By Elsa Cabrera
Although some seem to consider the results of the last annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) as insufficient, this meeting made history as the most important in the defense of governance and democracy within this international body.
After two days of negotiations to adopt by consensus a resolution about transparency and governance, and the subsequent hijacking of the IWC by whaling nations -- to obstruct the voting process for the creation of the South Atlantic whale sanctuary – the annual assembly of the IWC could be misguidedly perceived as a waste of time that left important conservation issues out of the meeting.
However, both situations unveiled the hypocrisy and manipulation to which several nations act in order to control and impose – through the denial of basic rights of sovereign Commission member states – an obscure destiny to whale populations worldwide.
A meeting that was anticipated to be passive and inactive ended with the Commission finally forced to face substantive issues that were dropped in the drawer of memories in order to maintain an artificially friendly environment aimed to diplomatically sink the conservation and non lethal use interests of the majority of IWC countries.
Preparations for an Assault Disguised as Consensus
The collapse of all great cetacean species due to the over exploitation of the whaling industry destroyed the credibility of the IWC as the body in charge of “regulating the orderly development of the whaling industry and the conservation of whale populations”. Only the enforcement of the global moratorium on commercial whaling from 1986 prevented the extinction of many of these species and saved the Commission from collapsing from exhaustion and permanent disappearance of the "resources" it was supposed to manage responsibly.
Following the implementation of the moratorium, IWC's credibility slowly began to rebuild, hand in hand with the increase of some populations of large whales and the generation of new and better alternatives related to the non lethal use of whales. However the vote buying policy of Japan for over a decade within the IWC – that has systematically blocked conservation initiatives -- has eroded the still vulnerable credibility of the Commission.
After the scandal revealed by The Sunday Times in 2010 about irregular payments of Japanese officials to Caribbean and African representatives of the IWC, the resolution on transparency and governance that was presented by the United Kingdom in Jersey became the best alternative to address this and other important matters, such as the lack of civil society participation in IWC meetings.
But the harpoon diplomacy consumed two valuable workdays of endless negotiations oriented to weaken basic transparency and governance measures in favor of obscure whaling interests. As a result, the Commission finally adopted a significant but weakened version of the English resolution that, among others, does not improve in any way the current outdated and restrictive system of NGO participation, and will only reduce and not eliminate corrupt practices within the IWC.
However, several whaling delegations and supporters of Japanese whaling policies celebrated enthusiastically its adoption as if it meant the consolidation of consensus as the single decision (making) mechanism of the IWC.
Diplomatic Hanging of Democratic Processes in the CBI
Since 2001 Brazil and Argentina – with the support of all the Latin American countries (Grupo Buenos Aires) – have led a proposal to create a whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic. However, the initiative has not been adopted because it requires 75% support of the Commission and the vote buying policy of Japan has always recruited enough countries to assure that it will never reach this percentage of the votes.
But during the annual IWC meeting in Alaska (2007) the number of votes in favor of the creation of the sanctuary reached the historical level of almost 60% of the countries and the Latin American region prepared to put the proposal for a vote during the next year meeting in Santiago de Chile.
However, the decision of the Commission to begin a negotiation process to define the “future of the IWC” – that required all countries to abstain from addressing conflicting issues (for the whalers, that is) in order to resolve the challenges of the IWC in an harmonious way – prevented the region from putting the proposal to a vote thereafter on behalf of making positive progress in the process.
On the other hand, the government of Japan continued to kill whales under the so called “scientific whaling” program in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary; imported dozens on tons of fin whale (endangered) from Iceland, although international trade of whale products is forbidden; it got involved in a bribery and corruption scandal that unexplainably put the complainants in jail; and evidence of illegal exports of minke whale meat caught in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary to a fancy restaurant in the United Stated were revealed.
The strategy of this new whaling order seemed to work perfectly for the Japanese government interests and its main allies. Led by the USA and New Zealand the whaling interests were finally consolidated in 2010 in a proposal for the future of the IWC that not only seeks to eliminate the moratorium but (is) also intended to legitimize “scientific whaling” operations in whale sanctuaries.
Fortunately, the proposal drastically failed and the negotiation process – along with its consensus policy – finalized after the meeting came to a close in Morocco. The closure of the negotiation process and certain favorable conditions for the pro conservation block in the IWC 2011 became a unique opportunity to retake conservation and development proposals that are of key importance to the Latin American region, such as the creation of the South Atlantic whale sanctuary.
In this context, Brazil presented the proposal to the Commission, giving solid biological, ecological and social arguments for its establishment and required its adoption by consensus. Exercising its legitimate right, Brazil also stated that if it was not possible to reach consensus, it would put the proposal to a vote. The IWC recognizes the voting procedure as a basic element of the decision making process when it is not possible to reach agreement by consensus.
After the stubborn and unjustifiable opposition of the whaling nations to the creation of the whale sanctuary, Brazil – with the support of Grupo Buenos Aires – exercised the undeniable right of every sovereign member state of the IWC and put the initiative to a vote.
Democracy vs. Whaling Tyranny
The reaction of the whaling nations – led by the government of Japan – could pass to history as one of the most villainous and dangerous moves in international environmental law.
Once the voting process was open, more than a dozen pro whaling delegations or those associated with vote buying practices abandoned the room with the alleged purpose of breaking the necessary quorum to continue the decision making process. Even in the absence of these countries the voting process should have continued because it was opened before the country representatives left the room, so there was a quorum when it began.
But the confusion and apparent unwillingness of the interim president of the IWC (South Africa) to respect and apply its procedures led to the suspension of voting on the whale sanctuary until the next annual meeting to be held in Panama in 2012.
Ironically, the determination to postpone yet another year the whale sanctuary proposal was reached after nine hours of secret deliberations in which civil society remained completely excluded.
This situation made it clear that the consensus reached the day before on the resolution of transparency and governance was merely a cover for the true interests of a minority that seeks to take control of the IWC to make it an organization dedicated to the commercial slaughter of whales.
While a first reading of what happened to the whale sanctuary proposal blames the government of Japan and the whaling nations for the shocking and disturbing whaling coup attempt, the leadership and continuing support of the United States and New Zealand to revitalize the failed negotiation process is a serious additional threat to the hijacked democracy of the IWC.
Although there is still too much time to truly envision the scenarios of the next IWC meeting, it is clear that the urgent rescue of democracy and governance of this international organization will have to be main issues in the 2011 agenda.
In this context, the active participation of Latin America and Caribbean countries and coordination of both members of the Grupo Buenos Aires and its strategic partners, will be essential to liberate the IWC of the the current whaling tyranny generated by the despotic and reprehensible behavior of a handful of nations.
Elsa Cabrera is the executive director of the Centro de Conservación Cetacea, an IWC accredited observer since 2001.
August 4, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Showing posts with label Whale sanctuary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whale sanctuary. Show all posts
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Friday, March 12, 2010
Harpooning Caribbean Tourism: Swallowing a dead rat
By Sir Ronald Sanders:
It’s the high seas equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Several Caribbean governments are harpooning their own sustainable tourism industry by supporting Japan’s ruthless campaign to continue killing whales.
A group of International Whaling Commission (IWC) nations meeting from March 2 to 4 in Florida is reported to have considered recommending to the full membership that Japan, Iceland and Norway be allowed to hunt whales despite a 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling. Japan, in particular, would no longer have to pretend that, in killing thousands of whales every year, it is doing so for “scientific” purposes.
Japan does not deny that meat from slaughtered whales ends up in restaurants and shops.
As this commentary is being written a shipment of whale meat is being transported by ship from Iceland to Japan in an expensive and backward step to resuscitate trade in whale meat. Twenty-six nations condemned Iceland last October for expanding commercial whaling, pointing out that it brings little benefit to Iceland’s economy and great harm to its tourism industry.
Caribbean countries have nothing to gain if the proposal from the IWC’s small working group is adopted by the wider membership. Voting for it would certainly adversely affect the Caribbean’s brand of itself as environmentally friendly, and harm the growing whale-watching aspect of its tourism industry.
A study by a group of Australian economists placed whale-watching as a US$2.1 billion global industry in 2008. In the Caribbean and Central American whale-watching is growing at a rate of 12.8%, three times more than the growth rate of the global tourism industry (4.2%). Countries in the region now earn more than US$54 million from whale-watching as part of their tourism product, while earnings from whaling are practically zero.
Despite this, members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and Suriname have routinely supported Japan’s efforts in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to slaughter whales every year in defiance of the international prohibition.
Significantly, an international meeting in Martinique from 18 to 21 February on “Sustainable ‘blue’ tourism in the Caribbean” strongly urged Caribbean governments “to give their full support and encouragement to whale-watching activities as a valid and sustainable means of protecting marine mammal populations and creating jobs, earning foreign exchange and providing sustainable livelihoods for fishermen and local coastal communities” . In making this call, the participants – the majority of whom were from the Caribbean – recalled that in 2008, the Prime Minister of Dominica Roosevelt Skerrit took the “principled position” to withdraw his Government's support for whaling at the IWC as being “incompatible” with Dominica's brand as a “Nature Isle”. They called on the leaders of other OECS countries to join him.
The stand-off at the IWC between whale killing by Japan and its supportive small states, and whale conservation by countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica, India, the United States, South Africa, Germany and Australia, has dragged-on for some time. Last year, the small working group was established to try to bring an end to the impasse. Many hoped that the group’s work would result in strong proposals to ensure that IWC rules are fully respected and implemented, and that whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale sanctuary would be phased out swiftly.
However, it appears that the small group has been coerced into entertaining a different kind of discussion – one in which Japan will be allowed to violate the rules the IWC itself has set and to ignore sanctuaries that have been established. One of the members of the group said that nations must “swallow a dead rat”.
Experts from around the world are deeply troubled by the proposals emerging from the group. The proposals include:
· No provisions to ensure that the existing ban on international
trade in whale products is respected;
· Authorizing the killing of sperm whales.
· Continued whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary;
· Weakening of the IWC as a rule making and regulatory international body, encouraging unrestrained actions by individual nations.
Many governments have gotten away with supporting Japan because their publics are not fully aware that, apart from a small number of indigenous communities in the world, only an elite group in Japan consistently eat whale meat.
In the Caribbean, Japanese Associations have paid for the production and broadcast of television programmes which falsely promote whale-killing as a beneficial activity because whales eat fish in Caribbean waters depriving the local population of fish. This claim has been proven, scientifically, to be untrue.
Evidence of the abhorrence of whale killing and its adverse effect on the world’s biodiversity is the fact that an Oscar was recently awarded to “The Cove” - a documentary film depicting the grisly slaughter of dolphins by Japanese in a cove in south-western Japan.
Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister, last month threatened to take action against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its Antarctic whale hunt. And, in New Zealand, the foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Labour Party, Chris Carter, has called on the government to join Australia in taking Japan to the ICJ.
But, Japan remains determined in its stance, not only on whaling but on fisheries generally. Indeed, Japan is so obdurate that it has stated categorically that it will “opt out” of its obligation to stop importing Atlantic bluefin tuna if members of the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species vote this month to add the fish to the treaty’s list of most-protected species. In other words, Japan will only respect those international rules that suit it.
Japan’s stance is bad news for small countries which depend, for their own survival, on international rules and respect for them within the UN framework.
Japan has helped to make rules that are imposed on small states – rules with which small countries been forced to comply or be punished. Among these are the regulatory and tax information requirements of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
If the proposals of the small working group are permitted by governments to proceed, Japan, Iceland and Norway will have a free hand, and Japan will no longer need to lure the support of small Caribbean countries in the IWC.
In June, the IWC will hold its annual meeting in Morocco. That’s the time that the OECS and Suriname governments should join the government of Dominica in taking a principled position that upholds their own interest.
March 12, 2010
caribbeannetnews
It’s the high seas equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Several Caribbean governments are harpooning their own sustainable tourism industry by supporting Japan’s ruthless campaign to continue killing whales.
A group of International Whaling Commission (IWC) nations meeting from March 2 to 4 in Florida is reported to have considered recommending to the full membership that Japan, Iceland and Norway be allowed to hunt whales despite a 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling. Japan, in particular, would no longer have to pretend that, in killing thousands of whales every year, it is doing so for “scientific” purposes.
Japan does not deny that meat from slaughtered whales ends up in restaurants and shops. As this commentary is being written a shipment of whale meat is being transported by ship from Iceland to Japan in an expensive and backward step to resuscitate trade in whale meat. Twenty-six nations condemned Iceland last October for expanding commercial whaling, pointing out that it brings little benefit to Iceland’s economy and great harm to its tourism industry.
Caribbean countries have nothing to gain if the proposal from the IWC’s small working group is adopted by the wider membership. Voting for it would certainly adversely affect the Caribbean’s brand of itself as environmentally friendly, and harm the growing whale-watching aspect of its tourism industry.
A study by a group of Australian economists placed whale-watching as a US$2.1 billion global industry in 2008. In the Caribbean and Central American whale-watching is growing at a rate of 12.8%, three times more than the growth rate of the global tourism industry (4.2%). Countries in the region now earn more than US$54 million from whale-watching as part of their tourism product, while earnings from whaling are practically zero.
Despite this, members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and Suriname have routinely supported Japan’s efforts in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to slaughter whales every year in defiance of the international prohibition.
Significantly, an international meeting in Martinique from 18 to 21 February on “Sustainable ‘blue’ tourism in the Caribbean” strongly urged Caribbean governments “to give their full support and encouragement to whale-watching activities as a valid and sustainable means of protecting marine mammal populations and creating jobs, earning foreign exchange and providing sustainable livelihoods for fishermen and local coastal communities” . In making this call, the participants – the majority of whom were from the Caribbean – recalled that in 2008, the Prime Minister of Dominica Roosevelt Skerrit took the “principled position” to withdraw his Government's support for whaling at the IWC as being “incompatible” with Dominica's brand as a “Nature Isle”. They called on the leaders of other OECS countries to join him.
The stand-off at the IWC between whale killing by Japan and its supportive small states, and whale conservation by countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica, India, the United States, South Africa, Germany and Australia, has dragged-on for some time. Last year, the small working group was established to try to bring an end to the impasse. Many hoped that the group’s work would result in strong proposals to ensure that IWC rules are fully respected and implemented, and that whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale sanctuary would be phased out swiftly.
However, it appears that the small group has been coerced into entertaining a different kind of discussion – one in which Japan will be allowed to violate the rules the IWC itself has set and to ignore sanctuaries that have been established. One of the members of the group said that nations must “swallow a dead rat”.
Experts from around the world are deeply troubled by the proposals emerging from the group. The proposals include:
· No provisions to ensure that the existing ban on international
trade in whale products is respected;
· Authorizing the killing of sperm whales.
· Continued whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary;
· Weakening of the IWC as a rule making and regulatory international body, encouraging unrestrained actions by individual nations.
Many governments have gotten away with supporting Japan because their publics are not fully aware that, apart from a small number of indigenous communities in the world, only an elite group in Japan consistently eat whale meat.
In the Caribbean, Japanese Associations have paid for the production and broadcast of television programmes which falsely promote whale-killing as a beneficial activity because whales eat fish in Caribbean waters depriving the local population of fish. This claim has been proven, scientifically, to be untrue.
Evidence of the abhorrence of whale killing and its adverse effect on the world’s biodiversity is the fact that an Oscar was recently awarded to “The Cove” - a documentary film depicting the grisly slaughter of dolphins by Japanese in a cove in south-western Japan.
Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister, last month threatened to take action against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its Antarctic whale hunt. And, in New Zealand, the foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Labour Party, Chris Carter, has called on the government to join Australia in taking Japan to the ICJ.
But, Japan remains determined in its stance, not only on whaling but on fisheries generally. Indeed, Japan is so obdurate that it has stated categorically that it will “opt out” of its obligation to stop importing Atlantic bluefin tuna if members of the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species vote this month to add the fish to the treaty’s list of most-protected species. In other words, Japan will only respect those international rules that suit it.
Japan’s stance is bad news for small countries which depend, for their own survival, on international rules and respect for them within the UN framework.
Japan has helped to make rules that are imposed on small states – rules with which small countries been forced to comply or be punished. Among these are the regulatory and tax information requirements of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
If the proposals of the small working group are permitted by governments to proceed, Japan, Iceland and Norway will have a free hand, and Japan will no longer need to lure the support of small Caribbean countries in the IWC.
In June, the IWC will hold its annual meeting in Morocco. That’s the time that the OECS and Suriname governments should join the government of Dominica in taking a principled position that upholds their own interest.
March 12, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)