devastation of the oceans and plain corruption to obtain domestic gain. This is Japan, as proven exhaustively by fact. We in the Southern Hemisphere are tired of Japan backed by its corrupted allies coming down to kill whales which are used non-lethally by our own coastal communities.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 25.

    I'm not pro whaling or anti whaling, but people need to learn more before taking a side.

    Not all whales are endangered, FACT.

    Japan takes no more than 50 Brydes whales from over 30,000, 950 Minke out of over 600,000.

    If its ethical treatment you disagree on, a lot of standard fishing practices are just as harmfull to the animal.

 

Comments 5 of 29

 

Features

  • RihannaCloud caution

    After celebrity leaks, what can you do to safeguard your photos?


  • Cesc FabregasFair price?

    Have some football clubs overpaid for their new players?


  • Woman and hairdryerBlow back

    Would banning high-power appliances actually save energy?


  • Rack of lambFavourite feast

    Is the UK unusually fond of lamb and potatoes?


  • Members of staff at James Stevenson Flags hold a Union Jack and Saltire flag UK minus Scotland

    Does the rest of the UK care if the Scots become independent?


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.