Whale meeting heads for discord

Right whale tail The waters of the International Whaling Commission are teeming with politics - but whales themselves can be scarce

The annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Panama is about six weeks away, and it's shaping up to be an important and perhaps defining moment.

A recent change of rules means resolutions have to be posted on the organisation's website 60 days before meetings begin, so we have more advance notice of countries' real intentions than formerly.

The Latin American bloc - known as the Buenos Aires Group for these purposes - has lodged a bid to create a whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic Ocean.

Japan has set down a motion reserving its right to request a commercial or quasi-commercial hunting quota for minke whales in its coastal waters.

Monaco is looking for the IWC to refer whale protection to the UN; and, as happens every five years, various countries will be seeking to extend subsistence hunting permits for indigenous communities, mainly in the Arctic.

The South Atlantic sanctuary and Japan's coastal whaling bid have both been tabled year after year.

Mutual acceptance of these proposals was one of the main elements of the "peace package" that countries pursued for three years before admitting at the 2010 meeting that minds couldn't quite meet.

But the two main blocs within the IWC don't agree on where the process formally known as the Future of the IWC is now.

When I spoke during the week to Brazil's commissioner to the IWC, Marcos Vinicius Pinta Gama, he described the compromise package as "dead", and I have heard the same thing from several European delegates.

The Legalities of Whaling

  • Objection - A country formally objects to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium, declaring itself exempt. Example: Norway
  • Scientific - A nation issues unilateral "scientific permits"; any IWC member can do this. Example: Japan
  • Indigenous (aka Aboriginal subsistence) - IWC grants permits to indigenous groups for subsistence food. Example: Alaskan Inupiat

But Japan's deputy commissioner Akima Umezawa disagreed.

"Look at last year's report - it says we should continue dialogue, continue to build trust and encourage continued co-operation," he said.

"So the Future of the IWC process is not dead."

So here is part of what makes this year's cocktail of resolutions potentially explosive.

During the course of the Future of the IWC negotiations, governments agreed that they would not put resolutions to the vote, but try for consensus.

IWC rules mean that most important changes require a three-quarters majority - and with the commission split roughly 50-50 into countries that oppose whaling and those that vote for its continuance, the prospects of critical measures being passed are somewhere near zero.

Last year, despite the maths, the Latin American bloc insisted on its right to put the whale sanctuary proposal to a vote.

Japan and its allies said this was a breach of faith, as they had been prepared to accept the sanctuary bid as long as it was part of a compromise package.

So they walked out - which the anti-whaling bloc regarded as a breach of faith. A recent communique from the Buenos Aires Group called it "abusive behaviour".

There came the somewhat surreal realisation that no-one knew how a quorum was defined in IWC rules.

Dead gray whale on beach Causes of whale deaths such as pollution are on the IWC agenda - but politics may block discussion

And after a year's discussion within a small working group, it's clear that as yet there is still no agreed definition.

You might think it should be a simple question to settle.

But in the febrile and anarchic world of whaling, it's become politicised, with different blocs arguing for the position that suits them best.

In order to get last year's meeting closed, the compromise was that the sanctuary vote would be held over until this year, when it will be the first substantive item on the agenda.

And Mr Pinta Gama told me that the Latin American bloc is not intending to hold back.

"We hope common sense will prevail, that we'll be able to have a normal meeting with clear rules including the one on the quorum, and that we'll be able to take a decision on this [sanctuary] proposal that has been on the table for many years.

"It's going to be difficult, we know, but we think that we have to pursue this objective."

Dr Umezawa, however, was equally clear that the sanctuary bid will not enjoy the support of the pro-whaling countries.

"There is simply no scientific evidence for the sanctuary proposal... there is no need for a sanctuary while the [commercial whaling] moratorium is in effect, and anyway no whaling takes place within the boundary of the proposed sanctuary," he said.

"And the proposal is part of the Future of the IWC package; so we cannot accept cherry-picking."

The language of Japan's coastal whaling proposal hints that it will table a vote on it if the Buenos Aires Group presses for a vote on the South Atlantic sanctuary.

But before any vote takes place, the commissioners have to decide their definition of a quorum. And based on previous experience, that could take a while - perhaps even a majority of the meeting, given the politicised nature of the dispute.

"Nobody wants a repeat of last year because that was a poor show, and deeply undermines the credibility of the commission," observed the long-time commissioner for Monaco, Frederic Briand.

"Should we again get involved in a procedural war at the meeting in Panama, all hopes would be lost that the IWC could properly function."

A long procedural wrangle would matter outside the IWC too.

Every moment spent on what a quorum means is a moment less that can be used to discuss substantive issues that are already struggling to get a decent hearing, such as the growing impact of ocean noise on cetaceans and the implications of climate change.

And the countries pursuing subsistence quotas for their indigenous groups - Russia, Denmark (on behalf of Greenland), St Vincent and the Grenadines, and above all the US - will be stalked by the spectre of 2002, when a political stand-off put the future of subsistence whaling at risk.

The picture of an IWC heading back to the dysfunctional, squabbling days before the "peace process" is one that many find unappealing.


And that's why Monaco's Frederic Briand - with the support of many other anti-whaling countries - has tabled a motion that would see whale conservation "sent upstairs" to the UN.

"We have a moratorium on commercial whaling that's been in place for at least 25 years, but we see it's business as usual for the whaling countries," he said.

"Despite the moratorium, about 35,000 whales have keen killed by three countries. So there's a failure of the IWC to enforce its own resolutions."

His camp believes a change of scene is also needed because the IWC numbers less than half of the world's countries among its members, and deals with less than half of the world's cetacean species.

"Our proposal at the UN will embrace all highly migratory species of cetacean," he said. "In some regions they are currently protected by marine protected areas, and in others they're killed - this is a nonsense."

The draft resolution "Invites the forthcoming UN General Assembly to consider this question in the context of outstanding issues relating to Oceans and the Law of the Sea, with a view to promoting good order in the oceans in compliance with Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration."

This resolution only needs a simple majority to pass, and so the odds ought to be in its favour given that anti-whaling countries currently make up more than half of the commission.

However, the EU always votes as a bloc in the IWC now, and must decide what to do by consensus. And there is a theory that Denmark may hold out against the rest of the EU, as it has done before, if it feels that subsistence quotas for the Greenland Inuit are under threat.

Politics, politics, politics; the waters of the IWC are riddled with it.

Ever since I began covering the issue back in 2005 there have been regular mutterings about whether the IWC has a future; yet so far it's endured, with most member countries seeing collapse as a last resort.

But if delegates in Panama spend days locked in meetings where wrangling about the definition of a quorum is used as a proxy for much more fundamental divisions... what then?

Richard Black 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


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 31.

    We have to accept certain evolutionary facts that apply to all species on the Earth. We a part of a chain; that we have displaced the location of our particular link in no way lets us off the hook. In fact I would argue that our higher cognitive abilities burdens us with a greater responsibility to animal welfare.

  • rate this

    Comment number 30.

    Ok, Humans will never agree on anything, thats why these debates happen. Pigs sheep and cows are killed with the minimum amount of stress and pain, yes its wrong, lets face it man as a species is a hunter. We recocognise as a species that we have an impact and try to better ourselves. Whaling, is a comercial industry in Japan and Norway, BIG money. Money means power to be able to continue whaling

  • rate this

    Comment number 29.

    Many reasons have been quoted here as to why we should not hunt whales, hardly any as to why we should. Yet they continue to be hunted. The power of inertia seems very difficult for mankind to overcome. Traditional communities can import automatic rifles, shoot belugas to death and eat only the jelly in their heads, and claim special dispensation because they are 'traditional communities'.

  • rate this

    Comment number 28.

    25. Joseph_F
    "@billy, insults don't help your case my friend. If the environmental lobby spent more time clearly stating its points, and less time insulting the rest of us, your lot would get more sympathy."
    Point taken

  • rate this

    Comment number 27.

    Recent Beeb footage of never-seen-before behaviour. Humpback whales becoming involved in orcas hunting grey whale calves. Recent DNA analysis indicates that the 2 species are quite closely related, so perhaps no great surprise, eh?

    They are slow to reproduce (over 1 year gestation). They can never compete with us.

  • rate this

    Comment number 26.

    It's sad that so called civilised countries continue to hunt whales. The only reason they do so is to make a political point. There are three good reasons why whales should not be hunted.

    1. They are endangered and it is difficult to establish just how many are left
    2. Whale meat is heavily contaminated with heavy metals and other pollutants such as PCBs
    3. There is no humane way to kill a whale

  • rate this

    Comment number 25.

    @billy, insults don't help your case my friend. If the environmental lobby spent more time clearly stating its points, and less time insulting the rest of us, your lot would get more sympathy.

  • rate this

    Comment number 24.

    "i don't see the issue, pigs are as smart as whales, and we eat them."
    Pigs are bred commercially by the million, whether eating them is ethical they are not endangered. Whales are a wild species and in serious danger of extinction.
    Massive difference, doesn't need many grey cells to work out.

  • rate this

    Comment number 23.

    11. Joseph_F" i don't see the issue, pigs are as smart as whales, and we eat them."
    Weird logic! how about Humans are as smart as whales why don't we eat them?

  • rate this

    Comment number 22.

    Commercial whaling - banned under international treaty.
    But since 1987, Japan uses loophole to conduct research in name of science. Two Japanese whaling ships, Yushin Maru & Yushin Maru No 2, left Shimonoseki Port in Yamaguchi to join the Nisshin Maru - mother vessel.
    Fleet is scheduled to catch about 260 whales, including 100 minke whales & 10 sperm whales, between NOW & early August.

  • rate this

    Comment number 21.

    I see that the sub-editors/headline writers have been having a bit fun with this article. Another alternative strap-line could have been:

    "Whale Meat Again" :)


  • rate this

    Comment number 20.

    Ok, so lets blame the dastardly Japanese for all whale suffering. However, what of the far more serious "substantive issues" namely polution, overfishing, ship noise and climate change. I am afraid all of us who inhabit the developed, industrialised nations must share the blame for these. The big question is, what can you do to reduce your impacts?

  • rate this

    Comment number 19.

    I recommend: "Minds in the Water". Documentary follows journey of professional surfer & environmentalist, Dave Rastovich & friends as they become voice of whales & dolphins in 6-week journey. Documentary shows unique side of the free surfer & really brings light to the current whaling issues & slaughter. Minds in the Water won Byron Bay International Film Festival & Independent Spirit Award.

  • rate this

    Comment number 18.

    First we pollute their environment, mainly with lots of oil & garbage;
    then, we hunt them down - as though it hasn't been shown that whales are intelligent beings that actually communicate with one another; then we butcher them.
    Who knows: Maybe they are happy to be ripped from the bowels of their contaminated waters, ripped apart by their human caretakers, & have their fear & suffering ended.

  • rate this

    Comment number 17.

    Just how many whales do the Japanese have to kill in performing research? I find it hard to believe that killing tens of thousands of whales over the the last couple of hundred years has not taught mankind everything that it is possible to know about whales.

    Maybe we could learn something about the Japanese psyche by harpooning Japanese whalers - purely for research, of course.

  • rate this

    Comment number 16.

    people say there just meat, like pigs or fish. It's true but some species are low on the food chain and can be harvested in quantity, animal and vege alike. but when a species is as high on the food chain as whale, elephant or tiger and reproduces slowly, when it has already been hunted to near extinction, it's stupidity to let commercial interests make such decisions.daft as rhino burger anyone!

  • rate this

    Comment number 15.

    I'd have to go pretty far out of my way to be affected by whaling. I don't go looking for trouble. I get very anoyed by people who do, they need to stop stirring for the sake of it. We don't want bullfighting or whaling in the UK so we don't have it; we have no right to demand others do the same

  • rate this

    Comment number 14.

    "Compromise", verb or noun, acts in such matters.With possibly fresh understanding, perhaps many of us will feel compromised by our lifestyle habits. What to do?--Deny or falsify such understanding for comforts sake?--a form of self imprisonment imo.--or allow the strength of our conscience etc. to motivate us to make such changes as we are able to our lifestyle habits?-for me,much stumbling!

  • rate this

    Comment number 13.

    How would they react if a country raised an objection to an international ban on the commercial hunting and killing of Japanese or Norwegian people - for food? Some countries have had indigenous cannibals, so why the double standards?
    Perhaps we could have a quota for slaughtering people....for scientific purposes of course.

  • rate this

    Comment number 12.

    @11 Joseph_F

    One obvious difference is that we don't farm whales -as in breed for the purpose of. Whales are essentially wildlife. Then there is the difference between intelligence and sentience and how you go about creating a taxonomy of such a thing. Lastly, I suppose one could point out that two wrongs don't make a right.


Page 1 of 2



Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.