[English readers - please excuse me while I invite comments from my Japanese speaking visitors]

日本人の皆様、今晩は。

最近ブログにはカウンターの機能を追加しました。もちろん、ほとんどのアクセスはニュージーランド、オーストラリア、アメリカ、それからヨーロッパからですが、
以外に日本からのアクセスが多くて驚きました。最近ここで捕鯨問題しか取り上げてないことからすると、皆さんはどこかで僕のブログのことを知って、捕鯨問題について興味を持っていらっしゃったかと思いますが、合っていますか。そして、皆さんは捕鯨問題についてどう思いますか。

日本人の中でも、反捕鯨の方もいらっしゃるそうです。グリーンピースまでメンバーの中にも日本人はいるそうですね。その半面、僕はニュージーランド人なのに、捕鯨支持者です。僕以外にも、フランス、イギリスなどの方もここで参加し、捕鯨を支持するコメントを書いています。

反捕鯨の人には、動物権利擁護者や、「商業捕鯨なら持続的に行うことは無理だ」などと信じる反貿易者もいらっしゃいます。そして、「鯨は絶滅に瀕している」と誤って信じる反対の方もいらっしゃいます。僕の場合、動物を食べることに問題がないことと、商業的な活動は人類社会の特徴にすぎないと思います。注目すべきなのは、持続的利用かどうかです。動物に権利があると思う方とはまったく考えが違いますからしょうがないですが、商業捕鯨なら問題だと思う人はまだ話合いができるでしょう。結局、商業のためかどうかではなく、持続的に行えるかどうかが重要なのです。商業のためじゃなくても、持続的ではない活動もありますから。

日本人の中に反対者もいるし、反捕鯨国にも支持者がいることを不思議に思って、最近はっきり気づいてきたことは、捕鯨を支持するかどうかが最終的に自分の文化次第ではなく、自然資源の「持続的利用」という原理をどこまで重視するか次第だと思うようになったのです。水産資源に依存する人だと、この考えは当り前でしょう。農業に依存してきた人なら、「持続的利用、捕りすぎないこと」をあまり考えなくて済んできたわです。島で発展した文化を持った人は、その余裕はうらやましかったでしょう。

皆さんの多くは今までコメントをしていないと思いますが、この捕鯨問題の感想とかございましたら、ぜひ一言残してください。日本語でもいいですから、どうぞ。

The e-kujira site has a comment from a Japanese person living down in New Zealand. Here's my translation of what he had to say in reply to a note from Joji Morishita:

How do you do. I'm living in New Zealand now, and I feel the threat of the media. At first (about 10 years ago), one strange thing was that in Australia and New Zealand the question that Japanese people were certain to be asked was "what do you think about the whale issue?" In those days I would reply that I honestly hadn't thought about it.

But recently I started to have doubts after seeing footage of blood in the sea on the 6 o'clock news, day after day - "Is this really ok to broadcast?". Of course, I believe that we must respect the right for people to know the reality. However, it reinforces the fantasy that cows and pigs are made in supermarkets, and only whales are killed on the TV at dinner time, and the news announcer reports "there are evil people out there".

I was really interested to see the gentle looking young woman from the environmental protection group bemoaning why Japan continues to stick to it's arguments inspite of all the criticism and Japan's relatively moderate foreign policy. Then I found the ICR homepage, and it was very informative. Thanks to the english version of the page, in discussions with my friends here, I was thankfully able to talk about the issue and explain some basic fundamentals, from the different species of whales and that Japanese people do not hate whales, to the importance of marine resources and the future of the environment, particularly regarding the population crisis.

As just an ordinary citizen, it's only possible for me to correct the misunderstandings of these people with such biases one or two at a time, but if I'm able to remove some such prejudices and have normal discussions with people here, I'll be happy. I'm both encouraged by your homepage and activities and proud at the same time. Please don't give in to those with opposing opinions.

I have a cold. That's it for today.

[UPDATE 06/30] Whoops. Fixed some spelling mistakes and added the links. My cold is getting better :-)

Labels: Japanese media perspective, Whaling

Some days back an Australian legal expert, University of Western Sydney Associate Professor Steven Freeland said that the anti-whaling faction at the IWC should compromise:

"The alternative is that the anti-whalers will continue to decline any request for whaling for any reason, and the pro-whalers will take advantage of those loopholes that exist under the whaling convention and go ahead and whale anyway"

Another legal expert, Dr Eric Wilson of Monash Law School, has an article on how he sees the situation in terms of law in The Age.

This is why the recent symbolic win of Japan is potentially of great significance; by indicating the purely temporary nature of the moratorium, the (slight) majority of IWC members have reaffirmed their understanding of the convention as a conservationist document, not a preservationist one. If so, then the pro-whalers have the stronger legal position.

If incontrovertible proof of sustainable numbers of whale species can be provided, then the continuation of the moratorium - at least as it is applied to the numerically "safe" species - is clearly illegal, and the anti-whaling nations are in breach of their fundamental treaty obligations. In this event, the pro-whalers will be in an unambiguously lawful position to either resume commercial hunting unilaterally, or, more likely, to secede from the IWC altogether and establish their own whaling treaty system.

Interesting comments. Essentially, the scientific argument that sustainable whaling is possible was already won, more than a decade ago. The Scientific Committee unanimously recommended the Revised Management Procedure, and the IWC itself also adopted it. What more evidence is required?

Dr Wilson states that the whalers could either hunt unilaterally or start a new whaling organization.

This reminds us of another, perhaps more likely, possibility.

Masayuki Komatsu, in his book "The Truth Behind the Whaling Dispute" talks about the chance that one day Japan may sue the IWC:

"The fact that the IWC has been acting in violation of its own Convention is obvious to anyone with legal knowledge. We have a sufficient number of objective and legal evidence to support our claim."

"Surely some day Japan may bring the case against the IWC to an international court. I am looking forward to that day."

We have seen that the US looks set to agree to some form of commercial whaling. If the remainder of the anti-whaling nations refuse to follow this responsible and constructive lead, perhaps we can expect to see such a case within the next few years.

It is known that the Government of Japan is wanting to see progress made, after 14 years of procrastination and filibustering from the anti-whaling side on the development of an RMS. It is unlikely that the whaling nations will be able to encourage enough of their friends to join the IWC and support them to obtain the 75% majority to overturn the unnecessary moratorium. Perhaps court action is the next most likely means of resolving the issue, after the more likely situation of the less fanatical anti-whaling nations deciding to compromise at the IWC for the benefit of whale conservation.

It seems I'm not the only one pointing out the greed of the Greenpeace organization:

If the idiots from Greenpeace stopped using whaling as a major fundraising vehicle there is a very good chance the Japanese would stop harpooning the dumb beasts.

The knuckle-headed eco-freaks would be better served if they pulled back a little and thought things through more clearly instead of claiming every whale, given the chance, would be a Nobel-prize winning poet.

From some statements made by Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell about wind farms and the orange bellied parrot, not to mention his outbursts at the International Whaling Commission conference in the Caribbean, it would appear he has been captured by the Greens and is more a part of the problem than the solution.

The heat must be taken out of this issue and it will not happen while Greenpeace is staging stunts in the Antarctic.

We do not talk of boycotting Norway but the Norwegians run a commercial whale fishery.

The environment movement is either happy to pander to the racists by targeting the Japanese or it knows its anti-whaling posture is its greatest fundraiser.

There is no doubt most Japanese would be happy to save whales (without thinking of collecting valuable prizes) but they need someone other than the usual suspect organisations to convince them why they should.

Elsewhere:

BASSETERRE, St Kitts: Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries Cedric Liburd reported to the closing session of the recent International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting that the government and people of St Kitts and Nevis were thoroughly displeased with the "illegal activities" of Greenpeace on June 20.

The organization, which one week earlier had requested to dock at the St Kitts harbour during the period June 11-21 for “educational activities”, was denied permission given the fact that the interest of IWC activities taking place over that same period would be threatened.

Liburd said the decision of Greenpeace to illegally offload passengers was nothing but gross disrespect for the Government and people of the Federation. He added that the Federation’s size was no indication of its stance or ability to protect its shores.

In related news, the Ministry of National Security, Justice, Immigration and Labour issued a press release indicating its deep concern with the illegal entry of the Greenpeace vessel, the MV Arctic Sunrise, into the Federation’s territorial waters.

Apart from the obvious disrespect to the government and people of the Federation, the ministry reported that the infringement was also a threat to the marine environment.

Specifically, in this case, “jeopardizing the barrier reef which protects the Eastern Atlantic Coastline of St Kitts and Nevis and other fragile near-shore marine eco-systems.”

Additionally, the captain and crew aboard the vessel defied the law enforcement officials by refusing to accompany them to police headquarters; eventually heading west in the direction of St Eustatius.

The National Security release echoed the sentiments expressed by Liburd during his report to the IWC meeting that Greenpeace had violated and showed total disregard and disrespect for the Government “in utter contempt of its sovereign status.”

Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling

The US IWC commissioner, and now chair, William Hogarth has made some interesting statements about how the IWC can more forward in coming years:

"What the United States wants to do is try to find a way to protect whales but at the same time recognize some harvest," he said, proposing a negotiated quota for hunting of whales no longer endangered in exchange for closing the "scientific whaling" loophole in the commercial ban. If Japan wants to hunt whales in the name of culture or science, those killings would come off its quota, he said.

This is in fact very close to Japan's position. Japan doesn't view Article VIII of the ICRW as a "loophole", but in actual practical terms, what Hogarth is suggesting is not that different to what Japan would aim for - limited catches. Regarding limiting Scientific whaling in exchange for this, consider the following statement from the Japanese delegation to the Scientific Committee in 2005:

It is ... interesting to note that if [the] RMP were implemented, it would regulate the total take including research whaling catches.

Ultimately, if the IWC is able to agree on a total catch limit for the management stocks (likely just the Antarctic minke initially and some North Pacific stocks), whether they are taken for commercial purposes or in part for scientific purposes becomes irrelevant.

What the US is calling for is basically sustainable whaling. Surely Hogarth realizes this. Is his comment a test of public sentiment perhaps, at an opportune time?

Constrast this with the following assessment of New Zealand's stance:

Alliance secretary Rune Frovik said the New Zealand IWC delegation's "extremist" anti-whaling stance meant it was no longer being taken seriously by the commission and was fast becoming irrelevant. "My point is simply that if we are to work out a compromise solution, then we must be on the same planet," Frovik said.

"The problem with New Zealand is that it is not. It is on a completely different planet."

An exchange of views between Joji Morishita and Fred O'Regan (IFAW) is available here.

The same old tired arguments from O'Regan, refusing to acknowledge that the IWC Scientific Committee has agreed that Japan's research has the potential to improve management, instead focusing only on the current management procedure's requirements, as if that is all that matters.

Anti-progress and anti-science. If you oppose all whaling no matter what, that has to be your approach.

Elsewhere:

A senior Japanese Foreign Ministry official took a swipe at such media coverage.

“Japan-bashing has grown with some media reporting that we obtained support from new members with money. It’s a situation we are seriously concerned about,” the official said.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how to interpret this, but it seems like Samoa's government is also in favour of the sustainable use of marine resources - yes, even whales.

The English in this report is pretty hard to follow though, so I could be mistaken.

This being an English blog, the chances are that most of my readers are English speaking, with no Japanese ability. What this means is that when we read the western media any comments from Japan have gone through a filter, and usually only get about a 1/3rd of the press coverage (if that) of the anti-whaling voices, and only a few selected comments deemed newsworthy.

On Tuesday June 20, Japan's leading economic newspaper, the Nihon Keizai Shinbun, which any Japanese salaryman worth his salt reads on the train to work each morning, covered events at the IWC plenary in St. Kitts and Nevis in it's daily page 2 editorial.

Courtesy of myself, here is a translation:

Editorial: Whaling - stick to the path towards sustainable use

On the 18th, at the annual assembley of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), a declaration proposed by Japan and others supporting the resumption of commercial whaling was adopted with a one vote majority. It was the first resolution of toleration and support for whaling to pass since the temporary cessation ("moratorium") of commercial whaling was decided upon in 1982.

At the IWC, decisions on substantive matters require agreement from more than three quarters, so this declaration will not directly lead to a resumption in commercial whaling. However, whaling supporters having outnumbered anti-whalers for the first time in a quarter of a century can be seen as a sign that the current is shifting.

This declaration, adopted at the IWC meeting being held in the Caribbean island nation of St. Christopher and Nevis that is home to 50,000 people, may mark a watershed in the history of the dysfunctional IWC, or may otherwise be a destabilizing factor that pushes the organization deeper into disarray.

In 1982, a large number of anti-whaling nations newly joined the organization, and the temporary cessation in commercial whaling was imposed. Ever since, Japan has tirelessly countered anti-whaling arguments of little scientific foundation, such as those expoused by extreme environmental groups, at the IWC. This matter of the preservation and sustainable use of the marine ecosystem is an issue effecting the future of humanity.

As a result, the IWC's Scientific Committee unanimously decided upon a scientific catch limit setting method, the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), which would enable sustainable use without the depletion of resources. If a system to monitor and enforce this, a Revised Management Scheme (RMS), can be agreed upon, the moratorium will no longer be necessary.

Scientific research has made it clear that amongst whale species, some such as the Minke, Fin, Sei, and Sperm whales have recovered to the point where there are more than enough. Additionally, it is estimated that marine resources equivalent to the amount of annual human fisheries ends up in whales' stomachs each year. Now, even the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) is ready to tolerate whaling under strict resource management.

Nonetheless, with scientific data, systems, and infrastructure all in place for a resumption of commercial whaling, leaders of anti-whaling nations have had the following to say: "No matter how much whale numbers increase, we won't allow a single one to be taken". And at the February RMS conference, "We won't participate in any discussion for a system supporting commercial whaling".

The Government of Japan has indicated that if things continue to go nowhere at the IWC, it is poised to hold a seperate international meeting with other nations of the pro-whaling faction. Anti-whaling nations enraged at the declaration such as England, the USA and New Zealand, will take a tougher line towards any such meetings.

The meetings of the past quarter of a century must not be put to waste. Further efforts to break down cultural intolerance, and restraint to preserve the IWC negotiating table is desirable.

Apologies if some of that is a little "unnatural", but I tried to translate as completely and accurately as possible.

Labels: Japanese media perspective, Whaling

An interesting article from Sun St. Kitts/Nevis appeared a few days back on the need for respect. I'm going to reproduce it here in full:

Respect due, at all times

Throughout the International Whaling Conference (IWC) being held at the Marriott Resort in Basseterre one thing became very obvious to many people attending, as well as to those following the proceedings via the media – there is still gross disrespect for the sovereign rights of these small island states.

There were disparaging comments aplenty about the islands, and therefore, indirectly about the people who call them home.

The large anti-whaling powers made no bones about how they felt about the islands of the region lending support to the Japanese. They spoke of bribery and trickery and greed with no one even once saying that the islands are well within their rights to vote how they saw it fit and in what they might well consider the direct interest of the people.

They didn’t have it all their own way though and Tony Best, who covered the conference, was moved to speak of the strength of two regional women as they stood up and faced the challenges and came out earning the respect of both sides of the divide.

Best was glowing in his accolades of Antigua & Barbuda Junior Agriculture Minister, Joanne Massiah whom he described as having become “known for using the most eloquent of phrases and a calm tone to get her points across; so much so that even opponents of sustainable use of the world’s marine resources, a policy she champions, felt compelled the other day in Basseterre to cheer her intervention, not because they agreed with her arguments but because of the sheer force of her words and their own inability to muster a comeback.”

Then there was Claris Charles of Grenada.

Best said, “She charged that like some of the other rich white nations within the IWC, New Zealand had resorted to racist tactics which were based on false notion that Blacks weren’t intelligent and bold enough to stake out a position based on their national interests and to fight for it.

“Some of these NGOs and countries which oppose any resumption of commercial whaling want to tell us what to do and when we decline to follow them, they resort to offensive language, which quite frankly is often racist,” she told a reporter in the wake of New Zealand’s comments and the allegations levelled by NGOs.

“We are intelligent people in the Caribbean and we don’t have to wait for someone in Europe, Australia or New Zealand to dictate a course of action for us. We can and do think for ourselves.”

We applaud both these women, and further, we applaud Best for looking at this aspect of the conference and bringing it to the fore for Caribbean people to understand what they are up against as they try to knit themselves into a unit to challenge the might of some of these so-called world powers in various areas.

What needs to happen now is that the ordinary people of the region need to understand that they have to start believing in their own people, their own experts and professionals.

Because while these women were asserting themselves, the police hierarchy of this country were “buddying up” to the foreign press, telling them all about the Greenpeace protest incident; while the local press, including this newspaper was being told to wait for the issue of a press release coming more than 24 hours after the fact.

We are sure that should Massiah and Charles hear about this they would be livid. Journalist Tony Best would be livid as well.

Labels: Claris Charles, IWC vote influence, Joanne Massiah, Whaling

The Solomons opposition is calling for Fisheries Minister Nollen Leni to be sacked, after he voted with the pro-sustainable use bloc at the IWC plenary in St. Kitts last weekend.

This is a bit harsh - I too could not figure out what exactly he was planning to abstain on either, but in voting for the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration he seems to have done exactly what he said he would do, in calling for the completion of a Revised Management Scheme.

Dolphins are in fact consumed locally in the Solomon Islands, and as an island nation it is no surprise that they support the principle of sustainable use. The Solomon Islands have consistently been bullied by Australia on the issue.

Predictably, various small developing nations have again been threatened with tourism boycotts regarding their principled stance at the IWC meeting just concluded in St. Kitts and Nevis. This from the Associated Press:

Environmental groups have accused developing nations of voting with Japan in return for money for fisheries projects — which Japan and those countries have repeatedly denied.

Caribbean tourism officials have said they are concerned that their countries’ support of whaling might lead travelers to boycott the region.

“Such threats are tantamount to economic terrorism,” said Joanne Massiah, Food Production and Marine Resources Minister for the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda.

Anthony L. Hall has written a column on the topic for www.caribbeannetnews.com:

Fatuous anti-whaling argument: Free Willie or we’ll destroy your economy...

“The Caribbean countries that helped Japan win a narrow victory at the International Whaling Commission could face a backlash from environmentally concerned tourists....People come to this region to see nature at its best....Individuals for whom whaling is abhorrent will think twice about going to a destination where their values are not shared."

This dire warning was expressed in a UPI commentary published here on Wednesday. And it fairly summarizes the sentiments (and, perhaps, the perverse wish) of those who opposed the motion to resume commercial whaling that was approved at last weekend’s International Whaling Commission in St Kitts.

However, there’s nothing more unseemly in political and social debate than people resorting to threats (and acts of violence) as methods of persuasion. Yet no group has relied more on such methods to advance their world view than radical environmentalists (a.k.a. eco-terrorists). Indeed, they have become notorious for tree spiking (hammering metal rods or other material into tree trunks) to save the forest, torching homes and ski resorts to prevent suburban development and vandalizing car (SUV) dealerships to promote energy conservation.

Of course, given such tactics, I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that these self-appointed avengers of Mother Nature are only threatening to ruin our tourist economies to save the whales.

Nevertheless, as one for whom commercial whaling is abhorrent, I resent this misguided attempt to undermine the economy of any country in the Caribbean because its government does not find commercial whaling abhorrent. In fact, I find the sewage that cruise ships dump in our crystal-clear waters infinitely more abhorrent. Yet I would never countenance threatening the livelihood of people who depend on the revenues those ships generate to express my environmental outrage.

Therefore, I admonish regional environmentalists like Keith Laurie, President of the Barbados Environmental Society, against parroting the fatuous rhetoric of environmentalists who threaten economic doom for the Caribbean countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines) that joined 27 other states in supporting this motion.

After all, it hardly seems a fair trade to boycott these countries because they support the historical and cultural practice of Japan and other nations to hunt whales.

NOTE: Instead of getting all hysterical about people hunting whales, our environmentalists would prove far more useful as avengers of Mother Nature if they could get cruise ship operators to hold their crap to dump back home; instead of behaving like floating elephants in our Caribbean Sea.

Meanwhile, I myself wrote a letter, which has since been published on the caribbean net news website. My letter read as follows:

Do the NGO groups based in developed western nations that have leveled suggestions of boycotts at the Caricom nations have the best interests of the peoples of the Caribbean at heart? Or are these NGO groups merely attempting to manipulate the Caricom nations, to serve their own selfish political agendas?

I would suggest that the nations of the Caribbean have learnt who their true friends are, in the aftermath of recent events at the IWC meeting in St Kitts and Nevis. The statements of the leaders of the Caricom nations who firmly rejected the hollow threats of economic terrorism that have been leveled against them by these western NGO groups impressed me immensely.

As a symbol of my personal support for the Caricom nations who voted in line with the principle of sustainable use at the IWC meeting, I would like to inform your readers that these events have motivated me to plan a visit to the Caribbean, and I will encourage my friends and family to do so as well. As a New Zealander, I hope to take in a game of cricket or two while I am there.

So with that, I do encourage you all to visit one of the small nations that voted consistently for the principle of sustainable use at the IWC.

Unfortunately, these threats are clear evidence that the IWC must implement secret ballots to ensure that this situation does not continue.

Although there is some sentiment in the islands that whaling could threaten tourism, Japan's allies on the IWC, such as Antigua and Barbuda, dismiss the issue as artificially inspired by environmentalists and media.

"We are accused of selling our votes and prostituting our sovereignty, but as sovereign states we take great offense to this," said Joanne Massiah, Antigua and Barbuda's minister of food production and marine resources.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

There's lots I want to write about at the moment, but due to a lack of time I'm going to pick just one item. A letter suggesting that Tonga should resume whaling.

The author makes a few statements about Japan's whaling that I can't agree with, but otherwise the letter is very interesting reading:

Editor,

Tonga’s cultural art of whaling was very quickly done away with by statute in the 1950s because of political pressures from abroad on conservation and environmental issues to ban whaling. This is a classical example of small nations succumbing to more powerful countries because of the funding and financial aid that they are receiving from them.

Today, Tonga is in a financial crisis and it is imperative that we must take stock of all our available resources to see how we can bail ourselves out of this mess. One of these resources is the whales in our waters.

When whaling was permitted in Tonga, there were not even 10 whales killed in Tongatapu for consumption in any given year. In the outer groups of Ha`apai and Vava`u, there were even much less. The whales were hand harpooned and whaling was done by a handful of families who were descendants of whalers who had migrated to Tonga. There was never a year when a total of 15 humpback whales caught in Tonga.

There are countries that continue to catch whales even with the ban from the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Japan uses a loophole in the IWC rules to undertake its whaling program, which it says is for scientific research. Japan’s whaling fleet returned to port the month before with a record haul of 863 whales from the Southern Ocean. Even if we repeal the Tongan whaling statute and provide for a quota system of 100 whales a year, it will not come close to the number of whales Japan is killing every month.

The Indians of North America are allowed to catch whales under a special provision from the Whaling Commission. This is so because the Indians rely on the whale meat to sustain their livelihood and they have done this as part of their culture for generations. How most appropriate would this provision be for Tonga! Those of us that grew up with whale meat can still remember its taste, and the excitement it brought to the whole island when a black flag is seen flying from the whale boats coming back to port during the whaling season.

Whale meat can readily displace the hundreds of thousands tons of mutton flaps that are being dumped in Tonga every year from New Zealand and Australia. When a sheep is butchered, the better parts of the carcass are kept in these countries for consumption, and the flaps are offloaded in Tonga. These imports amount to many millions in a year and it is a big part of the foreign exchange drain. Resuming whaling will ultimately eliminate this or at least cut it down to a minimal.

It is claimed that Tonga now has an expanding whale watching industry that is contributing to the local economy. I do not think this amount to a significant sum. I have never seen a report from Tonga that gives the actual amount of tourist dollars that is generated from visitors that come to Tonga specifically as whale watchers.

A resumed limited industry in Tonga that allows only cultural whaling with hand held harpoons will bring more tourists and photographers than this whale watching nonsense. Tongans overseas will flock to Tonga during the whaling season to taste the meat and take back home some with them. This will be added travel besides the current traffic during Heilala festivals and the Christmas season. It will also attract many more tourists from Japan and other Asian countries. Tonga will also become the world capital for whale bone carvings and jewelry.

The Tongan population is dying away from cardio-vascular diseases and complications due much to the fatty mutton flaps that are being consumed by our people everyday. Deaths in Tonga from these heart diseases have increased by more than 400% in the last couple of decades and it is continuing to rise.

Come on and let us go whaling!

`Ofa atu

'Ofa-ki-Tonga

[22:22 JST] Final day! Here we go :-)

Just trying to figure out if there is anything interesting left on the agenda today or not... There should be something interesting left to go...

[23:56 JST] Henrik is breaking for coffee...

There are no major issues regarding whaling outstanding today it seems, just administrative issues.

[01:33 JST] Just a vote going on now about a financial matter... good night all! And thanks for joining me for the IWC 58 :-) Do continue to drop by, as I will certainly be writing more on various aspects of this.

[01:36 JST] St Kitts and Nevis final resolution proposal has just gone down 30-30 with 4 abstentions, but it was a financial issue - not directly related to whaling. The voting was very much split between developed and developing nations - a similar breakdown as to the actual whaling votes.

[01:39 JST] The USA has just offered $30,000 USD to St Kitts and Nevis in relation to the financial issue they have encountered. Congratulations USA.

And that's really it! Bed time!

[06:59 JST] Below is Japan's closing statement to the IWC for 2006:

CLOSING STATEMENT TO 58th ANNUAL MEETING

INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION

STATEMENT BY JAPAN’S COMMISSIONER MINORU MORIMOTO

The historic 58^th Annual Meeting of the Whaling Commission in the Caribbean island of St Kitts and Nevis will be remembered for endorsing that the moratorium on sustainable commercial whaling is no longer necessary. The IWC has now begun the process for bringing its functions back on track as a resource management organization that regulates and monitors sustainable whaling.

The polarized debate has for too long held back the IWC and brought the organisation to its knees. It has not fulfilled its obligations to its charter document – the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946 – for the last 20 years. The dysfunctional nature of the IWC is caused by the fundamental differences in the position of its members and over the years has become a mere stage for emotional and political conflicts at the sacrifice of its original mission.

The current situation can no longer continue and has compelled the majority of members to initiate a process where the IWC can be “normalized”. Almost 40 of the Whaling Commission’s members have already taken first step on the path to normalization. As a result, Japan is pleased to be able to host an independent meeting of these concerned members early next year to discuss ways in which the Whaling Commission can be brought back on track to completing and implementing regulated and monitored commercial whaling.

We are convinced that the IWC can only be saved from its current crisis by respecting and interpreting the whaling charter in good faith. This means protecting endangered and depleted species while allowing the sustainable utilization of abundant species under a controlled, transparent and science-based management regime. In this regard, we are pleased that the Commission did not adopt any resolution against our research programs.

We are pleased the Whaling Commission passed by consensus our resolution urging NGOs to act in a non-violent manner when making their views known about whaling. All members are deeply concerned over the increasingly aggressive nature of Greenpeace’s illegal interference with our research programme in the Antarctic. We believe this resolution will provide added weight to taking further action against Greenpeace at the next IWC meeting if they repeat their activities against us this Austral summer.

Use of cetaceans, like other fishery resources, contributes to sustainable coastal communities, sustainable livelihoods, food security and poverty reduction. Whales should be treated as any other marine living resources available for harvesting subject to conservation and science-based management. Scientifically and legally, there is no reason to treat cetaceans differently.

ENDS

New Zealand has been shown up for what it is - all talk and no action - exporting environmentalism.

TVNZ (government owned) has reported it:

NZ urged to better protect dolphins

Jun 20, 2006

A committee of the International Whaling Commission has called on New Zealand to offer dolphins and whales more protection from the impact of tourism.

The Commission's Scientific Committee was presented with a research paper from Otago University which says bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound, Fiordland, are going into new fiords to try to avoid tour boats.

The paper says the extra energy they use to do that is resulting in fewer successful pregnancies and the death of young calves.

The IWC committee recommended New Zealand urgently increase protection for bottlenose dolphins.

It said until there is evidence dolphins and whales aren't negatively affected by the tours New Zealand should assume it is possible.

But, cruise operators in Doubtful Sound say they are operating in accordance with government regulations, which are there to protect the environment.

Chief executive of Real Journeys, Dave Hawkey, says the research is not conclusive and says the matter is really between the researchers and the Department of Conservation.

Labels: Fiordland bottlenose dolphins, Whaling

I was very happy to receive a comment on one of my live blogging threads, and I'm going to reproduce it up here at the top level. See the end of this item.

But it started making me think about something. Something that is kind of obvious, but I'd never quite realised it.

Is whaling really about culture?

This traditionally seems to be true, but there are many exceptions.

I am a New Zealander. I have been in Japan for almost 4 years now, but my culture is still very much that of New Zealand. Yet I fully support the rights of whaling peoples, inspite of my background.

Y/H-san who regularly posts here, is of Japanese culture. He passionately supports whaling, as we can tell by his strong words on the issue. Yet, on Japanese language discussion boards, some other Japanese people speak out against whaling.

isanatori-san is French. Another anti-whaling nation. Yet he too supports whaling.

The comment below is from a British person, but one who also supports whaling.

And some Maori people support whaling, whereas other Maori people seem not to.

I could go on.

So we see that in various different cultures, most people of that culture feel one way or the other, but there are always exceptions. Thus while at first glance (and even second glance) it seems that whaling is about culture, it clearly isn't. The cultural model simply does not fit, because cultures are mutually exclusive, yet mutually exclusive views depending on culture is not what we observe in real life.

So how do we define this? Why do we support whaling, and why do people who don't, oppose?

Let's look to some recent voting patterns at the IWC for answers. Why is it that Japan failed to achieve a simple majority on the various proposals it put to the IWC, despite the later adoption of the St Kitts and Nevis resolution?

• Secret Ballots. Denmark, which voted for the St Kitts and Nevis declaration, voted against Japan on this issue. Denmark and other nations genuinely voted against it because they believe in transparency. Those that voted for it believe in the sanctity of the democratic vote, and the protection of nations from coercion. In civilised international forums, transparency should not be a problem, but for nations at the IWC who are the subject of threats, their viewpoint is understandably different.
• Japanese coastal whaling. Oman supported Japan on this proposal, but on no others. Oman supported Japan on this issue last year, as well. Oman evidently believes in the rights of traditional peoples. However, Japan still lost the vote as other nations did not support the fact that Japanese coastal whaling has commercial elements.
  

Now, looking at the St Kitts and Nevis Declaration, we can make the observation that one underlying concept appears throughout no less than six times - the concept of sustainability.


I suggest that whether a person supports whaling or not depends not on their culture, but on the degree to which that person supports the the notion of Sustainable Use.

A principled person is one who makes decisions "based on or manifesting objectively defined standards of rightness or morality".

On the other hand, an unprincipled person is one who is "oblivious to or contemptuous of what is right or honorable".

Unprincipled people may decide that an activity may be acceptable for themselves, but from this we can not predict whether or not they would support another man's right to also partake in an activity. With principled people, however, we can.

We often see this with people standing up for the Principle of Free Speech. Such principled people will note: "I don't agree with what you say, but by god, I will defend your right to say it".

With regard to whaling, we support it even though it does not effect most of us, because we are principled - we believe in the Principle of Sustainable Use. And we support the Principle of Sustainable Use above all other considerations.


The reason why the St Kitts and Nevis Declaration was able to galvinize support from a majority of nations was because it was a statement that, more than anything, affirmed the Principle of Sustainable Use. Sustainable Use was the focus, and this is something that a majority of IWC members now agree with so strongly that even nations who vote against whaling in various circumstances could join together as one.

So what of people who do not support whaling?

It is not possible to generalize. They really are an alphabet soup of various types. Oman supports coastal whaling peoples, whereas Denmark and the USA, both nations with coastal whaling peoples, voted against Japan's proposal because of the well-known commercial element of Japan's traditional whaling.

Stepping down to the level of individual people, some oppose whaling simply because they are selfish. Such people are simply unprincipled. There is little that we can say to them, other than to point out their selfishness, and to heap shame upon them. Thankfully, I believe that such stubbornly selfish people are the minority.

People such as Ann Novek oppose whaling based on a principle that says animals should not suffer. It will probably never be possible to guarantee an instantaneous death for all whales, so Ann will probably never accept whaling. We can all understand and respect Ann's position, although our priorities are different to hers. This is not to say that we are insenstive to the pain suffered by animals, only to say that we are not as sensitive to this issue as Ann.

Other people simply have no faith in the Principle of Sustainable Use. Greenpeace is just such an organization. They state that they do not believe that sustainable commercial whaling is possible. They are essentially a left wing anti-globalization body. The fact that commercial whaling would be regulated means that we are largely insensitive to such arguments.

Some groups believe in animal rights so strongly that they will not stop at any means to uphold this principle. Sea Shepherd for example, openly suggests that small developing nations should be bribed by the anti-whaling camp, resorts to terrorism, and makes incredibly offensive statements regarding people and nations that disagree with them. Good manners and standard human morality go out the door to make way for the notion that whales have an incredibly high level of rights.

Regarding such groups, we can not say anything that will change their beliefs, because fundamentally they follow different principles to us, or have different sensitivities to these different principles.

Fortunately, I believe that a majority of people are receptive to the Principle of Sustainable Use.

I believe that the reason that most people who do not support whaling feel that way is because they have been misinformed. It is not so much that they disagree with whaling - they just diagree with it right now, today. Years of commenting on various Internet discussion boards and forums has shown me this. After much practice, I feel that my arguments are well versed, supported by facts, and indeed, people have been kind enough to acknowledge this to me. And I see more and more people displaying a tolerance of whaling these days than ever before.

This is undoubtedly the power of the Principle of Sustainable Use at work. Appealing to this Princple is how the whaling peoples of the world can win the support of 75% IWC members, to gain a resumption of commercial whaling.

The argument that whaling can be sustainable has already been won. The next step is just to inform enough people receptive to the Principle of Sustainable Use of this fact.


Here's that comment I was talking about at the start. Ian talks about culture at the start - but if you look carefully, we can see that the reason he actually supports whaling is because he too supports the Principle of Sustainable Use:

David-san

I just found your blog linked from the Wikipedia page on the IWC. I was trying to find some information about the IWC vote on sustainable whaling, mentioned in tonights BBC news.

Many thanks for all the information! Just to let you know, not all British people have irrational and emotiionally-based attitudes to whaling. I've thought for some time that its irrational cultural prejudice to say that one can hunt and eat some animals, but not others (except where there is a genuine danger of extinction). Also a very little research into the history of the IWC showed the hypocrisy of allowing "indigenous" whaling, but being outraged when countries like Norway or Japan, which have hunted whales since at least the medieval period, wish to coninue their cultural tradition of using whale meat!

I hope soon to see that well-regulated, sensible hunting of whale species with adequate populations to sustain such hunting is entirely legal, under the auspices of an IWC once again fulfilling its original (and designed) function of overseeing and regulating sustainable whaling to ensure healthy whale stocks and prevent over-fishing. Until then...

Keep up the good work!

Ian B, UK

Cheers Ian!

Comments?

Great news.

On the 4th day of the plenary session, Japan reported on the obstrucion of it's scientific programmes that are conducted in like with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. A resolution sponsored along with Australia, Holland, New Zealand, and the USA suppresing such behaviour was adopted by the IWC by consensus.

MEDIA RELEASE
19 June 2006 – St Kitts and Nevis

WHALING COMMISSION CRITICIZES GREENPEACE

Greenpeace was criticized by the International Whaling Commission today when
the organisation passed by consensus a resolution resulting from the
activities of the publicity group in the Antarctic this summer.

“Greenpeace carried out a series of very dangerous activities. We cannot
tolerate activities that jeopardise the navigations of our vessels, put
lives at risk and damage property that belongs to the Japanese Government,”
Japan’s Alternate Commissioner, Joji Morishita, told the IWC conference when
introducing the resolution.

The resolution was co-sponsored by the United States, the Netherlands, which
is the flag state of Greenpeace vessels the MV Arctic Sunrise and MV
Esperanza, and New Zealand.

“Over the years, Greenpeace’s interference campaign has become bigger and
more dangerous and its actions in the Antarctic are getting more extreme
year after year. It’s a miracle that we have not had any casualties or
injuries from their dangerous actions,” Mr Morishita said.

Greenpeace rammed Japan’s Antarctic research vessels on 8 January this year.
“We were hit at the side of our vessel, which is one of the weakest points
of a ship as opposed to the front of the vessel, which is the strongest
point. The collision was created, not by us, but by Greenpeace. We believe
these incidents were totally against international maritime laws,” he said.

Mr Morishita encouraged all IWC members to support the resolution, which
instructs protest organizations to conduct activities in a civilised manner.
“We encourage all IWC members and NGOs, even if they don’t share the same
opinion about whaling, to support this resolution telling NGOs to stop
putting Japanese lives at risk and to conduct their activities in accordance
with established international maritime law.”

The resolution was passed by consensus.

Mr Morishita added that Japan was in the process of considering further
action against Greenpeace.

ENDS

Very early days, but:

MEDIA RELEASE
19 June 2006 – St Kitts and Nevis

IWC MEMBERS BEGIN NORMALIZATION PROCESS

The Government of Japan today convened a meeting with concerned IWC members
to begin the process of normalizing the International Whaling Commission.

Nations unhappy at the continued polarization of the Whaling Commission met
separately from the formal proceedings to decide on a time and place to
start the reformation process.

Today’s meeting arose from Japan’s statement put to the IWC earlier that
expressed concern over the current dysfunction of the organization and that
without reform it would lose its raison d’etre as a resource management
organization. Almost 40 member nations from the IWC attended the meeting.

Japan’s Alternate Commissioner to the IWC, Joji Morishita, said that with
almost 40 nations attending the meeting there were sufficient present to
indicate the majority of members were in favour of beginning a process to
reform the IWC.

“It’s time to bring this organisation back to its major purpose of managing
commercial whaling and not continue with endless, futile discussions,” Mr
Morishita said.

“To do nothing and allow the current political stalemate to continue will
mean the IWC will go nowhere and break down. Japan has invested too much
time, money and energy over more than 20 years to allow that to happen and
that’s why it is embarking on this normalization process.”

“We believe that those members who want to continue in the IWC in good faith
and abide by the spirit of the convention can do so by accepting
conservation and management measures to allow controlled and sustainable
whaling,” Mr Morishita said.

A meeting will be held in Japan in January / February 2007 to formulate ways
to move the IWC forward.

Those who today’s meeting in St Kitts were: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia,
Austria, Benin, Cameroon, Cambodia, Cote Divoire, Denmark, Dominica,
Finland, Gabon, the Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Guinea, Iceland, Israel,
Japan, Korea, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Norway, Russian Federation, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St
Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, South Africa, Surinam, Togo, United
Kingdom, USA,

ENDS

No live blogging today! I need a proper night's sleep :-)

Below is the detail of the St Kitts and Nevis declaration, for those who haven't seen it.

On the voting, China abstained. Denmark supported it, which was crucial, while Oman, who supported Japan's coastal whaling proposal, voted against it.

The IWC now clearly has a majority of nations that support the principle of sustainable use. A slim majority it is, but a majority, nonetheless.

The lack of graciousness in defeat by Brazil and New Zealand in particular was shameful - others were less sour about it, although Ian Campbell of Australia refused to accept the significance of the vote.

IWC/58/16 - Agenda Item 19

ST KITTS AND NEVIS DECLARATION

St Kitts and Nevis, Antigua & Barbuda, Benin, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Republic of Guinea, Iceland, Japan, Kiribati, Mali, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nauru, Nicaragua, Norway, Republic of Palau, Russian Federation, St Lucia, St Vijncent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Togo, Tuvalu.

EMPHASIZING that the use of cetaceans in many parts of the world including the Caribbean, contributes to sustainable coastal communities, sustainable livelihoods, food security and poverty reduction and that placing the use of whales outside the context of the globally accepted norm of science-based management and rule-making for emotional reasons would set a bad precedent that risks our use of fisheries and other renewable resources;

FURTHER EMPHAZING that the use of marine resources as an integral part of development options is critically important at this time for a number of countries experiencing the need to diversify their agriculture;

UNDERSTANDING that the purpose of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" (quoted from the Preamble to the Convention) and that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is therefore about managing whaling to ensure whale stocks are not over-harvested rather than protecting all whales irrespective of their abundance;

NOTING that in 1982 the IWC adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling (paragraph 10e of the Schedule to the ICRW) without advice from the Commission's Scientific Committee that such measure was required for conservation purposes;

FURTHER NOTING that the moratorium which was clearly intended as a temporary measure is no longer necessary, that the Commission adopted a robust and risk-averse procedure (RMP) for calculating quotas for abundant stocks of baleen whales in 1994 and that the IWC's own Scientific Committee has agreed that many species and stocks of whales are abundant and sustainable whaling is possible;

CONCERNED that after 14 years of discussion and negotiation, the IWC has failed to complete and implement a management regime to regulate commercial whaling;

ACCEPTING that scientific research has shown that whales consume huge quantities of fish making the issue a matter of food security for coastal nations and requiring that the issue of management of whale stocks must be considered in a broader context of ecosystem management since eco-system management has now become an international standard;

REJECTING as unacceptable that a number of international NGOs with self-interest campaigns should use threats in an attempt to direct government policy on matters of sovereign rights related to the use of resources for food security and national development;

NOTING that the position of some members that are opposed to the resumption of commercial whaling on a sustainable basis irrespective of the status of whale stocks is contrary to the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling;

UNDERSTANDING that the IWC can be saved from collapse only by implementing conservation and management measures which will allow controlled and sustainable whaling which would not mean a return to historic over-harvesting and that continuing failure to do so serves neither the interests of whale conservation nor management;

NOW THEREFORE:

* COMMISSIONERS express their concern that the IWC has failed to meet its obligations under the terms of the ICRW and,

* DECLARE our commitment to normalize the functions of the IWC based on the terms of the ICRW and other relevant international law, respect for cultural diversity and traditions of coastal peoples and the fundamental principles of sustainable use of resources, and the need for science-based policy and rulemaking that are accepted as the world standard for the management of marine resources.

Here is the Japanese reaction:

FISHERIES AGENCY

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES, GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN

MEDIA RELEASE

18 June 2006 – St Kitts and Nevis

WHALING COMMISSION CONDEMNS MORATORIUM

In an historic vote, the International Whaling Commission today confirmed the moratorium on commercial whaling was no longer necessary and that conservation and management measures allowing for controlled and sustainable whaling must be implemented to keep the organisation relevant.

The St Kitts and Nevis Declaration was presented by the host Government and passed by the majority of members at the IWC. The declaration reiterates the organization has failed to meet its obligations under the terms of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW).

Japan’s Commissioner, Mr Minoru Morimoto, congratulated the Government of St Kitts and Nevis on achieving an historic victory.

“Japan congratulates the Government of St Kitts and Nevis on this win. The declaration provides added weight to Japan’s proposal to normalize the IWC and bring it back to its original function of managing and regulating sustainable commercial whaling,” he said.

“This is but one vote. While it is a victory, the IWC remains polarized and unable to make significant resource management decisions because they require a 75 percent majority.”

“However, the St Kitts declaration adds weight to our view that this organisation needs to be reformed and brought back on track to its original mandate. This is not the end, it is the beginning. It is the beginning of securing the IWC as a resource management organization again.”

Mr Morimoto said there are IWC member nations who want to talk and move through the current political impasse. “We issue an invitation to join the normalization process. Let’s work together to bring the IWC back on track to deliver sustainable whaling,” Mr Morimoto said.

ENDS

For more information, contact Japan Delegation media adviser

Glenn Inwood +1 869 764 4301

The news is getting out about vote influencing at the IWC. This from Reuters:

FRIGATE BAY, St Kitts and Nevis, June 18 (Reuters) - Mali's natural resources do not include whales, yet the dusty, landlocked, sub-Saharan country has a vote in the International Whaling Commission, which is fighting this week over whether the giant mammals may be hunted.

The inclusion of landlocked nations like Mali and Mongolia in the IWC has fueled accusations that pro-whaling Japan has been using foreign aid to persuade friendly countries to join and help it try to overturn a 1986 ban on commercial whaling.

But the growing ranks of the world whaling body, which started in 1946 with 15 members and now has 70, is not due to pro-whaling nations alone.

"There are more landlocked countries against whaling than in favor of whaling," said Rune Frovik, secretary of the High North Alliance, a Norwegian pro-whaling lobby group.

"By our count, there are six of theirs, two of ours," Frovik said at the commission's annual meeting in the Caribbean island state of St Kitts and Nevis, which ends on Tuesday.

Pro-whaling Mali and Mongolia have consistently voted with Japan in the IWC in its campaign to resume whale hunting.

On the other side, Austria, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Switzerland and tiny San Marino oppose Japan and its allies at every turn.

"Whales aren't the property of coastal states," said Patrick Ramage of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, defending the role of anti-whaling nations. "They're a global resource that have special status under international law."

There is little common ground between conservation groups, which want all whales protected, and pro-whaling nations which believe that some whale species are no longer endangered and can be hunted in a sustainable way.

Heri Coulibaly, Mali's representative at the IWC, said his country was a signatory to many international conventions and had a right and a duty to play a part in global affairs.

Pavla Hycova, the Czech Republic's representative at the IWC, said her country was invited to join by anti-whaling nations, including the United States and Germany.

The invitation coincided with increasing public pressure on her government to help protect the Earth's largest creatures. As debate becomes more heated, the Czech vote and voice had become more important, she said.

Caribbean island states, which have become a powerful block of support for Japan, angrily reject claims that their votes had been bought in eschange for Japanese funding for fish processing plants and other infrastructure.

Such accusations sprung out of colonial and racist attitudes, said Edwin Snagg, the IWC commissioner for St Vincent and the Grenadines.

"It's a question of respect," Snagg said. "Because you are small and because you are undeveloped there is this view and there is this feeling that you can easily be bought and you can easily be sold. We in the Caribbean feel highly offended."

This just came in on the ethernet:

Historic victory to whaling nations

High North News (18.06.06): For the first time since ages, the pro-whaling nations won an important victory at the International Whaling Commission today with the adoption of the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration.

Importantly the IWC says that the moratorium on whaling is “no longer necessary” as scientists agree that many whale species and stocks are abundant. The 1982 moratorium decision, in effect since 1986, is the basis of the extremely contentious situation in the IWC.

The IWC today declared its “commitment to normalizing the functions of the IWC”, in essence that means to work towards the normalisation of commercial whaling. This includes the IWC resuming its regulatory role with respect to the management of whaling, such as deciding catch quotas based on best available scientific knowledge.

The Declaration also points a finger at extremist anti-whaling nations such as Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom, noting that their position is “contrary to the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling”.

The St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration was adopted with 33 votes in favour, 32 against, and one abstention.

“This is historic. For the first time in more than two decades the Whaling Commission expresses support for commercial whaling,” says Rune Frovik, secretary to the High North Alliance.

33 votes for, 32 votes against, and 1 abstention.

There is hope for the IWC!

Here is a news piece about the St Kitts and Nevis Declaration:

Smaller Nations Aiding Effort to Overturn Whaling Ban

Sunday , June 18, 2006

FRIGATE BAY, St. Kitts — Small nations that support commercial whale hunting threw their support behind a resolution at the International Whaling Commission on Sunday to overturn a 20-year ban on the practice.

If approved, it would mark a victory for pro-whalers after two days of narrow defeats that have left conservationists in charge of the 60-year-old organization. Dubbed the St. Kitts Declaration, the resolution was authored by six Caribbean nations.

"This is the big one," said Chris Carter, New Zealand's Conservation Minister. "The whalers are hopeful that they have the numbers at last."

Delegates from small Caribbean and African countries said the resolution was needed to force the IWC to take up its original mandate of managing whale hunts — not banning them altogether.

The resolution declares that the moratorium on commercial whaling was meant to be temporary and is no longer valid. Although most measures to overturn the ban require a 75 percent majority, the resolution would need a simple majority to pass.

Caribbean environmental and tourist groups rejected the resolution and released a competing one calling for whale conservation.

Both Japan and Iceland kill whales for scientific research — which critics call a sham — and sell the carcasses. Norway ignores the moratorium and openly conducts commercial whaling.

Caribbean leaders said a return to whaling would help them maintain food security by protecting fisheries from whales.

"We're dealing with an ecosystem where whales are on top of the food chain," added Daven Joseph, an IWC delegate from the Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis.

Pro-whaling nations often argue that whales should be culled to protect fish stocks.

"That's like blaming woodpeckers for deforestation," said Vassili Papastavrou, a whale biologist for the International Fund for Animal Welfare. "The real issue is overfishing, not whales."

Hery Coulibaly, an IWC delegate from the African country of Mali, said his vote for responsible whaling is consistent with positions his nation takes on sustainable hunting at the United Nations and other international organizations.

The resolution — drafted by St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, Dominica and Antigua — was signed by 30 mostly developing countries. Norway, Iceland, Japan and the Russia have also signed it.

Environmental groups have accused developing nations of voting with Japan in return for money for fisheries projects — which Japan and those countries have repeatedly denied.

Caribbean tourism officials have said they are concerned that their countries' support of whaling might lead travelers to boycott the region.

"Such threats are tantamount to economic terrorism," said Joanne Massiah, Food Production and Marine Resources Minister for the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda.

The five-day meeting of the International Whaling Commission runs through Tuesday in the Caribbean island of St. Kitts.

Here's another article on this from New Zealand:

Whaling advocates could win key vote
19 June 2006
By HAYDON DEWES

Whaling advocates look set to win a crucial vote at the International Whaling Commission annual meeting, that would give Japan a huge boost in its fight to reinstate commercial whaling.

The meeting, in the Caribbean country of St Kitts and Nevis, has been marked by intense lobbying and suggestions of questionable practices, with African nations aligned with Japan paying membership fees at the 11th hour to allow them to vote, one with a brown paper bag filled with United States currency.

Japan has repeatedly been accused of exchanging aid funding for support from poorer countries.

It lost two votes yesterday - one over whether to allow its coastal communities to whale near shore, by only one vote, and one to have a Southern Ocean whale sanctuary wiped out .

It lost two earlier votes by slim margins – the first barring the IWC from discussing measures to protect small cetaceans, like porpoises and small whales – essentially a "tester" vote to see where nations lay – and the second a vote to introduce secret ballots, which would favour Japan.

From St Kitts and Nevis yesterday, Conservation Minister Chris Carter told The Dominion Post the crucial vote would be on Monday (Tuesday NZ time), when members would vote on the wording of the St Kitts declaration, a statement about what the meeting has achieved.

He was "not hugely confident" anti-whaling nations would win.

"Japan is drafting it already. It is all about calling for a resumption of commercial whaling. They are calling it the normalisation of the IWC, which is a return to its core business of catching whales."

He said Japan lost yesterday's vote primarily because allies Korea and China, which share the Eastern Sea with Japan, voted against it. Allowing Japanese coastal villages to whale would have eaten into their own whale stocks, especially the rare grey whale.

"If China and Korea go back to supporting Japan on the last day . . . we could end up with a declaration for the first time from the IWC for 20 years saying, `Commercial whaling is good, we should get back into it and by the way a majority of countries in the world think so'. That will be a very powerful victory for the Japanese."

Japan would still need the support of 75 per cent of the 70-nation body to spark a return to commercial whaling, but would gain huge political and strategic leverage by getting a simple majority.

"It will breathe even more determination to the Japanese efforts to stack the IWC with like-minded countries," Mr Carter said.

"There are a lot more poor countries out there who are going to be very susceptible to offers of aid to come here."

He said two African nations, Gambia and Togo, joined the voting process on Saturday by paying their back levies.

He said Togo came in with a brown paper bag full of US bills to ensure their credentials. He would not comment on where the money could have come from, but said it was "a source of great speculation here".

Mr Carter said while Japan was effective at "chipping away" at the majority at the IWC, anti-whaling nations needed to keep fending them off until the tide of public opinion changed Japan's position.

"In many ways the tide of history is against the whalers so if we can hold the line, if we can stop the Japanese with this remorseless chipping away of the majority here then eventually Japan's just going to decide this cost is too high diplomatically as well as within Japan itself."

Mr Carter said a WWF poll just released showed 66 per cent of Japanese were against whaling.

"It's a marathon, it's a long race but in the end public opinion in Japan, Iceland, Norway is against the whalers."

Also while Japan continued to get support from smaller countries the anti-whalers were also getting more numbers.

Israel was joining and Cyprus was looking at it. Also new European Union countries were a possibility.

Mr Carter said it was vital that efforts to resume whaling were fought as there were enough threats to whales without intentionally killing them.

"If that lid was lifted, together with global climate change and pollution, you could really have a risk of extinction."

[21:25 JST] Hello all! Thank you for visiting again today. As I have to go to the office tomorrow, I won't be blogging the meeting proceedings throughout the third day, but by all means, feel free to congregate here, and post comments as events unfold. It will help me get up to speed quickly in the morning :-)

As you would expect, the media is now awash with news of events at the IWC. Ian Campbell is reported to have described whaling as "absolutely inhumane and quite disgusting". Joji Morishita responded that whaling was done in "the most humane way, it is proved by science." Another Japanese official, Akira Nakamae, later said that Campbell's comments were "ungentlemanly" and were damaging Australia's international reputation.

Most certainly, I found the venom in the words of Ian Campbell and Chris Carter of New Zealand quite inappropriate for an international forum such as the IWC. This goes to further reinforce my belief that these nations are merely interested in putting up a strong show, to grab some headlines back in their home countries.

Elsewhere, the IWC homepage now includes the press-release for the first day, and also the report of the Scientific Committee is available as well. There is much interesting reading in there, but more on that at a later point in time. Of particular interest though was the information on minke whale abundance in the Antarctic:

(From 10.1.1. "Estimate abundance of Antarctic minke whales")

SC/58/IA11 reported preliminary analyses of Antarctic minke whale abundance within the ice field using sightings data from the icebreaker, Shirase. The survey area was defined as the area south of the ice edge that was less than 90% ice concentration. In a region where both the icebreaker and the IDCR/SOWER vessels were surveying, estimated whale densities were 0.0324 n.miles–2 (CV=37.1%) within the ice field and 0.0230 n.miles-2 (CV=40.9%) in open water (a ratio of 1.41); these are not significantly different.

The Committee welcomed the presentation of these results. It was suggested that in the future, only open areas of water within the pack ice be considered as the survey area rather than assuming that density is constant across 0-90% ice cover. The Committee recommends that the authors continue these analyses and established an intersessional group to assist in this work (Annex R17). Pending further data collection and analyses, the Committee agrees that the study indicates that there are substantial densities of whales within the pack ice for the area covered, and demonstrates the importance of accounting for whales within the ice field when estimating the absolute abundance of minke whales.

This appears like it will explain the observed decrease in abundance between the second and third circumpolar abundance surveys. Biologically, it was not realistic for the population estimated at 761,000 whales to have reduced as much as the surveys indicated. Anti-whaling scientists leaped on the finding, but now it appears clear that the difference is due to deficiencies in the survey methods used.

In other documents, the Small Cetacean workshop (which Japan refuses to participate in), the Government of New Zealand was urged to do more to properly conserve it's marine resources:

The Committee agrees that there appears to be a significant impact from whalewatching and vessel traffic on this critically small bottlenose dolphin population. It recommends that the Government of New Zealand increases protection for this population and other bottlenose dolphin populations in Fiordland as a matter of urgency.

Shame on the Government of New Zealand.

Elsewhere, regarding Japan's small cetacean hunts, which it regulates independently of the IWC, as it believes only 13 large whale species are within it's competence:

The annual quota for the Dall’s porpoise handheld harpoon hunt issued by Japan remained set at 17,700 for the thirteenth consecutive year, apparently based on an abundance estimate for the exploited populations from surveys in 1989/90. The Committee repeats previous concerns over the sustainability of the hunt and in light of the large and prolonged nature of the directed takes, the Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that directed takes be reduced to sustainable levels as soon as possible. Moreover, the Committee emphasises that current estimates of abundance are essential to assess whether the catch quota is within the limits of sustainability for the affected population(s).

Some very contradictory information there. First the SC paper illustrates that it is unaware upon what information the Dall's porpoise hunt is regulated, using the word "apparently". It then repeats a concern about the sustainability of the hunt, but then finally recognises that it is not in a position to make judgements, given that it does not have current estimates of abundance available to it.

Japan noted in one of the Annexes that it was going to resume the provision of data on a voluntary basis via a governmental website, from this year.

[21:40 JST] I'm off for dinner and to watch the soccer now, but do read through the IWC SC documents if you have time, and comment on any other interesting information you find. I will probably watch a little of the meeting later this evening, or perhaps first thing in the morning before I head off to work. Enjoy the day!

[00:24 JST] Just got back from the soccer - 0-0 between Japan and Croatia, but it seems like I missed little in the IWC proceedings. It appears that the delegates are discussing sanctuaries now.

[00:28 JST] Brazil has just said Japan is holding the IWC "hostage" for "political reasons" because of the JARPA II programmes. I personally can't understand this comment at all. It's well known that Japan wishes to resume commercial whaling in the Southern Hemisphere, and the scientific programmes are a forerunner to that. Does Brazil really not understand this? Now Australia...

[00:31 JST] Australia thinks that the southern ocean sanctuary is a great wonderful achievement of the 20th century, as is the moratorium, and thus supports it.

[00:32 JST] Russian federation now, notes that it supported the sanctuary, but time has past and the moratorium means that the whole globe is a sanctuary. However, Russian federation thinks that in the context of the moratorium, sanctuaries have ceased to have a reason for being, so agrees with Japan on the proposal.

[00:33 JST] Spain supported the sanctuary, and so it supports it now too. So does Mexico.

[00:35 JST] The US disagrees that the sanctuary does not have scientific foundation. Finland supports it as well.

[00:38 JST] The UK now. They state that they note that Japan lodged an objection to the sanctuary with respect to the minke whales only. So they think it's wrong that Japan is now taking Fin and Humpback whales. (From me: nonsense - Japan is taking these whales under scientific permit - why the dishonesty from the UK? More than 10 years have passed since the sanctuary was imposed as well - Japan would likely lodge an objection with regard to the Humpbacks and Fins were the proposal being introduced today.)

Iceland will vote with Japan, agreeing that there is no scientific justification.

[00:41 JST] Switzerland has just stated that they agree with sanctuaries, despite saying pre-meeting that they make their decisions based on science. They have offered no justification for this sanctuary though. Japan is now calling for the vote (on the deletion of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary from the IWC Schedule - 75% majority needed to succeed).

[00:47 JST] Lots of abstentions coming in here from the pro-sustainable use nations, so Japan has lost this one again, 28-33 with 5 abstentions (Nicky Grandy called it 4 abstentions - I have 5...)

[00:49 JST] isanatori has the translation of the Guinea statement: "while the IWC was seeking to complete an RMS to allow both the conservation of whales and their sustainable use, it was going in the opposite way by trying to create or keeping sanctuaries. He compared this situation to the one of trying to open a door with the right hand while holding it closed with the left hand."

Japan thanked the nations who supported the proposal.

[00:51 JST] Interesting that the pro-sustainable use nations are at least equal with the anti-use nations at this meeting, but due to abstentions from various nations on each issue, are unable to gain a simple majority. The 5 nations that abstained on this issue were St Vincent & the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Ivory Coast, Korea and Morocco. Guatemala was not present. Tuvalu would have abstained on the issue because of it's location in the South Pacific. It's be interesting to know the reasons for abstention of these other nations. Denmark voted against this proposal giving the anti-use nations a boost. Belize is again voting against Japan, who, according to anti-whaling NGOs, was "bribed" by Japan with aid. So much for that theory.

[01:04 JST] Dominica is now speaking out against a French sanctuary proposal which would encroach on Dominica's waters. They hope that the French proposal is not an attempt to repossess the islands of the Caribbean. They note that they have already gained independance from France. Dominica has not been consulted. Go Dominica!

St Lucia is echoing those comments. These delegates are clearly very angry with France here. They note that their biggest fisheries problem is encroachment on their fisheries by french interests, and shippage of nuclear waste through their waters. He notes that the anti-whaling position taken by France is a mask to hide away their environmental misbehaviour.

Australia is interjecting now, on the St Lucia comments. Back to St Lucia. St Lucia sees this proposal as an attempt at colonialism. They have not been consulted, and can not consider supporting the proposal until the interests of these nations have been considered.

The UK is congratulating France on the sanctuary proposal now. The UK thinks its a great idea for the Caribbean and hopes in future that they will support it. He notes that he is sure that the French did not mean to neglect to consult the Caribbean islands.

[01:16 JST] St Vincent and the Grenadines noting that they have never been consulted on this proposal at any fisheries body, and that they have not seen the scientific reasons for this proposal.

Cedric Liburd now speaking for St. Kitts and Nevis. The OECS will not support the proposal. It is unfortunate that France is making a statement without consultation.

Grenada associates itself with the OECS speakers.

Antigua and Barbuda now. Mr. Liverpool notes there are still French teritories in the region. They recognise the right of France to establish a sanctuary in it's economic zone. But Antigua & Barbuda note that they have a problem with French illegal fishing in their waters, and it is a challenge to monitor this whaling. Their maritime boundaries have also not been agreed upon, and thus A & B also associates itself with the comments of Dominica and St Lucia.

Now France again. isanatori, do your thing!! :-)

[01:23 JST] OK, that's it for the morning, they have broken for lunch. I assume France is not asking to put this proposal to a vote. They'll be back after lunch at 14:00 local time, for discussion of Special Permits. As for me, I have work tomorrow, so will be hitting the sack now. Enjoy the rest of the proceedings!

[01:27 JST] In the war of words over the huname killing issue, Japan had this to say of Ian Campbell: "I just wonder if the minister knows how long it will take for kangaroos to die in his country?" he said, referring to attempts to control the marsupials seen as pests in parts of Australia.

[05:23 JST] I've just been listening to the debate from the comfort of my futon :-) As noted in my comments, Australia's presentation of non-lethal research turned out to be mainly a tirade at lethal research techniques, with very very little detail supplied on the methods and indeed results of Australia's non-lethal techniques.

Joji Morishita then comprehensively addressed the critrique by Ian Campbell, and in particular, slamdunked Campbell on the issue of the IWC requirements for management.

Campbell first made the statement that the data provided by JARPA was not required for management. Morishita questioned whether this was a quote from the 1997 IWC SC of the JARPA programme. He noted that there was a statement at the beginning of a paragraph to that effect, but following this noted a number of ways in which the JARPA data could contribute to an improved RMP.

Campbell then responded, saying that actually the statement that JARPA data weren't required for management were his own words (clearly a lie).

Morishita then pounced on the mistake by Campbell, pointing out that that is then just Campbell's opinion, whereas the IWC SC review in 1997 clearly stated otherwise.

The report is question is also mentioned at the Whaling-FAQ, #Q1.

Little question that Japan has won the debate easily here, but it's yet to be seen how the delegates will vote on any resolutions.

[06:34 JST] HISTORIC EVENT! The IWC has just adopted the St Kitts and Nevis declaration!
China abstained, but it wasn't enough to stop the adoption! Oman voted no... but they have it! The sustainable use nations have the simple majority!!

33-32 with 1 abstention!

Brazil is now protesting, but it is all in vain.
Brazil has just said that they do not consider Iceland a member of the IWC, and disassociates itself with the declation.
Brazil says it does not agree with the ecosystem approach as an international standard!
This is going to haunt Brazil in the future.

[06:41 JST] New Zealand has also lodged a legal complaint about Iceland. Australia has said that it does not dispute the declaration, but says it doesn't accept the declaration as a statement of the IWC. It notes that it too wants to disassociate itself.

St Kitts is requesting to speak last. Israel speaking now, despite having no whaling policy...

[06:45 JST] Iceland is now reasserting it's membership status. Iceland notes that it has been working with the nations that oppose it's membership in working groups without issue. He regrets that the issue is being reopened. He acknowledges that he is not always a good loser himself, but says that now that a majority of nations supported the sustainable use declaration, they should just let it go. Go Iceland!! Well said!

UK now complaining that this was a declaration not a resolution. (I believe) Henrik Fischer has already noted that he stated out the outset that this was a vote as a resolution, and no one objected at the time. Very sour grapes indeed.

The grace with which Japan has accepted defeated proposals is really shown in a good light now, by the actions of these losers of the anti-whaling bloc. They should show some grace.

The Togo representative (thanks isanatori!) noted that in previous days, when proposals were voted down, the proponents accepted it. He notes that the IWC is a democractic body, so that the nations who lost the vote need to accept it.

Japan is now also supporting the statements of the chair that the passing of the resolution should not be challenged, and that Australia and others should accept the result, but feel free to note their objection to the resolution, as Japan has done over the years with regard to proposal denouncing scientific whaling.

St Kitts has just thanked all nations who supported the proposal, and reiterates it's hope that this can help take the IWC forward.

Henrik Fischer has now marked this agenda item closed.

CONGRATULATIONS! This is a great day for the principle of sustainable use and sustainable development. The principle has triumphed over the cheap politics that the anti-whaling nations have been able to subvert the IWC with for more than 20 years. A HUGE day. June 19, 2006. A historical day indeed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5088132.stm

For your reference :-)

"The organisation is serving for political applause back home (but) should serve for responsible management (of whales)"

-- Joji Morishita on grandstanding by Australian, New Zealand, and British representatives at the IWC.

Caribbean Loses Drive For Secret Ballot At Whale Meet

By Tony Best - Special To HBN

Hardbeatnews, BASSETERRE, St. Kitts, Sat. June 17, 2006: After losing a close vote yesterday afternoon at the International Whaling Commission, Caribbean nations are vowing to continue their campaign to get the IWC to use the secret ballot in voting on key matters.

As occurred last year in South Korea and in 2004 in Italy, Caribbean states were narrowly defeated by a coalition led by most of the world's rich nations, joined by a handful of developing countries, which opposed the idea of using secret balloting instead of open voting on matters dealing with the sustainable use of the world's marine resources in general and commercial whaling in particular.

Of the 63 votes cast at the IWC's 58th annual conference in St. Kitts-Nevis, Caribbean states garnered 30 ballots in support of its cause while its opponents collected 33. Surprisingly, Belize which in previous years backed its Caribbean neighbors, broke rank and threw its backing to New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and several other rich nations which campaigned for open voting.

"We are really very disappointed," Lloyd Pascal, Dominica's IWC Commissioner and a former Minister of Agriculture, said afterwards. "But we are going to be back with it again next year when the IWC meets in Alaska. Hopefully by then we would have been able to convinced two or three more countries to support our efforts."

The Caribbean received wide support from the African nations, including Mali, Cameroon, Benin, Mauritania and Gabon, as well as from the Russian Federation, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Nicaragua, Morocco and China, countries which believe that small states must be protected from attempts at victimization.

Why is secret balloting considered so important to the Caribbean, especially the Eastern Caribbean? "We have been threatened with economic boycotts because of our votes in the IWC and we are convinced that secret ballot would remove the threat which hangs over our heads," said Pascal. "You know, it's hypocritical for some countries to come before the meeting and oppose the Caribbean's proposal because the IWC itself uses secret ballots to elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman. It also uses secret ballots to decide a simple thing as where the next meeting should be held. As a matter of fact we are convinced that it was because of a secret ballot that St.Kitts-Nevis was able to defeat France in 2004 in Italy for the right to host this year's conference in Basseterre."

Colin Murdoch, Permanent Secretary in Antigua's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shared Dominica's disappointment. "Antigua & Barbuda is disappointed that the vote on secret ballot went the way it did," he said minutes after the decision became known. "But all of these votes in the IWC are very narrow, won or lost by one or two. There has been some narrowing but not enough to take us over the hurdle."

During the debate, several rich countries ranging from Italy, France, New Zealand, the U.K., Germany and the U.S. to Sweden Australia, strongly criticized the idea of secret balloting, charging that countries were behaving as if they had something to hide. New Zealand was particularly bitter, charging that vote buying and selling had become apparent in the IWC.

But the Caribbean received strong backing from Japan, which introduced the resolution calling for secret balloting, complaining that the Caribbean and other small countries had been victimized by international environmental organizations and other international which threatened with economic reprisals if they continued supporting sustainable use of whales as food.

In 1994, for instance, a U.S.-based NGO attempted to launch a tourist boycott against Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, St. Kitts-Nevis and Antigua citing their voting patterns in IWC Meetings.

Joji Morishita, a top Japanese representative to the IWC, said that talk about openness and democracy was irrelevant in this case because of the continuing threats directed against the small islands.

Cedric Liburd, St. Kitts-Nevis, Minister of Agriculture, struck back at Australia, Britain, the U.S. and New Zealand by name accusing them of hypocrisy, contending that while they use secret ballots in meetings of CITES, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, the developed countries were ignoring the harsh realities faced by small islands and coastal states.

"There is hypocrisy within this body," Liburd told the meeting before the vote. "Internationally, in CITES and other bodies we have the same countries, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, England, all of them are part of CITES and the ballot there is secret. Now at this level (within the IWC) they are speaking about transparency, saying that because some of our votes are up for sale we want secret ballots."

Nothing could be further from the truth, he insisted.

South Africa, Panama, India, Brazil and Chile were among the developing nations, which opposed the Caribbean. – Hardbeatnews.com

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

Despite previously ruling out harrassing the ICR research programme in the Antarctic this next austral summer, Greenpeace has now done an about face, in an apparent attempts to cash in on powerful anti-whaling propaganda campaigns.

A few days ago a revealing article into the the organisation of Greenpeace appeared in the Australian media. Particularly revealing bits highlighted in red:

"Leading the good fight"

What do you do when your brand is your best asset, your organisation needs money, but your 'customers' have very high standards? Peter Weekes reports.

Steve Shallhorn is sitting tightly on a potential pot of gold that other chief executives can only fantasise about - a brand recognition for his business of more than 90 per cent.

However, unlike other CEOs, Mr Shallhorn has no intention of leveraging his brand to generate a regular and stable source of income. "Greenpeace Approved" tinned tuna will not be on the supermarket shelves any time soon, says the recently appointed head of the Australian Pacific arm of the multi-national activist organisation.

"If we went down that road we would have to be absolutely sure that the product is what we say it is all the time," Mr Shallhorn argues. "We figure the monitoring it would take to make sure the product is what we say it is is not worth the risk of damage to the brand."

Over its 30-odd years, Greenpeace has created its household name by doing everything from chasing down Japanese whalers in Antarctica to abseiling down skyscrapers to hang protest banners. In the process they have frustrated, annoyed and generally earned the wrath of most governments around the world, and the applause of supporters.

The chief executive of global brand consultant Interbrand, Sam Osborn, argues that commercialisation would not necessarily harm Greenpeace's brand, and would have an important upside by moving away from society's fringe and broadening public support.

"You have to measure the objectives they set themselves and the change in views of the broader public. They can keep doing what they are doing and get the support of the minority, but to get greater support some of those behaviours might need to change," he says.

"Commercialisation is an opportunity for them to become less ideological and more approachable and accessible. Their extremism, which may be viewed as an expression of the their passion for what they believe in, also disenfranchises broader support."

Osborn cites Oxfam, which has shed its political edge and runs 16 shops nationally. "It's kinda cool to buy a pair of non-sweatshop sneakers from Oxfam. Even though you pay a little bit more but you know you are doing something good for society."

Indeed, Greenpeace is so concerned about reputational risk and perceived conflicts of interest that it will not accept donations from governments or corporations. This leaves only one source of income to keep the organisation afloat and punching above its weight - donations and bequests from Joe and Josephine Public.

However, times are changing and the environmental activist market is becoming more fragmented, meaning Greenpeace no longer has a monopoly on green donations.

It is a testing time for the 50-year-old Canadian activist, who was appointed chief executive six-months ago, but he believes Greenpeace still has the edge over his competitors in what he describes as "collaborate rivalry" with each group agreeing to focus on their own particular issue.

"We all realise that there is a certain amount of competition when it comes to fund-raising but we all have our niches. Greenpeace has some advantage as we tend to be more activist-oriented so we retain people better than other organisations," he says, adding that many young people are attracted by the spectacular protests.

Still, he concedes it is costing more money to raise money due to a high turnover of volunteers. "Return on investment on direct dialogue has been in decline for last five years and a big part of that is the competition," he says.

Mr Shallhorn has taken the reins at Greenpeace Australia, which has stemmed the tide of supporters deserting the organisation. Last year, it expanded its supporter base by 7000 to about 117,000, after it had shrunk 17,720 the previous three years.

The new boss puts this down to a concerted recruitment drive and high-profile campaigns such as the anti-whaling action in the Antarctic that received widespread international coverage.

Shallhorn says the organisation is starting to think afresh for a very different world to when he was first headhunted by Greenpeace to work as a disarmament campaigner straight out of college in 1987.

Like any new CEO, one of Mr Shallhorn's first jobs was to run a review of the Australian organisation that has just merged with Fiji and Papua New Guinea, and develop a strategic business plan.

He says over the past few years a view has emerged that television images and centimetres in newspapers that their protests created was no longer enough to win environmental campaigns.

"We have a very high brand recognition," he says. "In most countries it's over 90 per cent, but we felt there was a need to reinvent the organisation, to move with the times."

"There was a feeling shared by most of the staff that we needed to change our tactics, that just doing the same old, same old was not having the same effect and was starting to be ignored by the media and the public. We also needed to get more people involved."

As most CEOs attempting to shift a business' culture will testify, it can be a hard slog. But Mr Shallhorn says implementing the review's changes has not met "too much resistance".

Among other things, the review called for mass-marketing activities (fund-raising) to help fund its ongoing campaigns after it reduced its operating income reserves to what Mr Shallhorn says is "a more appropriate level" of 21/2 months.

"It is one thing to get people to sign a petition against whaling, it is another thing to get them to agree to give you $25 a month to stop whaling.

"When people are out on the street with clipboards, campaigning, they are talking to people directly about Greenpeace, which is giving us a profile, as well as building support for our campaign," he says.

Last year Greenpeace Australia Pacific raised $14.98 million, up from $13.28 million the previous year. Citing independence, it accepts no donations from government or corporations.

About 90 per cent of the funds come from supporters who have set up direct-debit accounts. This has sustained the Australian operation and finances other international campaigns.

A true "company man", before arriving in Australia, Mr Shallhorn had a short stint as head of Greenpeace Japan. In 1993, he was involved in action that led to a significant global treaty banning the dumping of nuclear waste at sea, and more recently he fought against illegal logging of the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia in his native Canada.

"I have the benefit of my skills and experience as a Greenpeace activist to bring to senior management. I have been in all sorts of campaign situations in many different countries. This allows me to anticipate campaign needs and ensure that the organisation is in the best position to support campaigns," he says.

Shallhorn himself is a veteran campaigner. He vividly recalls being held by a squad of Soviet soldiers who boarded his boat during a Greenpeace action he was leading against secret nuclear tests near the islands of Novaya Zemlya in the Soviet High Arctic during the Cold War in 1990.

The soldiers used a battering ram to break down the door of the radio room where Mr Shallhorn and a couple of others were hiding. Unknown to the Soviets at the time, it was broadcast live around the world and became the last time the Soviets tested the devices.

Mr Shallhorn laughs good-heartedly when asked how you manage a not-for-profit activist multimillion-dollar operation made up of necessarily overtly opinionated staff and volunteers - something not often encountered in the for-profit sector.

"I am a very firm believer in participatory management, but, yes, I am the boss and at the end of the day, Greenpeace is a hierarchical organisation, not a democratic organisation. I am responsible for all aspects of the organisation.

"The participatory management is: I go and ask people or my senior managers go and ask people who are actually doing the work. Sometimes that can take a little bit longer but I make better decisions."

Mr Shallhorn says he will measure the success of his time in the job on three criteria: the number of supporters, fund-raising success and political change.

What business does a non-democractically elected, heirarchical organisation have attempting to achieve political change?

And why is whether conservation objectives achieved or not, not a measure of his time in the job?

The IWC will do well to revoke Greenpeace's observer status this Tuesday in St Kitts.

One of the most powerful speakers at the IWC yesterday was Antigua & Barbuda's Senator Joanna Massiah. Massiah is a IWC veteran and strongly supports sustainable use. She spoke out fiercely yesterday against "cultural imperialism", when speaking in support of Japan's proposal to allow it's coastal whalers to catch 150 'O' stock minke whales within Japan's EEZ.

The following is an article from IWC 56, the meeting in Italy:

Antigua and Barbuda challenged members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to view sustainable management of marine resources as a more efficient way of conserving whales and other marine cetaceans.

Senator Joanne Massiah, Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Environment, Marine Resources and Agro Industry, in her opening statement to the IWC, stated that “a nation surrounded by water such as Antigua and Barbuda must of necessity concern itself with the sustainable use of its marine resources.

It is duty bound to protect its territorial waters as fiercely as it would its right to harvest creatures - in a responsible and sustainable manner - both for the survival of its people and to increase its ability to earn foreign exchange through trade thereby ensuring its economic survival.”

Antigua and Barbuda is concerned about the extinction and depletion of any plant or animal. In this regard, “We have the legal, moral, ethical duty and responsibility to adhere to and uphold the principles of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), to ensure the sustainable replenishment, renewal and re-deployment of endangered species and those threatened by extinction,” the Minister said.

Recently appointed Whaling Commissioner, Ambassador Anthony ‘Mamba’ Liverpool, highlighted the importance of Antigua and Barbuda’s participation in this international forum and the need for OECS countries to work closer together in developing a more coordinated approach to the sustainable use of marine resources.

“The IWC is an international organisation, developed in 1946 to regulate whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and development. It is an important body that provides the opportunity for small island developing states to engage in frank and open discussions on issues not only relating to whaling, but matters of conservation, environmental protection and sustainable use of marine resources,” Liverpool said.

According to Ambassador Liverpool, the meeting addressed the issues relating to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, the development of a revised management scheme for the protection and conservation of whales, establishment of sanctuaries and the establishment of a formula for calculating contributions of member countries.

The other members of Antigua and Barbuda’s delegation to the 56th Meeting of the IWC included Ambassador Colin Murdoch, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Diane Black-Lane, Chief Environment Officer.

The People's Action Movement (PAM) Party of St Kitts and Nevis site doubles with the Democrat news site and often features articles on whaling and sustainable use of natural resources. The Pam party is currently in opposition, I believe, but they have not taken the chance to try to score political points with regards to the incumbent parties policy at the IWC. On the contrary, they firmly support it.

Wailing About Whaling Not Necessary - "Killer Whales and Killer Sharks are both destructive"

Unlike the baleen whales, orcas (Orcinus orca) are "toothed" whales, with true teeth rather than fibrous plates for filter-feeding. They catch single prey, ranging from fish, squid, penguins, seals, dolphins, porpoises, and even whales, including the largest whale of all, the blue whale. (Australian Antarctic Division 2002 Kingston Tasmania 7050)

We are being led to believe that all whales are about to become extinct; that they are gentle intelligent creatures that do not threaten our existence at all; that they do not eat fish only plankton; that the Japanese are like the ''big bad wolf'' about to bludgeon them into extinction; that our votes are being bought because we accept funding for our fishing industry from Japan; and even that we are inherently evil if we wish to kill God''s intelligent creatures.

NONE OF THE ABOVE IS TRUE.

Scientific studies indicate that stocks of most species of whales are high and the sustainable use of our resources does not threaten their existence; some species of whales do eat fish and they will deplete fishing stocks - even tuna and small whales have been found in the stomachs of whales on examination of stomach contents; not all whales are gentle!! There are thousands of killer whales and like killer sharks can become a physical threat (see article on killer whales inside) to our fishermen and their boats. As tiny independent countries, whose existence has been threatened by rulings of the EU and WTO, we must be able to accept funding with a clear conscience. We do not accept that Japan is buying our votes by giving us a fishing port any more than we accept that Taiwan is buying our vote by giving us a stadium at Warner Park. We must co-exist for mutual benefits.

Finally all God's creatures are intelligent. Many have been adamant about the intelligence of pigs and they are kept as pets in many Western homes, yet there is no lobby to ban bacon, ham or pork. Culture influences the actions of the Japanese as they influence ours. Let us not be caught in the crossfire of traditionally warring countries. We will be guided by scientific data and the sustainable use of our resources.

Some other articles from the Democrat:
'KILLER WHALES' "We need to know about these whales too Why aren't we told about them?"


CARIBBEAN NATIONS RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR INTEREST - "Waters Around The Islands An Important Source Of Food"


SCIENCE MUST INFLUENCE WHALING ISSUE


BEHIND THE NEWS IN THE FISHING INDUSTRY


JAPANESE FUNDING, FISHERIES & THE OLD ROAD LOCATION 'They're justified'


WEEPING AND WHALING - "Why shouldn't these beasts of the ocean be hunted for blubber and food?"

And here's even more articles:

"INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION HAS LOST ITS WAY"



Editorial: JERKING US AROUND MENTALLY



Women in Action: When did Saving the Whales Become more important than Liberating African children from Hunger?

[03:30 JST] Just waiting for the video feed to come through again...

OK, all going again now. Again, some technical trouble here... Japan to present it's proposal now.

They are noting that in the discussions on the RMP, certain nations have been completely uncooperative and irresponsible in their actions. As a result Japan and a group of nations that support the principle of sustainable use have produced a paper which Japan is presenting on behalf of the group.

Japan notes that since the introduction of the moratorium, certain whale stocks have been studied in detail, and for those stocks sustainable whaling is now scientifically possible, and that the IWC adopted the IWC SC's RMP in 1994 by consensus.


New Zealand speaking now. New Zealand is saying that most nations who have co-sponsored Japan's proposal have mostly joined the IWC after the moratorium was adopted, so they think it's strange for those nations to support "normalization". Now he is saying that the recent focus of the IWC on "conservation" was also the focus of the IWC when it was first created.

I'm missing all of his points completely to be honest. Now he has slipped in a reference to his belief that whale-watching is a better way to use whales than whaling.

Australia now. Ian Campbell reiterates that they would prefer the proposal to be "modernization" rather than "normalization" (Japanese officials called this "nonsense" yesterday). Australia says that it is prepared to work constructively with the other nations. Campbell is looking back over history. He talks about things changing, refering to the 1972 stockholm meeting of leaders, and how they called for a moratorium. (Of course, what he ignores is that many whale stocks are recovering now - this has changed as well, but he conveniently ignores this!) Australia says again that it supports "modernization", but disagrees with Japan that the organization is on the verge of collapse. He says that nations have to be mature about the different views that are strongly held by various nations.

Brazil now. Brazil is criticising the language used in the Japanese proposal as being emotional - words like "normalization". Brazil is saying that many aspects of the ICRW have become anachronic. Brazil is unhappy that despite Japan's paper calling for respect for whaling cultures, complaining that coastal regions where whaling is now not acceptable are not noted.

Iceland. Thanks Japan for the proposal, and recognises the great need for productive discussions. Iceland sees the proposal as a means to saving the IWC from becoming irrelevant. Iceland looks forward to participating at the meeting.

A french speaker now (Belgium?). Now Benin, again in french. Lots of nations want to speak, but Henrik wants to finish this item by 15:30. 15 speakers, 2 minutes each, is Henriks request.

[04:19 JST] This will take a while. The Netherlands is wondering whether the proposal, which mentions that no commercial whaling would be allowed for depleted and endangered species, also could make the same provision with regards to Scientific Whaling.
The US is concerned that Japan's proposal is for a meeting outside of the IWC.
St. Kitts and Nevis notes the 15 years of non-progress by the IWC. They believe there is a great deal of opposition to RMS proposals allowing the IWC to carry out it's mandate. Some nations have said openly that they will never accept commercial whaling. Even when they talk about adopting some form of RMS, this is paradoxical. This is why normalization is important. The ICRW is a convention for the regulation of whaling, and it is wrong to be of the belief that it's role is only to focus on conservation. "Modernization" must be seen within the scope of the existing convention. Henrik tells the speaker off for using 50% more than his daily speaking allowance! It was good though :-)
Morocco speaking now, french again... (or was it Monaco!?)
Sweden now talking about using "harmonization" instead of the other two terms. Sweden notes that they support sustainable use and the precautionary principle, in this respect.
Argentina is now parroting what Brazil, Australia and New Zealand have said.
St. Vincent and the Grenadines shares concerns of others about the polarization of the IWC which achieves nothing, and hopes normalization of the IWC can be in the interests of all.
Marshall Islands notes that the nations who now oppose whaling were the nations who drove whales close to extinction in pursuit of oil. Marshall Islands believes that these mistakes can be learned from and sustainable whaling achieved, if there is political will.
Mongolia notes that the substance of the proposals is more important than the words used to describe this. The performance of the IWC must be improved. Mongolia urges parties to engage in debate constructively to reform the IWC.
Ivory Coast speaks in french.
Dominica now for the first time. Dominica notes that "conservation" has been redefined by some nations. Dominica refers to the Caring for the Earth document from 1991 for it's definition of "conservation" (which is the standard meaning). (Note from me - this document actually calls for the moratorium to be maintained - this was before the RMP was completed and adopted, however).
Italy welcomes a document that was produced by the Netherlands.
Antigua & Barbuda associates itself with the nations who supported Japan's proposal. Massiah states that most nations still believe that the ICRW is a good convention, and is not happy with attempts to bastardize the ICRW by anti-whaling nations. Massiah notes that "modernization" is an attempt to move the goalposts by the anti-whalers. "Normalization" on the other hand is about reforming the IWC to meet the goals stated in the ICRW. She continues to be amazed by the unalterable positions of some nations at the IWC. She thinks that such nations have no moral right to remain part of the body. Regarding a statement by Belgium, she rejects cultural imperialism. A strong contribution, and receives applause from other members. Go Joanne!

Joanne Massiah of Antigua and Barbuda ladies and gentlemen (search for her name at Google - she is passionate about sustainable use of resources)

Henrik laying down the law on additional contributions now.

St Lucia and Norway don't support the initiative undertaken by the Netherlands. St Kitts also does not feel it can go along with the Netherlands proposal either.
Denmark tends to agree with St Kitts that the Netherlands proposal is premature. Rather than focus on three topics, as suggested by Netherlands, any meeting should focus only on the two focuses of the ICRW, conservation and whaling.

Japan again now, thanking all supportive countries. Encourages nations to attend the meeting that Japan proposed. All nations joined the convention believing that the convention is good, as is. Looking forward to constructive participation.

Netherlands repeating it's question on scientific whaling no to be applied to depleted stocks or endangered ones to Japan.

[05:09 JST] Henrik adjurns proceedings until 16:30 local time - back in 20 minutes!

[05:19 JST] Just in the break, Reuters has reported on the Greenland aboriginal subsistence hunt issues discussed earlier in the day (I seem to have missed some of this)

[05:45 JST] Henrik settles them down, and notes that they'll probably have to run through to 18:00. Apparently Agenda item 3 has been postponed until late monday morning, and some useful discussions have been going on about that.

They will now look at agenda item #10, under which Japan is going to propose a schedule amendment regarding it's coastal whaling communities.

A representative from Taiji in Wakayama is now speaking (Mr Nihara). 5 representatives from this whaling town are present. In April a whaling summit was held with people from other communities also present. Taiji is the first town in Japan to have organized whaling, with history stretching back 1600 years. From here, whaling culture spread to other parts of Japan.

... the presentation comes to an end eventually. Joji Morishita notes that the IWC is gradually killing coastal whaling communities in Japan. The names of people in the town represent roles in whaling organizations. Some nations have raised concerns about the stock that these towns wish to utilise. The stock in question is the north pacific minke, and the stock is healthy. The IWC SC has also finished the implementation trials for the stock, the problem is that the IWC has not taken action on the advice. Some nations refuse to support whaling because of the commercial nature of the small type whaling. This is a double standard, as other small type whalers in other nations have commercial aspects. Japan is not blaming subsistence whalers, just pointing out the inconsistency. And what is wrong with commerciality anyway? Whale-watching is commercial. Most human activities are. Futher, some nations claim that an RMS must be implemented before they can support the proposal. But the RMS discussions have broken down now. Another reason for objection is that those nations believe whaling is immoral. In Taiji, the people have great respect for whales. These people have never tried to export their morals to other countries. They just wish for an exemption from the moratorium. In terms of conservation, there would not be negative impact by this whaling - but some nations may have a different understanding of the meaning of conservation. In CCLAMR, "conservation" includes the concept of sustainable use. Japan's proposal this year is the same as last year. Just to highlight some points:
- operations with be within Japan's EEZ
- five vessels only to be included
- not a proposal to lift the moratorium
- very strict monitoring will keep the quota within the granted numbers
- no effect on the conservation status of the minke stock, much less than 1% of the stock.
- DNA registration system to individually and track each whale taken.
The IWC has the role of preventing extinction of whales, but the IWC should also prevent the extinction of these people as well.
On this issue, Japan would not seek to use a secret ballot. Japanese people will wish to know which nations supported them, and which did not.
These small communities should not be held responsible for past overfishing by other entities.
(Fabulous!!)

The UK responding now, noting that bycaught whales can be sold in Japan, and that the vessels in question are used in the JARPN programme. The UK is disputing Japan's claims of need. They say that young people in these towns want to move to the city to work. The UK can't support the proposal because it's an attempt to re-open commercial whaling.

Another speaker now is noting that the IWC has recognised the needs of these coastal communities. The speaker hopes that the IWC will no longer continue to ignore Human Rights in denying these quotas.

Iceland supports the proposal and consistency

St Lucia does as well, and the information from the Scientific Committee notes that there is no negative impact on the 'O' stock by this whaling. St Lucia is speaking out in support of tolerance for cultural diversity.

St Vincent is also speaking in support.

Denmark has two requests to Japan. It would be easier if the proposal had passed through the Scientific Committee before it comes to the IWC, in the future (it was last year, but not this year). Denmark wonders whether it would be possible to modify the proposal to just 3 years, rather than 5.

India supports need, but doesn't believe that Japan's proposal represents this, as there is a specific quota requested.

Austria associates itself with the UK.

The USA requests Japan to frame the request differently, the US can't support commercial whaling.

St Kitts & Nevis speaking in support of Japan.

Monaco understands that there is a stockpile of whalemeat available. So lack of whalemeat is not the issue. Monaco is prepared to support the request once Japan gives up it's scientific whaling programmes.

NZ notes that it understands that the SC has not finished work, and is concerned about the mixing of stocks, the lack of abundance estimate. So NZ thinks it would be irresponsible for the IWC to accept this. NZ states that the proposal has some worthy elements, but that they are emotional, not scientific (Cedric Liburd is laughing visibly in the background).

Australia notes that the safeguards noted by Japan are not included in the schedule amendment itself.

Russian Federation notes that the history of whaling on earth began in Japan. This isn't an issue of need that can be met be scientific whaling. Some people think that bread grows in stores. The traditions of these people must be preserved. Russian Federation supports the proposal. There is enough scientific data that shows there would be no effect on the stock.

From the SC, in 2003 the stock was reviewed and they completed the implementation process. Differing views on how the catches could be managed were presented to the commission. Currently a new review is underway on the stock. The Secretariat has not yet run the CLA to determine the quota that would be produced by the SC, because the IWC has not requested this to be done.

Japan is prepared to answer Denmark's request. Firstly, Japan expresses gratitude to those countries who will support their proposal. Some wrong information has been presented by other nations. NZ's representative seems to be confused over the 'J' stock and the 'O' stock. The SC has finished work on the 'O' stock, for which the proposal is for.
If you go to the effort of turning the page, the proposal does describe the safeguards. The schedule amendment is just for the catch limit, but Japan is prepared to put the safeguards on paper if desired.
It is irrelevant that there is a stockpile of whale meat. This is no reason to deny these people their rights to be engaged in whaling.We should not be fooled by such false logic. Japan believes that even if the quota were just for 1 or 2 whales, those anti-whaling nations would probably not accept it even then.
Japan accepts Denmark's request to shorten the quota from 5 to 3 years.

[06:44 JST] Japan now putting this proposal to the vote.

[06:50 JST] Voted down again, this time closer - 30 in favour to 31 against. A number of nations chose to abstain that have supported Japan on other issues: Senegal is not present, the Solomon Islands, China, Kiribata, Korea abstained, Guatemala of course still not present.

Japan will still be somewhat happy, as this is about as close as they have ever come to a simple majority. Were Senegal present, the numbers would likely have been tied.

[07:01 JST] Agenda item 14 now (cooperation with other organizations)

[07:12 JST] And the meeting is now adjourned for the day. One way of looking at that vote is that less than half the IWC member nations opposed Japan's proposal.

[22:18 JST] Day two of the meeting is just getting underway. Henrik Fischer has announced that agenda item #7 is first on the menu for today. This is regarding aboriginal subsistence whaling. Under discussion is an SLA (strike limit algorithim) for aboriginal whaling which has been approved by the Scientific Committee. A priority issue at this meeting is aboriginal whaling off Greenland. Last year the Scientific Committee noted many issues in this area. The mood at the Sub-Committee dealing with these issues were better than last year apparently, as a result of progress made by scientists in addressing some of the issues raised at IWC 57. Britain in particular noted concerns last year, and appreciated the work done.

[22:26 JST] The Bowhead stock which the Alaskans take is in good shape. 10,500 is the estimate, with a growth rate of more than 3%. Apparently a record number of calves were counted in the recent work. The landing versus strike rate is apparently up to above 80% in recent times (some whales are struck and lost).

[22:29 JST] A report now on the AWS (Aboriginal Whaling Scheme) that goes along with the Bowhead SLA.

[22:33 JST] Now on to Grey whales off the north east pacific. Pretty much status quo with regards to this hunt. Austria is questioning about the Makah tribe's not hunting due to legal reasons. Apparently there has been co-operation between the Russian hunters and Makah hunters, as the Makah hunters have not been able to catch whales in recent years. The Russians have been assisting them with training on hunting. The Russians are now responding to a question from Austria on a high struck and lost ratio in 2005. The reason for this is because the Russian aboriginal hunters are trying to target larger whales, and bad weather during the year.

[22:45 JST] A report on minke whale hunting in Greenland now. Last year the Scientific Committee said that it had no scientific basis for advising on management. However, this year the SC was in a better position. A new abundance estimate had been made, and some other information regarding sex ratios is also available. The aerial abundance survey conducted this year showed no significant different to that in 1993, although questions about stock structure remains. Ultimately, the SC is still not able to provide authoratitve management advice on this stock. Again, the SC agreed that the IWC should exercise caution when setting catch limits for the Greenland minke whales.

Britain asked a dumb question about whether the sex of five whales which was unknown was because this was unreported information, or because it could not be determined. Denmark noted that it was because the information had not been reported.

[22:51 JST] Greenland Fin whales. Again, the SC notes that it's in better position to provide advice on this stock this year as well. The latest abundance estimate was not too different from that in 1987/88. Some SC members believed 19 animals would be a safe level of catch, but there was not agreement on this point. Australia was happy that the SC had agreed on a new abundance estimate (me: apparently for Australia, whale killing is OK if you are "native" enough).

[22:57 JST] A single female Humpback whale was captured by St Vincent and the Grenadines. These are part of the greater west indies breeding stock. A limit of 20 animals was set for the period through 2003 to 2007.

[22:59 JST] Greenland notes that they support the sustainable use of resources by all people who are dependant on those resources. Greenland is not happy to reduce quotas without sound scientific advice, but in line with the precautionary principle, their quota has been voluntarily reduced due to the concerns expressed by the scientific committee.

[23:12 JST] Discussion has moved on to the RMP. Norway's proposal to modify the RMP is being reported now. The SC didn't have time to review the results of the proposal in detail, but they did discuss general issues. The Chair of the SC is noting that the SC isn't about to advise the IWC on changes at this stage, and at such a time, a decision to accept the changes would be a political one, not a scientific one.

Next they discussed details for implementation for the Bryde's whale in the north west pacific. Trials have been developed in accordance with SC guidelines. The SC is on schedule to complete implementation by the next meeting. Next, Fin whales in the north atlantic. The SC doesn't want to start pre-implementation for this stock until 2007 due to high workload.

Last item is related to by-catch estimation in cooperation with the FAO.

[23:25 JST] Iceland is expressing surprise that the IWC SC has said they won't be able to start work on the North Atlantic fin stock implementation work. Iceland is concerned that despite the rich data available on the fin stock in question, this item has been given a lower priority. She is wondering whether the lack of resources noted by the SC chair might be addressed were they reassigned away from items such as whale-watching.

Australia now going whinge about Norway's proposal. They are concerned that four different adjustments have been made at once, and worry about assessing the changes because of this.

Japan now speaking. Japan believes the existing RMP is too conservative, and supports Norway's efforts to improve in this area.

Britain whining about Norway's proposal now, refering to the 1994 consensus resolution that adopted the RMP. Britain believes that the SC shouldn't be doing such assessment of this proposal, since the IWC did not direct them to.

[23:26 JST] SC Chair now responding to the questions. He notes that the data may be ready, but the SC is still too busy with other work. He notes that reassigning resources would not help, as the resources are tied up with ongoing work for the Bryde's implementation. The SC has decided to use the existing 100 year time frame for the CLA in evaluating the Norwegian proposal to allow for comparison with the existing CLA. Australia is trying to make a political point that the SC shouldn't be evaluating Norway's proposal. The SC Chair states that it understands that it is within the mandate of the SC to undertake the work - asking for clarification from the IWC Head of Science now. The Head of Science notes that the IWC can tell the SC what to include in it's workplan. Britain stresses that it prefers the work not be being undertaken (but of course ;-))

[23:45 JST] Broken for coffee - back in 35 minutes.

[00:15 JST] Just while I wait - Chris Carter again with a verbal gaffe today. He describes eco-tourism as "more sustainable" than consumptive use of these renewable resources. Sustainable is black and white - it either is, or it isn't. There are no degrees of "sustainable".

[00:35 JST] Back again, after some tech issues (with me). No agenda item 6 today apparently. items 14 and 18 later today. Now to item 8 on the RMS.

[00:45 JST] Not much interesting here. Japan is noting that the RMS process is broken down, and they are angry that the proposals have been full of unpractical measures. Instead, Japan is now looking towards normalization of the IWC to make progress. Japan is looking for constructive discussions from nations supporting the sustainable use of resources on new proposals. Japan maintains its interest in an RMS that has the principles of the ICRW at it's heart. They look forward to normalization of the IWC for this purpose.

[00:51 JST] Denmark is criticising nations who voted against RMS proposals who also don't take any whales. Denmark notes that this cements the current situation with whales being taken by other nations. Denmark notes that the policies of these nations does not help the whales. (Fantastic!!)

[00:54 JST] Palau now with it's first words. The IWC has spent 15 years and achieved nothing. Discussions were suspended at the recent meeting in Cambridge. Time and resources are being wasted. Palau suggests other alternatives be explored to meet the mandate of the IWC. Thus, Palau supports Japan's normalization document.

[00:56 JST] UK to crap on about the "code of conduct" for Article VIII of the ICRW now. The UK isn't happy with it (it wants a hard and fast set of rules, rather than a non-binding code).

UK now noting Denmark's comments. The UK refutes the criticism, saying they participated in good faith. The UK says that they put an RMS offer forward previously, but the whaling nations said it was impossible for them. The UK says that an RMS that ignores scientific whaling and has no compliance measures for it is not acceptable.

Now Iceland. Iceland stating that there was no will at the previous meeting in Cambridge to make progress on the RMS. Nothing has changed since the last meeting, nor any indication that this situation will change in future.

Guinea now. French language again.

St Lucia associates itself with Guinea, and also supports the completion of an RMS. St Lucia also looks for the IWC to be normalized to focus back on to it's mandate.

Australia states openly that it doesn't want commercial whaling, and won't agree to any RMS. Addressing Denmark's comments, he states that it is countries killing whales under Article VIII, not Australia. He notes that even under the convention, scientific whaling cannot be controlled. He talks about killing 1000 minke whales in the Antarctic (misinformation!) and notes that the proposed RMS packages can't address this scientific whaling.

New Zealand's Geoff Palmer now. He states that New Zealand has participated at all meetings on the RMS in recent times. He's reeling off a list of conditions New Zealand wants for the RMS. He says that the RMS he proposes is in line with best international practice. Blah blah blah, says the same thing over and over... ugh!

St Kitts & Nevis now. He associates himself with the comments of Palau. St Kitts & Nevis too have participated for over 8 years on RMS proposals. He notes that the costs of these meetings are high, for no avail. He hopes for a way to move forward on the RMS.

[01:20 JST] Henrik Fischer trying to close the list of speakers now. Still 10 more to go. Japan will speak again at the end of all of this.

Sweden does not agree with Denmark's comments, and agrees with the UK.

USA notes that people think the IWC is failing in it's responsbilities. Over 1000 extra whales will be taken this year. The USA wants to find a way forward. They realise that this issue is controversial, and trust needs to be built amongst nations. Even though USA might not support a new RMS, they acknowledge that one needs to be developed.

Another French speaker now, probably France.

Hehehe, South Africa given the floor, despite not having asked for it - gets a laugh

Antigua & Barbuda getting a word now. Also noting the strong ideological positions and lack of respect for coastal states to use whales for food. They call for the IWC to return to their original mandate.

Germany now... Germany's view is that the whaling nations have not compromised. They too see scientific whaling as a problem.

The Swiss point out that parties should be aiming to compromise, rather than to blame other parties.

Second round for 3 speakers now - Brazil:
Brazil agrees with NZ, Australia, UK. Technically, he wants to know why highly technically advanced nations do not want to use best international practices. Politically, he wants to know why whaling nations don't want to discuss the non-lethal use of whales.

Henrik Fischer notes that Brazil's use of the word "criminal" was not appropriate.

Japan now. Thanking Henrik for his ruling. Japan notes that Japan has whale watching too, and does not deny the rights of nations to non-consumptive use. Japan generally agrees with the USA. The IWC is a management organization. Discussions are repeated, year after year. He notes that Japan has repeatedly supported the chair's proposal, which included many international best practices, including international observers, and even agreed on how these observers should be chosen. These agreements have been ignored, and nations have said that Japan has not accepted observers, which is simply not correct. Although reluctantly, Japan has agreed with the chair's package as a way forward. He can't understand why Japan's stance has not been correctly recorded by other nations. Morishita has noted that an alphabet soup of all the best international practices is not necessary to achieve a suitable RMS. A suitable mix is sufficient.

Korea now.

Henrik Fischer summarizes, noting as chair that the RMS discussions are at an impasse. He clarifies that he'll close the agenda item tomorrow afternoon, unless someone comes up with great ideas.

[01:50 JST] About to break for lunch! Item 19 will be next on the agenda, from 14:30 local time.

Yet again today, discussions were a total waste of time. I read the RMS report from the Cambridge meeting previously, and today find myself none the wiser.

The e-kujira portal site has a video digest from the opening day opening ceremony.
That's it for this post. Back afterwards, assuming I can awake from my slumber :-)

One of the highlights on the first day of the IWC was the powerful speaking of St. Kitts and Nevis' representative, Cedric Liburd. Here he is prior to the meeting:

Minister of Agriculture Cedric Liburd said a declaration would be issued following IWC 58, explaining the significance of pro-whalers winning the vote.

“The matter of winning the vote does not mean that we are out there fighting NGOs and others, we are making sure that we, the people of the Caribbean and those of us who use the sea for natural resources, are given fair opportunity to use the sea in a sustainable way and I’m hoping that all of us could come to that realisation.

“If the vote is in sustainable use, we believe that in many parts of the world including the Caribbean, that would contribute to sustainable coastal communities, sustainable livelihood, food security and poverty reduction and that placing the use of whales outside the context of the globally-accepted norm of science-based management and rule making for emotional reasons would set a bad precedence that risk our use of fisheries and other renewable resources.

“We believe that this declaration will speak to those matters and we want to further emphasise that the use of marine resources as an integral part of development option is critically important for a number of countries in the Caribbean as we see the experience the need to diversify our agricultural sector,” Liburd, who is leading the Federation at IWC 58, said.

[02:30 JST] The meeting has broken for lunch after an initial vote requested by Japan failed to gain the necessary support. The vote was 30-32 against, but it's likely that some floating votes were added to the anti-whaling bloc in this instance. Back later :-)

[02:57 JST] Previously today, Sir Geoff Palmer made some comments regarding the competence of the IWC to manage small cetaceans. He refered to Agenda 21, Chapter 17 in support of his argument. The interesting thing about this is that his argument says that if one document says the IWC has competence, then the IWC has competence. This sets a dangerous precedent. It should be wholly up to the IWC to determine whether or not small cetaceans are in it's competence. If this is not the case, it means it is possible for members of one international agreement to change the meaning of another international agreement, without gaining consent of the signatories to that agreement. That would clearly be an anomalous situation. Another 20 - 30 minutes to go before the resumption. We'll have another 2 and a half hours of proceedings for today, with the delegates having a reception to attend after 5 pm local time.

[03:08 JST] One of the more amusing moments from the proceedings so far today, besides watching Henrik Fischer fume over time wasting, was during the initial vote. The procedure is that Dr Nicky Grandy of the IWC secretariat calls out each nations name, asking for them to vote either "yes" or "no". Nicky Grandy then repeats either "yes" or "no", then calls the next nations. In the middle of the voting, after one of the "no" nations had voted, and Nicky Grandy repeated "no", she called Benin, who's delegate was seemingly confused by the mesmerising repetition of "no", "no", "no", and called out "nno... YES! YES!" Although it put a smile on everyone's face, the Highnorth Alliance noted the possibility of votes being lost this way through the voting procedure. One wonders whether Belize didn't accidently cast their vote for the anti-whaling nations, in which case the vote would have been tied at 31-31.

[03:33 JST] Back under way again, but dealing with some less interesting procedural stuff here... (Agenda item 24 - F & A committee, Agenda item 25 - Future annual meetings)

[03:45 JST] Problems with Chile's video presentation on their future meeting, and in the meantime they've moved on to the secret ballot proposal from Japan. Japan is explaining the provision again. They are clarifying that secret ballots would only be used when requested. Details of harassment of smaller nations at the IWC is being detailed. Joji Morishita notes that some nations vote for sustainable use in other international forums, but vote against sustainable use of whales at the IWC. Japan feels that there may be pressure on these nations that makes them voted inconsistently in international forums. Other international forums also have secret ballot provisions. Japan is requesting consensus, but will call for a vote if it can not obtain it.

[03:54 JST] New Zealand is restating it's position on the matter. Lots of veiled attacks on Japan there. Fifteen other nations are wishing to speak on the proposal. Henrik Fischer is limiting the rest of the speakers to 1 minute each. Let's hope so!

Interesting really. When people talk about Freedom of Speech, they talk of defending the right of others to say what they wish, even though they may not agree. At the IWC, the situation is that anti-whaling interests threaten nations that say they support sustainable use.

[04:17 JST] Secret Ballots fail by 33-30, with 1 abstention! Belize again voted with the anti-whaling bloc, so it seems that their previous vote was no mistake.
In this vote, the Solomon Islands abstained, again losing another vote for the sustainable use groups. Denmark sided with the anti-whaling nations on this issue. St Kitts spoke very strongly in favour of the proposal, but to no avail. The nations against secret ballots spoke of how they were not afraid to have their votes known, but none of them addressed the concerns of small vulnerable nations who have been accused of taking bribes, and suffered threats of economic boycotts.

And with that they break again. Back in another 40 minutes...

[04:28 JST] Whale Stocks, the fifth item on the agenda will be coming up from 16:00 local time. And here in Japan, it has started to get light outside.

[04:41 JST] The IWMC has two editions of it's Conservation Tribune online now.

[04:58 JST] I'm struggling to stay awake now, so blogging is likely going to tail off at some point during this last hour of the day. For some reason the issue of interference with research has not been taken up yet, I'm not sure why this is. Just about ready to get started again. School teacher Fischer told the delegates to be back in their seats bang on the hour.

[10:52 JST] I've just listened to the press conference held by the Japanese, which covered the rest of the proceedings. Apparently the Scientific Committee was unable to provide an updated estimate for the Southern Ocean minke, once again. I did not catch the details for the Humpbacks either. In the political area, apparently Togo has also had it's voting rights restored now, along with The Gambia, so although Japan's agenda revision and secret ballot proposals were both voted down today, the remainder of the votes this meeting will all be very tight. Interesting is that Belize has voted with the anti-whaling bloc on both proposals. This comes despite allegations from some anti-whaling NGOs that Japan had "bought" Belize's vote.

[11:02 JST] Chris Carter has told newstalkzb that he understands that Senegal (not present in today's voting) is due to arrive in time for tomorrow's proceedings.

[12:18 JST] The e-kujira site has the pre-meeting press conference with Joji Morishita, in English (real format). He stresses that Japan's goal for the plenary is to make some progress towards "normalization" of the IWC, noting that despite 14 years and 45 meetings, the IWC was making no progress towards an RMS. He rejects allegations of vote buying, noting that nations such as Brazil receive huge amounts of aid from Japan, and that Japan is the number one donor for some of these nations, yet they vote against Japan at the IWC. They should have been voting with Japan for years by now if vote buying was going on.

[22:30 JST] Today I'll be doing my first attempt at live blogging. The IWC plenary session is due to get underway 30 minutes from now. This first morning will basically set the tone for the rest of the meeting. News reports out today suggest that neither the pro-sustainable use side or the anti-whaling side is confident they have a voting majority. We'll know shortly which nations have actually showed up.

The first item on the agenda is just some formalities, with perhaps some statements by new members.
The second item is the adoption of the agenda, which I imagine should be straightforward.
The third item is the issue of protest activities in the Antarctic. Japan is seeking either a resolution or a recommendation from the IWC here, but given the highly controversial nature of the protests, even some anti-whaling nations may side with Japan on the issue.
The fourth item on the agenda, later in the day, is regarding secret ballots. I'm picking that this vote will be the one that tells us how the rest of the meeting will play out. If secret ballots are adopted, the meeting will likely go very much in favour of the sustainable use nations.

Stay tuned for more! I'll continue to update this article throughout the evening (JST)

[22:45 JST] There have been suggestions today that Guatemala will not participate at the IWC meeting, this year, although they have recently joined. We'll know shortly exactly what the situation is. We can expect to see no shows from both camps.

[22:55 JST] Switzerland's name has been bandied about as a nation that is in the middle ground at the IWC. Last year however, they voted against Japan on all but one issue (and on that one issued they abstained). Nonetheless, the Swiss maintain that they are happy to talk to both sides.

[23:05 JST] Just waiting for the live feed to come up. In the meantime, Joji Morishita spoke with Australian media today.

[23:25 JST] The proceedings are now underway. The St. Kitts Prime Minister is making his welcoming address. He sounds rather nervous, but is stressing the need to respect different cultures and viewpoints.

[23:26 JST] A band is now treating the audience to some Caribbean music. It's fabulous :-)

[23:28 JST] As the band wraps up, I'll add a link to another interview with Joji Morishita.

[23:35 JST] The St Kitts commissioner, Cedric Liburd, is making an eloquent speech urging the IWC to ensure that the meeting offers benefits through development for the nations of the Caribbean, which are gradually adjusting to a globalized world. He is stressing that in the Caribbean, they have more sea than land, and that this is where people are looking to for potential sustainable development opportunities through effective management of oceanic resources.

[23:38 JST] Cedric Liburd is now explicitly rejecting the allegations of bribery to the meeting. He is urging the IWC to get past the propaganda, and work together through dialogue.

[23:40 JST] That's it for now folks - they are breaking for coffee!! Come back in 35 minutes time. Go watch the Soccer World Cup or something :-)

[23:58 JST] The Opening statement of Japan's Commissioner to the IWC (word version) has been released to the media.

[00:19 JST] OK, just waiting for the end of the break... How much coffee do they need?

[00:28 JST] Underway again. The US was decided upon as the Vice Chair (I believe). Next come the opening statements from new members, if they wish.

[00:30 JST] The Mali delegate is making his opening statement, in French. Everyone has pulled out their headsets. This would be interesting to understand, as Mali is the 2nd of the two landlocked nations believed to be likely to vote with the pro-sustainable use nations. Can any of my readers summarize this? This must be Dr. H. Coulibaly. Kindly summarized by isanatori: "Roughly summarised, the representative from Mali recalled what was the orginal objectives of the ICRW - conservation of whales and sustainable use of this ressources - and appealed to all the member states to respect it."

[00:38 JST] Now the Israel delegate is speaking. She is saying "protect" quite a lot.

[00:41 JST] Israel is done. Basically they just want to participate at the IWC for protection of whales. Next is Cambodia.

[00:43 JST] The alternate commissioner for Cambodia noted that Cambodia is dependant on the use of natural resources. He is commenting on the dysfunctional nature of the IWC. He is stating his belief that decisions be based on scientific research. He states that Cambodia is confident that the IWC can move forwards.

[00:45 JST] The Marshall Islands is now speaking. The delegate is stating that his country has carefully considered it's joining of the IWC, noting the cost as one issue preventing this. But given that they are an island nation, they feel that they can not relax under their coconut trees while decisions that may effect them may be being made in international forums. The Marshall Islands are interested in fisheries resources, and are interested in conservation of all marine resources, for the sustainable development of their country and people.

[00:49 JST] Next on the agenda - voting credentials. Costa Rico, Gambia, Peru, Togo, and maybe one other nation have had their voting rights suspended - I think I missed one other nation there - who was it? Maybe it was Kenya, as they never turn up to vote either. We'll try to get this info up later.

[00:56 JST] Just going through some boring administrative stuff right now.

[01:00 JST] Adoption of the Agenda. Ian Campbell is complaining about the new item of "normalization" of the IWC, added at the request of Japan. Campbell is asking that the agenda item be renamed "modernization" of the IWC, noting that much has changed since 1946. Henrik Fischer is disagreeing, but passing the floor to Japan. Japan has responded that it will explain the meaning of "normalization" under that part of the agenda. Japan notes that it can't agree to change the wording to "modernization", if the intended meaning is "total prohibition" [of whaling]. Brazil is speaking now as well. Henrik Fischer is noting that no nations have expressed concerns about the naming of this item prior to today. He is asking everyone to just accept it as is so that the meeting can proceed.

[01:08 JST] New Zealand now speaking to Japan's point on the agenda item on small ceteceans. This is Sir Geoff Palmer. Gosh, he's balded quite a lot since I last saw him. Blah blah blah. He's going on for ages - Japan has called for a point of order. Henrik Fischer is clearly annoyed already. Fischer is of the opinion that as there is not consensus on the issue of small cetaceans, so hopes that the meeting can proceed, noting Japan's position, as has been done in previous years. Geoff Palmer has shut up now. Back to Japan.

[01:16 JST] Japan is calling for a vote on the deletion of the "actions arising" agenda item regarding small cetaceans, as the IWC is a democratic organization. The right to delete an agenda item is (apparently) a right of the ICRW signatories.

[01:19 JST] Henrik Fischer is going to make a ruling, noting that he is in a prisoner's dilemma. He is allowing Japan to put the question to a vote.

[01:23 JST] After some confusion, Japan is happy to vote on the proposal. However, they wish to explain the proposal before the vote is taken. As soon as he starts to give his explanation, the Australian delegation have interuppted him. The Japanese delegate (Joji Morishita) has a wry grin on his face. Australia is complaining that the vote should be taken immediately, without an explanation from Japan, based on the rules.

[01:26 JST] Henrik Fischer is putting his foot down now. Lots of time has been wasted on this. Brazil is complaining again, but now Japan is again with the floor to explain. Japan notes that they are happy to discuss matters of substance, but is not interested in arguing over procedural matters. Morishita is stating that Japan's position is basically the same as previous years, except this year they are only proposing the single item on "actions arising". Japan's position is that the global IWC organization is not the right place to discuss the management of regional small cetacean species. Management is neccessary, but other forums should be used to persue such issues. In the past, Japan has received resolutions telling them what to do in their 200m EEZ with regard to these species. He notes that only Japan was targetted with these resolutions. He notes that Japan's position is that as the IWC can't manage global species, it shouldn't try to manage small cetaceans. Morishita hopes to have an open vote on the issue now. He hopes (with a smile) that nations will not do "automatic voting", but actually think before doing so.

Henrik is now allowing some more speakers some brief time, but isn't going to let this drag on into the afternoon. Britain is talking a load of nonsense. Japan only asked for deletion of "actions arising", yet Britain is talking as if Japan has asked to delete small cetacean issues from the agenda entirely. He is now regurgitating the same issues that have been discussed in previous years.

[01:39 JST] Only 5 more speakers on this issue. Blah blah blah. Uh oh - Geoff Palmer has got the floor again. ... Phew... wasn't too long after all. Brazil and the Netherlands are messing with Henrik Fischer now. He notes that he addressed their point 45 minutes ago already. Now the Netherlands is trying to say that they wanted to speak to the ruling 45 minutes ago. He says that the meeting staff saw this. But the meeting staff member stated she didn't recall any such thing. Henrik has reasserted that his ruling was not challenged originally.

[01:55 JST] Almost an hour of time wasted now. Japan maintains that it would like to vote on the proposal.

[02:02 JST] Close, but 30-32 against Japan's proposal, 1 abstention! The anti-whalers have this initial vote. The anti-whaling bloc got a vote from Belize that they would note have been expecting - Belize did not vote last year. Oman also supported the usual 30 anti-whaling nations, while Denmark's abstention also meant a lost vote for the pro-conservation camp. Senegal and Guatemala were not present for the voting.

With this first vote down, they have broken for lunch.

[02:17 JST] Just looking back on how the votes stack up, the sustainable use camp lost two potential votes due to The Gambia and and Togo not having their fees paid (I believe this was the reason). Guatemala is not present, and Senegal did not vote (not sure whether they are actually present or not). That alone cuts the 37 votes down to 33. Here, Belize also voted against the motion, which would have been somewhat unexpected. Oman displays quite independant voting habits, and voted against the motion in this particular case. And additionally, Denmark's abstention left the pro-conservation countries with only 30 votes, while the anti-whaling nations' votes were boosted up to 32. Slight voting fluctuations are not unusual. Last year, the anti-whaling side had votes ranging in the range from 29 t o31. The upcoming secret ballot vote passing is looking unlikely at this stage however.

This post is getting rather long now, so I'll resume again in a new post after the lunch break.

A few days back Greenpeace's Arctic Sunrise was banned from St. Kitts. Greenpeace claimed to have not received any reason for this. I noted that the reason for the banning was clearly to do with the collision between the ship and the Nisshin Maru, earlier in the year.

St. Kitts's Minister of National Security, Dwyer Astaphan refuted Greenpeace's claim that they had not been informed why the ship was refused entry.

“A letter was sent either directly to them or to the agent indicating that the request is refused. A second letter was to have been sent indicating to them that it was on national security considerations,” Astaphan told the SUN.

Astaphan further explained the government’s reason for barring the ship from entering.

“The Cabinet took a decision based on national security considerations. There are a number of events taking place in the country at the time and we have to look at the national security resources and we have to look at the whole picture and be guided by that and take decisions in the interest of national security,” he said.

When asked if Greenpeace is considered a threat to national security, Astaphan replied, “Anything could be a threat to national security. We just have to look at everything and make certain determinations. We’re not blocking anybody per se from coming into the country.

“If somebody is considered to be a potential threat to national security or to peace and order in that country, then that person, whether a private individual or somebody associated with an association, would not be allowed entry just like in any other country, but the decision was taken in regard to that particular vessel at this time.”

As suspected, the reason for the banning is clearly in relation to the ramming incident in the Antarctic back in January.

Labels: Greenpeace, Whaling

Time for some light hearted relief.

Internet polls are totally unscientific.

BBC and CNN polls have both found high levels of support for a resumption in commercial whaling.

At the CNN poll, of the 24,457 votes at the time of writing, 14,870 votes (61%) voted yes in response to the question: "Should commercial whaling be re-introduced?"

At the BBC poll, of the 29,076 votes, 66.98% voted yes to the question "Should whaling be permitted".

Another poll by the Outside magazine finds 67% of respondants answering no to the question: Should commercial whaling be illegal worldwide?

Elsewhere, an internet poll in China had 90% of respondants voting that China should oppose Japanese attempts to resume whaling. China voted with Japan on most measures at last year's IWC plenary session.

Interesting results all round, but all completely unscientific.

An interesting news item from earlier this year was that of one of the New Zealand Labour Party's young stars, Shane Jones (pictured) questioning the orthodox anti-whaling policy of his Party, and indeed the New Zealand government in general.

Labour MP Shane Jones, who remains the chairman of Te Ohu Kaimoana, despite becoming an MP in November, has several times refused to comment to the Herald about the whaling issue, including whether he supports the Government's position on whaling or whether he believes it is consistent with Te Ohu's policy on whaling.

In Parliament, National MP Simon Power raised the matter during Question Time:

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree with the comments of future Labour leader Shane Jones, who was reported in the New Zealand Herald on 8 November 2000 as saying: “The Green movement’s disgust over commercial whaling was a Pakeha cultural perspective only.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The member was not speaking in a Labour Party role at that point

Power also had this to say in a press release:

Conflict looms over Labour's whaling policy Wednesday, 22 June 2005, 9:08 am Press Release: New Zealand National Party

Conflict looms over Labour’s whaling policy

National’s Conservation spokesman, Simon Power, says there is a problem looming for Labour because the man picked by many to be their next leader does not agree with their stance on maintaining the moratorium on whaling.

“Shane Jones told the New Zealand Herald in his capacity as Waitangi Fisheries Commission chairman that the Green movement’s ‘disgust’ over commercial whaling was a Pakeha perspective only.

“He has also said Maori want sustainable management, not conservation, of whales and that they want to use sustainable harvest methods on albatrosses, muttonbirds, godwits and penguins.

The National Party were of course trying to make some mud stick on the Labour Party here. Domestically, supporting whaling isn't generally a good look, yet Shane Jones is not alone in his stance. Many Maori do support the notion of whale consumption:

For the Maori people of New Zealand, whales have special importance. They are believed to be the guardians and protectors of those on oceanic voyages and, when the animals strand, they are regarded as a gift from Tangaroa, the god of the sea, to the people on land for their use. This customary use included consumption of the meat, recovery of oil for lighting, the preservation of wood and working the bones and teeth of sperm whales into a variety of tools, weapons and ornaments.

Archie Tairoa represented Maori at the World Council of Whalers forum in 2000, that was held in Nelson, New Zealand. New Zealand's Stuff news site noted his support for whaling:

Maori support the right of other indigenous peoples to carry on their traditional whaling practices provided the hunting is sustainable, Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries director Archie Taiaroa says.

"We have always given support to indigenous people to continue to carry out their practices if whaling has been part of their culture - providing, of course, that the resource is sustainable. There may be species of whales that are not sustainable to hunt," Mr Taiaroa said.

Maori had a right to whales beached on New Zealand coasts because using them was traditional. Before European settlement, 200 to 2000 whales beached on New Zealand coasts every year - "more than enough for our purposes".

"It was easy access. They came and offered themselves to us, and then those silly Pakehas came along and killed them all off."

And Maori should be consulted before government supported international measures like the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary established in 1994, or the proposed South Pacific Whale Sanctuary.

"They should come and talk with us. They haven't. What it does is cut out our right to participate in those discussions."

Another bugbear was the fact that whalebone carvings could not be sold overseas because of New Zealand's participation in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

"Our carvers of that sort of bone need some income to be able to sustain themselves."

A commercial outlet would ensure the knowledge and techniques that went with carving whalebone would be kept.

The bone was different and more durable than the beef bone that had replaced it for most carvers, Mr Taiaroa said.

He supported the research needed to monitor world whale numbers.

(For my international readers, "Pakeha" is a word given by Maori to the European settlers, or "white people")

The New Zealand government has never properly represented the beliefs of this particular Maori perspective at the IWC. Even former New Zealand Conservation Minister, Sandra Lee, herself a Maori, never spoke in support of any form of whaling, although she did once describe the activity as "despicable". Current Green MP Metiria Turei also has spoken out against whaling.

One wonders whether Maori politicians in mainstream New Zealand parties are gagged from representing their constituents on this issue, for fear of a backlash amongst the majority of the electorate, which is Pakeha.

The pressure is coming to bear on Ian Campbell, and the need for secret ballots to protect sovereign nation voting rights is clearer than ever. Campbell has now threatened any nation that supports the principle of sustainable use:

Japan's humpback hunt plan a 'disgrace'

Selina Mitchell

June 15, 2006

AUSTRALIA has condemned Japan's efforts to extend its "scientific whaling program" to include endangered humpbacks.

Delegates at an International Whaling Commission meeting in St Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean will be told the blood of the humpback will be on their hands if they vote to support Japan's pro-whaling stance.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell said countries that supported Japan would be outed and shamed. He said the public wrongly focused its anger solely on countries that exploited a scientific loophole in the 1986 commercial whaling moratorium. Japan, Norway and Iceland could not kill whales without the support of at least 30 other countries, he said.

"During the next year we have to raise the political stakes for all of those 30 countries and make sure the people in those countries know that their governments are supporting the slaughter of whales," he said.

Senator Campbell has also warned Pacific Island nations their support for whaling could lead to a tourist boycott. He left yesterday for the Caribbean meeting at which the 60-odd member countries of the IWC could effectively unravel 20 years of whale conservation.

Japan's plan to expand its scientific program to include humpbacks was a "disgraceful tactic" that could backfire, Senator Campbell said before he left.

"I think a lot of the countries that do support so-called sustainable whaling in principle will recognise that Japan might be going a bridge too far in relation to taking humpbacks," he said.

Of course, Ian Campbell needs a scientific argument to go with this emotional rubbish if he is to convince them of that.

Labels: Ian Campbell, IWC vote influence, Whaling

The Australian Senate has apparently:

"unanimously passed a motion by Senator Rachel Siewert calling on the Government to "urgently consider legal proceedings against this 'unlawful' whaling"

Oh dear! This leaves Ian Campbell with quite a dilemma:

• Continue as is, based on legal advice that action against Japan would fail, but gain the image of a wimp in the eyes of the unknowing anti-whaling public of Australia
  
• Take Japan to court and lose, thus confirming the legitimacy of whaling under scientific permit once and for all, for the whole world to see
  

Politically, the latter is much higher risk.

I imagine that Campbell will stick to his legal advice, and attempt to explain it to the public. After all, Australians are almost completely unaffected by Japan's whaling activities. Humpback whales will continue to migrate up and down the coasts, in increasing numbers, despite hunting. The public will quickly forget the lack of legal action - and at the end of the day, Japan will always be portrayed as enemy #1.

Ride it out Ian. Ride it out :-)

[UPDATE]

[I]nternational law specialist Associate Professor Steven Freeland, from the University of Western Sydney, said the whale population could be facing an environmental catastrophe if the prevailing stalemate between anti-whaling and pro-whaling nations continues.

"The stalemate within the IWC must end, otherwise those countries wishing to harvest whales on a commercial basis might eventually chose to do so under less restrictive, or even no controls," he said.

"Japan has threatened on a number of occasions to withdraw from the IWC altogether and operate outside of the moratorium."

Dead right :-) Those in favour of proper whale conservation (not just irrational blanket protection) must recognise this.

Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling

Nicola Beynon of Humane Society International has some telling comments on the polarization at the IWC:

"My organisation is completely opposed to any RMS but I think it's clear the Japanese are not really interested in any compromise that could achieve one."

Why would Japan "compromise" with anti-whaling nations and groups that openly opposed to any RMS? How is it possible to reach a compromise with parties that are fundamentally opposed to what you aim to do?

Jennifer Marohasy noted that some of the documents from the Scientific Committee meeting are available.

No time to read through it all tonight though :-)

Of particular interest is the Branch paper "Possible reasons for the appreciable decrease in abundance estimates for Antarctic minke whales from the IDCR/SOWER surveys between the second and third circumpolar sets of cruises".

We'll be hearing more about this, should any newly agreed Antarctic minke estimate be announced by the Scientific Committee.

In what may be a forerunner to events this week on Friday at the IWC plenary session, St. Kitts has refused the Greenpeace terrorist / protest vessel, the Arctic Sunrise, entry to port.

Greenpeace says it has been given no official reason for the ban.

"We are shocked that St Kitts has banned the Arctic Sunrise and can only assume that the government of Japan has convinced authorities to prevent us from entering to silence our criticism of whaling."

Dear oh dear. Spare us the feigned surprise.

Readers might recall that the Arctic Sunrise was the Greenpeace vessel involved in the ramming of the Nisshin Maru in January this year. The bow of the vessel is pictured above.

The Institute of Cetacean Research organized a written protest in relation to that particular incident in May. They have pictures and videos of the incident here.

Evidently the ship has been refused entry to St. Kitts in relation to this incident.

Greenpeace themselves are also predicting that they will be stripped of their IWC observer status when the plenary meeting begins this Friday. I expect this, and more.

Labels: Greenpeace, Whaling

Japanese officials recently counted 36 votes in favour of sustainable use of whale resources. I counted 37, including the Solomon Islands, in the sense that the Solomon Islands have generally supported the principle of sustainable use, as opposed to opposing all forms of whaling.

Today I found the following report circulating in the media:

Labels: Whaling

St Kitts & Nevis' SUN news site has another letter from a citizen regarding their nations' stance on the whaling issue.

It's indicates that there exists a fear amongst their population about the repercussions for their country, based on the position it takes at the IWC.

We control our destiny

Monday June 12 2006

Dear Editor:

There seems to be a lot of talk around the world about the regionÂ’s stance, as far as the whaling issue is concerned.

I am worried that with St. Kitts/Nevis taking a pro-whaling position there will be some repercussions as far as our developing tourism industry is concerned.

Already, people are speaking of boycotting our industry and it is something we heard before when a dolphin park was proposed in this country.

Whatever the decision made by our leaders, I am sure it will be with everything having been taken into consideration and with the best interest of the country and its people.

I guess a time has come when the people of the region have to make the decisions to be in control of their destiny as so much has already been withdrawn from them, by the countries that used to offer general assistance.

Jasmine Destin,

St. Kitts/Nevis.

That the people of St. Kitts/Nevis fear the threat of boycott for their position on the sustainable use of marine resources is evidence enough that the IWC needs to implement a secret balloting system for it's proceedings later this week.

The whaling issue is so highly politicised in certain western nations that clearly some small nations feel unable to vote for what they truly believe in without considering external political pressure.

This is wrong.

Each nation should decide on it's position on the matter based on the debate surrounding the issue, and that alone. Threats of boycotts must not be allowed to have an influence on small nations. There is no point in having an international forum if rich nations can dictate to poor nations how they must vote.

The western media is quick to regurgitate anti-whaling NGO assertions that poor developing nations are led by corrupt officials who are willing to sell their countries' soul in exchange for a vote at the IWC. Yet the western media has never displayed any noticable degree of effort to inform the rest of the world about what people in these so-called "bribed" nations actually think.

St Kitts & Nevis' SUN news site has a letter to the editor regarding whaling:

There continues to be a lot of discussion on the whaling issue. Now, St. Kitts is in the spotlight because it will be hosting a big whaling conference this year.

I have listened to many knowledgeable people speak on the subject and, I must say, I think the countries of the region have every right to try and protect the few resources they have working for them and one of these is what’s available in the sea.

Someone mentioned the number of fish a whale can eat in a day and when I think what too many whales in the area can do, I get frightened for the people of the region.

True, I am no expert on the matter but, I am looking at this thing in a common sense way and I am not at all sure the people who are pro-whaling, in this situation, are wrong.

Clifton Richards

It's the 10th of June, and around half of the proceedings have been concluded.
This includes the IWC Scientific Committee meeting, and the preparation of it's report, as well as the anti-whaling member "Conservation Committee" talkfest.

Surprisingly to me, anti-whaling NGO groups have not obtained any leaks from their sympathizers on the IWC Scientific Committee.

On the other hand, maybe the leaks have been reigned in this year, as last year they were criticised heavily for breaching the IWC rules of maintaining confidentiality of documents until the commencement of the plenary session.

Or perhaps, there was not much news that they wished to leak this year. On the Scientific Committee agenda was the completion of new current estimates for the Southern Hemisphere Minke and Humpback stocks. Regardless of what the numbers are, the fact that the Scientific Committee can produce estimates at all supports the pro-conservation & sustainable use nations, and disturbs anti-whaling nations. Without knowledge of current whale abundance, catch limits can not be set (A good article on how scientists go about estimating abundance of whales via sightings surveys is available here).

The IWC "Conservation Committee" was a recent anti-whaling bloc construction to try to cement the IWC's focus away from conservation and management of whale resources, to their protection. Open up document "Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report 2006 (Australia)" from the IWC 58 documents page, and what you see is a skimpy 3 page document of which the first section begins:

All cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are protected in Australian waters.

Well, whipdee-doo for Australia. The "Conservation Committee" is nothing but a talkfest amongst those anti-whaling nations who wish that there be no consumptive use of whale resources. The group would have been more aptly named the "Protection Committee", and given their desires, there is no need for them to come together at the IWC to discuss their whale protectionism ideals.


Out in the media, the Sydney Morning Herald has some coverage with comments from Ian Campbell.

The Japanese Government has foreshadowed that it will try to "normalise" the commission; in other words, to treat whales like fish or any other marine resource.

Indeed - this is what the IWC was set up to do.

"This confirms our worst fears," Senator Campbell said, as he conceded that the numbers appeared to be slipping away from the pro-conservation lobby in the commission. He said several countries could still join, right up to the eve of the meeting, which opens in the West Indian nation of St Kitts and Nevis on Friday. Israel has said publicly it will join the anti-whaling side but is yet to do so.

As always, there is better information here on my blog than in the mainstream media. Israel has already joined, as I noted two days ago.

"It appears we could be faced with the prospect that the conservation majority could be lost to countries with no interest in whales, and no chance to get across the issues," Senator Campbell said.

Leaving aside Campbell's confusion between the difference of conservationism and protectionism, 7 landlocked European nations have consistently voted with Australia at the IWC meetings. What interest do those 7 nations have in whales that developing coastal nations in Africa, Central America, South East Asia and the Pacific (who support sustainable use) do not?

The number of humpbacks seen off the east coast is booming, a far cry from the 1960s, when numbers fell to as few as 300 animals because of indiscriminate and illegal whaling by the then Soviet Union. A University of Queensland whale specialist, Mike Noad, said he expected about 8500 to migrate up the coast this winter.

And it's fantastic news. Today it is 2006. Four decades have past since the 1960's. Whale stocks are rebounding, and providing whaling is appropriately regulated under the IWC, there is no reason to rule out all whaling, as is Australia's desire.


So, there are 6 days to go before the politics really starts. Here is the provisional meeting agenda. Items to look out for:

#3 INTERFERENCE WITH WHALE RESEARCH

... Japan intends to draw the attention of the Commission to what it considers to be the very dangerous nature of the recent protest actvities against Japan's whale research vessels in the Antarctic. It will seek the adoption of a Resolution or recommendation for the Commission that discourages such activities.

This item might get a mention under #6 "Whale killing methods and associated welfare issues", as the obstruction by these groups may have led to increased Time-To-Death and reduced Instantaneous Death Ratio statistics this year.

#4 SECRET BALLOTS

This proposed amendment to the Rules of Procedure would allow all nations to vote solely in accordance with their sovereign desires, free of political and economic influence from more powerful nations. Small developing nations have often been threatened by foreign NGO groups in powerful nations in the past. For example, Dominica was threatened with a boycott in 2003.

#5 WHALE STOCKS

Important findings from the Scientific Committee will be discussed here.

#11 SCIENTIFIC PERMITS

I believe that a review of the original JARPA programme was to be undertaken at the completed Scientific Committee meeting just concluded. While there was likely heavy division amongst the Scientific Committee on the issue, it will be interesting to see what was said, and what agreement, if any, the SC was able to reach. At any rate, there will be a resolution one way or another supporting or denouncing the research, depending on who has the most votes - a political statement either way, so not of great interest, although the media will probably report this topic very widely.

#19 TOWARDS NORMALISATION OF THE IWC

Although the pro-conservation & sustainable use nations of the IWC may this year have a majority, there is still only the slimest of chances that a resumption in commercial whaling could happen in the hear future. How nations in favour propose to work towards this objective should become clearer here.

Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling

New Zealand Conservation Minister, Chris Carter, also to be representing New Zealand at IWC 58 starting next Friday, has found himself at the centre of a scandal over his decision making process, regarding a Marina development plan in Whangamata.

It appears that the Minister may have made a pre-judged decision on the application, and then sought in advance to find well-known people who would be willing to support him on the issue.

The same "Minister of Conservation" has also recently been expousing a protectionist viewpoint with regard to allowable by-catch of the New Zealand Sea Lion.

On a lighter note, Rodney Hide remarks:

It’s now a Headline when a former Labour Party President promises to Tell the Truth. To the High Court.

Now that’s news.

Israel has finally completed the process and is now a recognised IWC member.

That's one more vote for the anti-whaling camp. Updating my IWC nations list...

In the pro-sustainable use corner:
From Central America (10)
Belize, Guatemala, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica , Grenada, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines, Nicaragua, Surinam
From Europe (4)
Iceland, Norway, Russia, Denmark
From Oceania (6)
Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru, Palau, Kiribati, Solomon Islands
From Asia (5)
Mongolia, China, South Korea, Japan, Cambodia
From the Middle East (1)
Oman
From Africa (11)
The Gambia, Benin, Cameroon, Cote d'lvoire, Gabon, Guinea, Senegal, Mauritania, Morocco, Togo, Mali

No-shows:
Costa Rico, Peru, Kenya (These 3 nations never turn up to vote)

In the anti-whaling corner:
From Asia (1):
India
From Europe (19):
Finland, Ireland, Italy, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Monaco, Portugal, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, UK
From Central America (2):
Mexico, Panama
From South America (3)
Chile, Argentina, Brazil
From Oceania (2)
Australia, New Zealand
From North America (1)
USA
From the Middle East (1)
Israel
From Africa (1)
South Africa

In summary, by my analysis we are currently looking at:
37 members who are likely to vote in accordance with the principle of sustainable use;
3 nations who will simply fail to turn up to vote;
30 members likely to vote against all forms of whaling.

There has been some speculation over how the Solomon Islands will vote (if indeed they turn up), but for now I've got them in the pro-sustainable use camp, in that 37 figure.

The pro-conservation & sustainable use bloc still has a healthy lead on paper over the anti-whalers. Still, if a large number of the developing nations that would normally support whaling fail to show, the anti-whaling bloc may still have an actual voting majority during the plenary meeting. It works both ways however - India, who I have as an anti-whaling nation, fail to turn up sometimes for example.

Another interesting one to watch will be South Africa. Since their representative quit and joined Sea Shepherd, one wonders whether he was unhappy with instructions from his ministry...

* I fixed a mistake I made in classifying Belize as an African nation. Of course, Belize is in Central America. Apologies to Belize.

New Zealand's own anti-use group, Forest and Bird hasn't given up over Minister of Fisheries, Jim Anderton's decision to allow an increased level of by-catch this year (based on scientific advice).

They have now launched a web petition urging "the Government to reduce the number of threatened New Zealand sealions that fishing vessels are allowed to kill in the southern squid fishery each year to close to zero"

Jim Anderton covered the matter again in another press release yesterday:

“My statutory role under the Fisheries Act is to strike a balance between the economic benefits of squid – our most valuable fishery – and the impact on sea lions. I have to ensure any impact is sustainable and that is precisely what I did in this case. The Minister of Conservation has a statutory role to advocate a conservation viewpoint and he does this well, but I am required to make a balanced decision taking into account all factors,” Jim Anderton said.

Forest and Bird responded in the media.

I don't agree with his statement that the Minister of Conservation advocates a "conservation" viewpoint, but it is excellent that he did make a balanced decision.

I wrote to Jim again, as follows:

Mr Anderton,

I write to you once again to applaud your response to criticism regarding your decision to increase the allowed by-catch of NZ sea lions for this season.

In fact, I believe your recent decisions have shown that you as Minister of Fisheries are filling the role of "conservationist" more so Minister of Conservation, who plays more of a protectionist role.

To "conserve" something implies that we humans wish to utilize whatever that resource may be, but we moderate our utilization such that it does not effect the ability of future generations to also utilize the resource (aka "sustainable use").

Protection is only useful as a means of conservation when a resource is seriously threatened, which judging the information in your press releases, is not the case for the New Zealand sea lion.

One question I do have is what becomes of the by-caught sea lions?
Indeed, if economic value could be assigned to these resources it creates an incentive for these resources to be conserved (by industry, rather than only by government), just as is the case for other fisheries. While there are direct benefits from the squid fishery, it would be wonderful if the by-caught sea lions were put to good use, also.

It must be difficult to make the right decision in cases such as these when what are essentially "anti-use" groups attack you with quite emotional arguments, but I think you have done a splendid job in this instance, and make a very compelling argument in support of your decision in your press releases.

Congratulations again, and best regards,

I got a response for Jim's advisor last time I wrote, so it'll be interesting to see if they have any information on the use of by-caught sea lions.

As for Forest and Bird, I wish they would concentrate more on the real issues, such as conservation of the Maui's dolphin.

Good news for sustainable use proponents.
A proposal from Japan and other Pacific Island nations is going to establish a new forum to work for the normalization of the IWC - bringing it back to conserve whale stocks and regulate whaling as originally planned.
Face-savingly for New Zealand and Australia, they will be omitted due to their hard-core anti-whaling positions, allowing them to continue their political posturing on the issue, should they so desire.

Japan to call for separate forum on whaling outside IWC

TOKYO -- Japan will propose a separate forum to the International Whaling Commission annual meeting to try to sideline "hardliners" opposed to an end to the ban on commercial whaling, officials said Thursday.

"We will make a proposal calling for a (return to the original aims) of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which is completely deadlocked, by holding a separate meeting excluding anti-whaling hardliners," said Hideki Moronuki, chief of the whaling section of Japan's Fisheries Agency.

The proposal is aimed at setting up an alternative forum for discussing ways of controlling commercial whaling, rather than having an outright ban, but is not intended to completely replace the IWC, he said.

"It will be a joint proposal with other pro-whaling Pacific countries," he told Agence France-Presse.

Moronuki did not say specifically which countries Japan hoped to exclude but noted that Australia and New Zealand were among the staunchest opponents of commercial whaling.

"The current IWC is not functioning as an organization to find ways to control whaling, because of a few hardline anti-whaling countries," said the Fisheries Agency official.

"But many members of IWC, including some moderately anti-whaling countries, agree with us that the IWC should discuss the way to control commercial whaling so as to preserve whales as marine resources, which is the spirit of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling," he said.

Australia and New Zealand will have absolutely nothing to complain about. Both have admitted that under no circumstances would they support any form of commercial whaling.

Here's Australia in 1997:

Australia emphasised that, despite some press comments to the contrary, its position is one of seeking an end to whaling, and it will not support the RMS or engage in the debate.

And New Zealand at the IWC in 1991, on a resolution regarding the adoption of the Revised Management Procedure:

In explanation of its vote, New Zealand commented that it had abstained because it does not favour the resumption of commercial whaling.

And from the verbatim record:

"If I am right in my assessment then I'd have to say very bluntly that, although what is proposed may seem sensible and acceptable to the majority of the Scientific Committee who proposed it, in my country it's not politically acceptable."

Indeed. And it's clear that a country with such a position has no business at all in a forum discussing how to move forward with commercial whaling.

Regarding the impending simple majority of the pro-conservation & sustainable use nations at the IWC:

"We're at a crossroads on whether the IWC can do the job it was set up to do, to really manage whales for sustainability and protect them," said William T. Hogarth, who directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fisheries service and serves as the chief U.S. delegate to the commission.

This sort of comment only serves to illustrate how misinformed the official anti-whaling nations are.

The IWC was certainly established to manage whales for sustainability, but it was not established to protect them, as the US official seems to think. Protecting whales is indeed the desire of hard-core anti-whaling governments, but the reality is that the goal of the IWC is to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" (ICRW)

Conservation does not mean protection. On the contrary, conservation goes hand in hand with sustainable use:

Sustainable use is the use of resources at a rate which will meet the needs of the present without impairing the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

We achieve sustainable use through conservation. Protection is generally contrary to sustainable use. Protection is only neccessary and useful as a conservation measure for species that have been heavily depleted (through poor management) and need time to recover. Good conservation practices should ensure that no species ever needs to be protected in the first place.

The IWC already has a scientifically recognised, highly risk averse, safe catch limit setting procedure, the RMP.
All that is required for whaling to recommence is agreement on a suitable regulatory framework. Only then the IWC will finally be doing the job that it was set up to do.

UPDATE: [June 5]
While his American counterpart displayed a lack of understanding of the aims of the ICRW, Joji Morishita had this to say:

"The utilization would be directed by science, not our desire," said Joji Morishita, deputy director of the international affairs division of Japan's Fisheries Agency. He added that the commission is "facing a moment of truth -- either it collapses or brings back its business as originally intended."

Full article here.

Lately I started frequenting a bar a few minutes walk down the road from my apartment. The customers there are pretty much all regulars, but the staff are super friendly, so even though I've only been there 4 or so times I feel like I'm a regular too now.

Anyhow, one of the regulars is a sushi chef who runs a small restaurant a 30 or so metres further down the road. He pops along to the bar for a drink of shochuu (Japanese spirits) or awamori (Okinawan spirits) after his restaurant closes each evening. I am a big sushi fan now after living here in Tokyo for 3 years, so after hearing the bar staff recommend the restaurant, I dropped in this evening after a work out at the gym.

Aaaah! Beer is a fine thing after a quick 5 km run! But the sushi... oh, the sushi was fantastic. I've not been to that many good quality sushi restaurants, and this is probably the classiest place I've been to. The menu had quite a range of options, depending on how much you are looking to spend. Being my first time, I went mid-range and ordered a "chuu-chirashi" - medium grade fish basically, piled on top of rice. Doesn't it look fabulous?

I had a brief chat with the chef about whether he had any whale meat on the menu.
"Whale meat... no we don't have any today. Can you eat it?"
"Everything in Japan is new once, so I've come to be able to eat anything".
I mentioned that despite being a New Zealander I was quite comfortable with Japan's stance on the issue.
"The western media tells people in my country that you Japanese want whale meat so much that you're prepared to drive the whales to extinction."
This put a smile on the chef's face, and drew a laugh.
"Extinction?! How do they think we would we get any whale meat if we were to kill them all off?"
"That's right! That's what I always say", I told him.
"It's like everything," the chef agreed, "there is no issue so long as we take everything in moderation".

The IWMC has noted the story of Jim Anderton's decision to increase the permitted by-catch limit for the New Zealand sea lion, in the latest edition of it's Sustainable eNews newsletter.

New Zealand increases Hooker's Sea Lions By-Catch Limit

New Zealand Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton announced that he is increasing the annual by-catch limit for Hooker's sea lions from 97 to 150. The by-catch arises from squid fisheries. He said that the decision is consistent with the country's Biodiversity Strategy under which, "any harvesting is done in an informed, controlled and ecologically sustainable manner." Green MP Metiria Turei told the Minister that, "it is inconsistent for the Government of which he is a part to be criticizing Norway and Japan for the hunting of minke whales while... he allows the increased slaughter of the Hooker's sea lion" which is less abundant.

Metiria was certainly correct that the New Zealand government is inconsistent on the application of the sustainable use principle. The transcript of her exchange with Jim at Question Time on May 4 illustrates this quite clearly.

Nonetheless, while she is correct that the government's policy setting is inconsistent depending on whether the relevant fishery is domestic or foreign, Metiria draws the opposite conclusion to me in that she believes Anderton made the wrong decision to increase the by-catch limit.

Jim made the decision in light of a range of information, for which he is to be commended. Hopefully at some point in the not to distant future his government (or it's successor) will be able to accept similar decisions with regards to natural resources that other nations wish to directly utilise sustainably (as opposed to by-catch as in this instance).

I was pleased to receive a comment from Martin, who is apparently a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda. Martin believes that his nation has sold it's vote at the IWC. He makes some claims which are worth addressing in a whole new post.

Thanks for commenting, Martin.

You claim that it is Japan that has made a mockery of the IWC.

Is it the pro-conservation & sustainable use oriented nations that first started IWC recruitment drives to "force the issue"?
The first land-locked member of the IWC was Switzerland, in 1980. Two further land-locked nations had joined the IWC to vote against whaling before the pro-conservation & sustainable use nations gained their first landlocked sympathizer, in 2002.

What about the Caribbean nations, of which Antigua and Barbuda is one?

“Some [anti-whaling NGO] organizations originally paid for the membership of Caribbean nations into the Whaling Commission and used their people to act as our Commissioners. That’s how they got the moratorium through,” the Commissioners said.

However, the islands evicted and replaced the false commissioners with Caribbean people when they discovered they were not acting in the national interests of the islands nor adhering to the principles of sustainable utilization. The Commissioners said that, since then: “We are continually subjected to abuse, racism and other terrible means from these groups because we support the rights of all people to utilize whale resources for food, just like we do in the Caribbean.”

Indeed, allegations of vote buying are very perplexing when we consider that one of the supposedly "bought" Caribbean nations, St. Vincent, actually has a humpback catch quota from the IWC. Who'd have thought that Japan, a whaling nation, would have to bribe St. Vincent, another whaling nation, in order to have them vote for whaling? If that's really the case, then St. Vincent is to be congratulated for cunningly deceiving the Japanese in this manner!

Certainly, still today new nations are being encouraged to join the IWC. The means used to achieve this are not clear, but what is quite evident is that this situation would not have come about had the anti-whaling fanatics not "forced the issue" back in the early 1980's by recruiting landlocked nations, nations with no direct interest in whaling, and appointing phony commissioners in Caribbean nations to achieve a global commercial whaling moratorium that had never been advised as necessary by the IWC Scientific Committee.


You also claim that it is Japan that has brought about the dysfunctional nature of the IWC.

Is it the pro-conservation, pro-sustainable use nations that has caused the IWC to fail to achieve the stated objectives of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW)?

Is it because of these nations that the IWC has failed to lift a moratorium on commercial whaling that was intended to be lifted by 1990 at the latest, despite scientific advice that this was possible?

The situation at the IWC is what it is because it is stacked with member nations that not only have no interest in whale resource utilization, but actually oppose whaling activity entirely. Some of these member nations openly admit that they oppose whaling under any conditions, and have suggested that the IWC be replaced altogether.

To liken the IWC to a ship; is it any wonder that the IWC can not reach it's target destination given that it has been hijacked by those who wish to not only change it's direction, but skuttle and sink it completely? Fittingly it is then, that this year's meeting is being held in the Caribbean.

At the end of the day, Martin, while the vote buying issue may be of great interest to you the core issue of the whaling controversy is whether nations should be permitted to hunt whales sustainably, or not. Everything beyond this question is a side issue or a detail. I believe that they should be permitted, and I wonder what your position is.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

Earlier this year, when a small group of 12 hard-core anti-whaling nations participated in a demarche protesting Norway's increased minke catch quota, two nations were noticeable for their absence.

Finland and Sweden on Friday have urged Norway to reduce its whaling quota for this year, arguing that Oslo's annual quota hikes could hurt chances of finding a solution to an international dispute over its whale hunt practice.

This is some of the most blatant vote-hunting yet this year.
The hunting season had already started by the time the 12 nations organized their demarche, several weeks ago. Now, suddenly with an IWC meeting just a few weeks away, the politicians of Finland and Sweden wake up and decide they had better put their anti-whaling hats on.

The whale lovers in those two countries must be furious at the lethargic, cynical behaviour of their politicians. They aren't going to save any whales if they ask for the killing to stop after the fact. Norway isn't listening to these fanatics anyway, rightly pointing out that it's quotas are set in accordance with agreed scientific procedures.

What goal does this stunt serve, other than a see-through attempt on the part of these Finnish and Swedish politicians to appear as if they are actively working to save whales?

CDNN has again taken a news item, republished it, and slapped some blatantly racist nonsense on top.

The article is reproduced is the poor article published by Christian Science Monitor that I covered earlier today. The racist addition is a picture of Masayuki Komatsu, with a copy of the WWII Flag of the Japanese Army blended in, accompanied by the text:

"The West is tring to impose its unilateral standards on us. I regard this as cultural imperialism," said Masayuki Komatsu whose strident ultranationalist rhetoric echoes the anti-western slogans of Japanese fascists convicted of war crimes and executed after World War II.

Earlier this year CDNN republished an article on Japan's efforts to introduce new harpoon technology designed to quickly kill larger species of whale such as the Fin species, including a picture of a harpoon gunner (from Norway), with the caption:

From the people who brought you Pearl Harbor: Super Harpoon!

Two articles on whaling, two references to WWII.

First time around I thought CDNN were representative of western media outlets, but on second thoughts CDNN really take the racism to a different extremity. I used the contact link on their site to tell CDNN that their racism disgusts me.

The Christian Science Monitor has lined up as another western media outlet calling for boycotts against Japan, in order to "Save Whales".

The suggestion is ridiculous.

Japan is just one of the nations that actually hunt whales, and just one of a larger number of nations that accept whaling activity. Singling out the Japanese is not going to rid the world of whaling - so why single out Japan?

The prospect of the IWC allowing the slaughter of whale species not fully recovered has yet to raise much fuss in many antiwhaling nations. But it should, given the importance of whales in the health of oceans.

Indeed, the reason that there is not much fuss in most anti-whaling is that most people in those nations do not care about whaling. Whaling does not effect most people in any way.

But the argument here is intellectually bankrupt. The IWC's Scientific Committee has recognised that it is able to set safe catch limits for certain whale stocks, even those that are not "fully recovered". Under the IWC's Revised Management Procedure, commercial catch limits would not be set for any stock less than 54% of it's estimated pre-whaling abundance. Thus, even were the majority of people in unaffected anti-whaling nations less apathetic, given this fact many would likely be resting easily, anyway.

The rest of the article is based on the idea that something needs to be done to stop Japan from whaling, despite failing to provide a reason why the world's conservationists should be afraid:

If the UN General Assembly or the US does not act soon, then a consumer boycott of Japanese products is needed. That will catch the attention of Japanese corporate leaders, who can then pressure politicians leading the pro-whaling campaign.

The UN General Assembly and US are not going to "act", because they recognise the international mandate of the IWC to regulate whaling, and moreover they are more likely to have been properly briefed on the issue than the Christian Science Monitor.

These politicians regard the ban as Western "culinary imperialism" aimed at Japan's tradition of eating whale meat. But the issue is conservation, not culture, and the Japanese data and arguments that many whale species are fully revived should remain suspect, and certainly not acted on in a secret IWC ballot.

Japan's data is reviewed by the IWC's Scientific Committee (SC). The SC, made up of almost 200 cetacean scientists from various parts of the world, provides advice to the IWC on scientific issues. Japan's data is thus subjected to heavy scrutiny, before the IWC makes any decisions based upon it.

Incidentally, Japan's research suggests only that the Antarctic minke stock is close to it's natural limit. It's research indicates that commercial whaling could still not be undertaken on the 'D' and 'E' Humpback stocks for example, which while increasing rapidly, are still below 54% of their pre-whaling abundance estimates.

Environmentalists see Japan as little concerned about nature's well-being beyond its shores.

Environmentalists ought to consider whether such a conviction is rational, or whether it could be prejudiced.

And the resurgence of nationalism in Japan - something its business chiefs sometimes oppose - may be behind this pro-whaling initiative.

This is another ridiculous assertion. Japan has consistently maintained it's pro-whaling position, irrespective of any perceived "resurgence of nationalism".

Persuasion through facts and logic about the health of whale stocks are unlikely to prevail at the IWC, given Japan's long determination to overturn the ban for cultural reasons and its monied clout over weak members.

Cultural motivations for whaling, certainly, but Japan's justifications are based primarily on accepted scientific evidence that some whale stocks are robust and able to sustain limited hunts. Japan accepts that whale stocks that are not robust enough to sustain hunting (such as the Blue whale) should not be hunted at all. Japan is the only nation putting significant effort into improving knowledge of whale stocks and their health.

Barring quick US or UN action, a temporary consumer boycott of Japanese products would carry the most certainty of saving the ban.

As the article itself points out, people in most anti-whaling nations don't care enough to boycott Japanese products. It's worth noting that the "ban" is more correctly termed a moratorium ("a suspension of an ongoing or planned activity").

Forcing Japan to back down isn't a pleasant prospect. But neither is the risk of some whale species going extinct.

It should be an embarrassment for a supposed science newspaper to posture that whale species may go extinct due to future whaling under IWC rules without providing any scientific argument to back up the claim.

Following on from previous years, Australian politicians have resorted to threatening language to try to persuade nations to vote with them at the IWC.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell has issued a veiled warning to Pacific Island nations that they risk the world's anger if they support the return of commercial whaling.

Senator Campbell said the Marshalls should think carefully about the consequences of their vote at the IWC meeting in the Caribbean nation of St Kitts and Nevis in two weeks time should it attend.

" ... I think the outrage that will surge up around the world if the vote goes the wrong way in St Kitts will force a lot of public attention on those key votes.

"That's a message for anyone who joins the IWC."

Senator Campbell said he told this to the Marshall Islands ministers not in a threatening way but as an observation.

That's good comedy. The threats won't work any longer though - secret ballots are likely to be in place before the serious voting starts.

"I think there'll be a close look at countries like Guatemala, the Marshall Islands ... and Palau, who have a phenomenal conservation record internationally but take an out of character position when they vote at the whaling commission," he said.

Perhaps Ian Campbell should consider that, given their phenomenal conservation records, maybe it's Australia that ought to reevaluate it's stance at the IWC.

Labels: Ian Campbell, IWC vote influence, Whaling

Lots of action in IWC land this week.

Hot off the press - and you may be reading it here first - 3 new members to the IWC have been confirmed in recent days:

1) Guatemala (May 16)
2) Republic of the Marshall Islands (June 01)
3) Cambodia (June 01)

... still no sign of Israel joining however, despite their announcement that they would join, way back in April.

The Marshall Islands' move to join Guatemala as the newest members was reported yesterday, but Cambodia has not been mentioned to date.

Guatemala has not been approached by the anti-whaling nations to join, thus has likely been encouraged to join by the pro-sustainable use side.

The Marshall Islands has been courted by both sides, but a representative has stated that they are "going to make the decision on our own grounds and our own judgment of how the issues are presented at the commission". This is thus likely another vote for whaling.

Cambodia is set to become the first South East Asian nation to join the IWC, and is thus also likely to vote for sustainable use, rather than unconditional whale protection.

So how does all of this effect the make up of the IWC? Based on analysis of previous voting patterns, and the likely intentions of confirmed new IWC members, we can broadly categorize the 2 camps as follows (note that these are just general categorizations - individual nations may take an independent positions, or abstain, on any given issue put to a vote):

In the pro-sustainable use corner:
From Central America (9)
Guatemala, Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica , Grenada, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines, Nicaragua, Surinam
From Europe (4)
Iceland, Norway, Russia, Denmark
From Oceania (6)
Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru, Palau, Kiribati, Solomon Islands From Asia (5)
Mongolia, China, South Korea, Japan, Cambodia
From the Middle East (1)
Oman
From Africa (12)
The Gambia, Benin, Cameroon, Cote d'lvoire, Gabon, Guinea, Senegal, Mauritania, Morocco, Togo, Belize, Mali

No-shows:
Costa Rico, Peru, Kenya (These 3 nations never turn up to vote)

In the anti-whaling corner:
From Asia (1):
India
From Europe (19):
Finland, Ireland, Italy, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Monaco, Portugal, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, UK
From Central America (2):
Mexico, Panama
From South America (3)
Chile, Argentina, Brazil
From Oceania (2)
Australia, New Zealand
From North America (1)
USA
From Africa (1)
South Africa

In summary, by my analysis we are currently looking at:
37 members who are likely to vote in accordance with the principle of sustainable use;
3 nations who will simply fail to turn up to vote;
29 members likely to vote against all forms of whaling.

It's also interesting to look at the breakdown of nations like this. Pro-sustainable use nations are abundant in various parts of the globe, whereas anti-whaling nations are concentrated mainly in European / developed westernized regions - an endangered species perhaps.

Note that it's not guaranteed that all of the nations I have included in each camp will actually show up and vote. India, likely in the anti-whaling camp, failed to show last year, as did 3 new African member nations expected to vote for sustainable use. The weakness for the pro-sustainable use side is that their support comes from poorer developing nations, who may not be able to afford travel to St Kitts for voting.

Nonetheless, even allowing for a mistake or two (for example, Marshall Islands siding with the anti-whalers), the pro-sustainable use bloc will still likely have a slim majority.

This will allow the pro-sustainable use nations to introduce secret ballots for voting, which may potentially see some anti-whaling nations defect. Demarche initiatives earlier this year protesting against Japanese and Norwegian whaling activities only managed to garner support from 17 and 12 nations respectively, so there is a definite degree of sympathy with the pro-sustainable use side. The anti-whaling nations will have to be committed to their cause to be sure that they maintain at least 26% of the votes to bloc any moves to amend the IWC Schedule.

Thinking about what sort of resolutions will now likely be passed:
1) Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd obstruction / terrorist activity in the Antarctic is going to be sharply criticised. This is almost guaranteed.
2) Scientific research programmes conducted by Japan and Iceland are going to be commended, and further research programmes encouraged.
3) I personally would like to see a resolution re-affirming the goals of the ICRW, and requesting that those nations which do not agree with those goals to withdraw their membership. Embarassing anti-whaling nations out of the IWC may be one way to obtain at 75% majority for sustainable use proponents.
4) Other non-member whaling nations such as Canada, Indonesia and the Philippines may be encouraged to join.

Still, there is time left before IWC 58 commences. Israel may still join for the anti-whaling camp, yet further new developing nation members are also likely to join in the pro-sustainable use bloc.

Labels: Whaling