Whaling deal splits countries and conservationists
Page last updated at 21:22 GMT, Sunday, 20 June 2010 22:22 UK
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Agadir
A deal that could regulate whaling for the next 10 years is up for debate at the International Whaling Commission's meeting opening in Agadir, Morocco.
The proposal would see Iceland, Japan and Norway given annual quotas with hunts more tightly scrutinised, while international trade could be banned.
Some anti-whaling countries and some conservation groups support the idea, while others are implacably opposed.
Few observers are prepared to predict whether the deal will be approved.
The week-long annual meeting in Agadir marks the final stage in a two-year US-led process that has seen bitter foes such as Australia and Japan working together in attempts to find areas of compromise.
Two months ago, the IWC chairman released a draft proposal that was based on discussions held over the two years.
Following preparatory talks here on that draft, there were indications that the sides remained far apart.
Australia's commissioner to the IWC, Donna Petrachenko, argued that as things stand, the deal would undermine the commercial whaling moratorium that has been in place since 1986.
"The moratorium must remain in place," she said.
"And what we see in this proposal would be sanctioning of commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean, in a whale sanctuary; and commercial whaling in the North Pacific and commercial whaling in the North Atlantic."
Polarised
On the other side of the divide, whaling countries accused the anti-whaling bloc of not accepting the legitimacy of their concerns.
"There are basically two groups of countries, one in favour of sustainable whaling and the other opposed to whaling, except for Aboriginal subsistence purposes," said Tomas Heidar, Iceland's IWC commissioner.
"To our mind, the logical compromise is limited whaling - but now, as we come to Agadir, we see that not many of the anti-whaling countries are prepared to contemplate anything other than Aboriginal subsistence whaling, so consequently I've no reason to be optimistic that there will be a compromise," he told BBC News.
"But we will continue to work constructively."
Iceland and Australia mark the extreme ends of the spectrum of opinion on the issue; and other anti-whaling countries, such as the US, New Zealand and the majority of EU member states, appear willing to sanction a deal provided it meets their "bottom-line" positions.
Broadly speaking, this means a significant phase-down (ideally a complete phase-out) of Japan's Antarctic hunt, agreement that whale meat is for domestic use only, the end of hunting on threatened species, and the imposition of control measures such as a DNA register of meat.
Whether Japan is prepared to accept a near phase-out of its Antarctic programme is possibly the biggest single factor.
Currently, the draft proposal offers an annual quota of 400 minke whales, going down to 200 after five years.
Conservation groups say these numbers are too high; but Japan says they are too low.
However, some long-time observers believe Tokyo does want to strike a deal and will be offering further concessions as the week unfolds.
Green divisions
The issue has split the environmental groups engaged on the whaling issue.
Minke whale sushi The draft offers an annual quota of 400 minke, meat popular in Sushi dishes
For some, such as WWF and Greenpeace, a deal - though far from their perfect solution, which is an end to all whaling - would be a marked improvement on the current situation, wherein Japan, Iceland and Norway set their quotas unilaterally.
"The global whaling moratorium is without doubt one of the most impressive conservation achievements of our time; yet it's not working for everyone," said Wendy Elliott, manager of the species programme with WWF International.
"We have three governments that are whaling commercially, either under the guise of science or under objection to that ban - the quotas are too high in some cases, and there's no international oversight.
"What we're trying to do is to bring that whaling under international control."
However, others back the Australian view that the moratorium must remain intact - not least because some other countries with a whaling past may be looking for a route to renewed hunting.
"It would legitimise commercial whaling, and it would legitimise it for 10 years, rewarding bad behaviour by countries that did not abide by the moratorium," said Andy Ottaway, director of the UK-based group Campaign Whale.
"This deal wouldn't just open the door to commercial whaling, it would kick it wide open, because South Korea has said it wants a slice of the action, and there are whaling sleeping giants out there waiting to re-start."
17 nations barred from whaling vote
By environment reporter Sarah Clarke/ABC News online
Updated 2 hours 19 minutes ago
Under the draft proposal, Japan would be allowed to catch 120 whales a year in its coastal waters. (Australian Customs Service, file photo)
Seventeen mostly pro-whaling nations have had their voting rights suspended at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Morocco, in what could be a blow to Japan's hopes of resuming commercial whaling.
Delegates at the Agadir meeting are currently engaged in secret talks in a bid to break the deadlock over proposals to allow Japan to resume a limited commercial whale hunt in exchange for a reduction in its so-called scientific whaling program in the Southern Ocean.
This morning meeting deputy chairman Anthony Liverpool said about one-fifth of the meeting's 88 member states would not be allowed to vote.
The countries include Palau, the Marshall Islands, Ghana and Gambia and are mostly drawn from the pro-whaling bloc which had been expected to back Japan's move.
They have been suspended for reasons including failing to pay their annual fees.
Solomon Islands, meanwhile, failed to show up at the meeting.
With so many nations unable to vote, some are hopeful that the controversial plan to overturn a 24-year ban on commercial whaling will not get the numbers to pass.
Under the draft proposal, Japan would be allowed to catch 120 whales a year in its coastal waters.
The package has split the anti-whaling bloc, with Australia now at odds with some of its former allies.
The proposal needs a three-quarters majority vote to pass.
Europe could have the deciding vote, with some in the EU supporting a deal.
NZ reaction
Unlike Australia, New Zealand foreign minister Murray McCully says he is prepared to negotiate a deal on limited commercial whaling, provided that the whales in the Southern Ocean are spared.
"The bottom line is that we want to give Japan some space to cease the whaling practices that we've seen over recent summers and find a way to move out of the Southern Ocean," he said.
"We've tried to give them some space to work their way through this and to come to a dignified conclusion.
"Australia's made it clear that it wants to go to the International Court of Justice and has filed. We've said from the beginning we're open to that course if this process doesn't deliver for us here."
Mr McCully says relations with Australia have remained tight throughout the conference.
"I've kept in touch with Stephen Smith, my counterpart throughout, and I've got to say that that's a very close and harmonious relationship," he said.
But he says he is not optimistic there will be a positive agreement as members have vastly different opinions.
"The fact that the chair has had to suspend the plenary session and send people away to have negotiations in groups tells you that we have serious and potentially intractable differences between the parties," he said.
"The odds have always been much more strongly on a breakdown rather than a breakthrough here." ...<cont>
......................
IWC accused of shutting down debate[/b]
Source: ABC News
Published: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:30 AEST
Expires: Monday, September 20, 2010 10:30 AEST
Member countries are struggling to find common ground at the annual International Whaling Commission meeting.
Whaling 'peace deal' falls apart
Page last updated at 10:42 GMT, Wednesday, 23 June 2010 11:42 UK
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Agadir
Countries attempting to reach a compromise on whaling have reached an "impasse"
Attempts to agree a compromise between whaling nations and their opponents at the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) annual meeting have failed.
After two days of private discussions, delegates reported they had been unable to reach agreement on major issues.
The deal would have put whaling by Iceland, Japan and Norway under international oversight for 10 years.
Talks on the "peace process" have been going on for two years, and a further year's "cooling-off period" is likely.
"After two years of talks... it appears our process is at an impasse," said the US commissioner Monica Medina.
The US has been one of the nations pushing the compromise process forward, and Ms Medina said the breakdown was the fault of no particular party.
However, other delegates - albeit in moderate terms - sought to pin the blame for the breakdown on their opponents.
Argentina's representative Susana Ruiz Cerutti said the draft proposal which has been in front of governments for two months did not meet the needs of Latin American countries.
"It legitimises scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean (by Japan), and does not substantially reduce catches," she said.
The gulf between this vision and that of the whaling nations was exemplified by Japan's junior agriculture and fisheries minister Yasue Funayama, who described the aim of the talks as "restoring the IWC's function as a resource management organisation".
Anti-whaling nations overwhelmingly want the body to transform into a whale conservation organisation.
The proposal, she said, "contained elements that are extremely difficult for Japan to accept".
Behind the scenes, Japanese sources said the key stumbling block for them was the demand from the EU and the Buenos Aires group of Latin American countries that its Antarctic whaling programme must end within a set time-frame.
For Japan, agreeing to reduce its quota from 935 now to 200 in 10 years time represented a significant step forward, which they thought ought to have been acceptable to their opponents, with further discussions - possibly on a phase-out - taking place subsequently.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer, New Zealand's former prime minister and current whaling commissioner, who has been intimately involved in the "peace talks", said that "Japan did show real flexibility and a real willingness to compromise".
"But we are in the situation now where the gaps cannot at this time be bridged; and the reason for this I think is obvious enough - there is an absence of a political will to bridge those gaps, an absence of political will to compromise."
The path forwards now is unclear. Many delegates are asking whether there is any point in leaving the issue open for a further year; if agreement is impossible, they suggest it would be better to face up to the fact now.
Opting for more time would "raise the question of the commission's credibility," said Remi Parmentier, senior policy adviser to the Pew Environment Group, which has been one of the organisations backing the exploration of compromise.
But there may also be a reluctance to leave the more constructive tone of the previous two years behind, and risk a return to the acrimony that formerly characterised the IWC.
However, other anti-whaling groups were pleased that their governments did not accept the draft agreement, as in their view it would have legitimised the whaling programmes of Iceland, Japan and Norway.
"Had this deal lived, it would have lived in infamy," said Patrick Ramage, head of the International Fund for Animal Welfare's (IFAW) whales programme.
"There may be a cooling-off period in the IWC, but meanwhile the whalers will be in hot pursuit of their prey."
Persuasion is indeed both difficult and uncertain in its outcome, as you indicate. So is force. It may be that the reason the Japanese, unlike the Norwegians & Icelanders, are working actively to undue the ban on whaling is an angry reaction to the unlawful and dangerous activities of protesters at sea, who appear to be tolerated and indeed supported by the pro whaling ban countries in the IWC.
)
