David @ Tokyo

Well it wrapped up just under a month ago, but IWC 60 didn't turn out to be quite as big a wipe out as it could have been.

The Chair (Bill Hogarth of the USA) managed to get an agreement from commissioners to play nicely before the main proceedings commenced, as well as what was essentially an agreement to talk, but do nothing about controversial issues at IWC 60. Instead these (various standard agenda items plus a host of others) were put aside for discussion at yet another intersessional meeting amongst a somewhat smaller group of members, which will then report back to the IWC next year with a proposed "package" of items for consideration at IWC 61. Read all about these details here.

Of note was that late in the meeting a vote was called regarding Greenland's request to be able to hunt 10 humpback whales. The anti-whalers didn't like it, and even when Greenland proposed exchanging a part of it's existing quota for the humpback quota it was still rejected (although a few, such as Switzerland apparently saw enough reason to change their mind).

Also, in the Scientific Committee still no new abundance estimates for Antarctic minke whales could be agreed, although progress appears to have been made on the new methods for this.

But as for the fundamental problem at the IWC, there still seems to be little interest from the anti-whalers in compromising on their general opposition to whaling (despite the convention being for the regulation of it), so it's very hard to see how an eventual package produced for consideration at IWC 61 could be mutually acceptable to 3/4s of members. As such, this seems to be a "life-support" measure for the IWC. It's still early days I suppose, but there is certainly no suggestion in the media of the western nations that the fundamental opposition to the notion of dealing with whales in a similar manner to other marine wildlife is about to be relaxed or even contemplated.

The situation at the IWC has seen the pro-sustainable use camp start talking amongst themselves about a "safety net" for the management of whaling, in the event that the IWC package process does turn out to be a failure. This is likely to become a more and more prominent topic in coming times. This movement has been mentioned by Japanese government representatives in several places - press conferences held at the IWC meeting itself, after the IWC meeting, and also noted on the Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries home page in their release about the result of the meeting. The Jiji news agency also ran a news piece on it at the time of the meeting. Little, if anything, has been said of this in the western media that I can see.

The IWC's press releases about the meeting can be found here.

From the pro-sustainable use side, here are some links of interest:

1) Japanese government
Joji Morishita press conference (in English) at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan on July 2. He talks about Japan's position for the meeting, what happened, what Japan thinks about it, and then answers some questions from journalists. That part is a bit pointless to watch as most of the media didn't have anything interesting to ask.

2) From the High North Alliance
IWC Survival Kit and Hot Issues
The real Future of the IWC
High North Alliance - address to the International Whaling Commission
Open letter from KNAPK to Greenland Cabinet

3) From the IWMC
IWMC Conservation Tribune, 23 June 2008
IWMC Conservation Tribune, 24 June 2008
IWMC Conservation Tribune, 25 June 2008
IWMC Conservation Tribune, 27 June 2008
IWMC Conservation Tribune, Press Release

Labels: IWC 60, Safety Net

It's taken a while, but at least some segments of the media are starting to wake up to what is going on with the IWC this year.

As seen in the IWC 60 meeting Agenda, Japan has followed up on it's statement (and Japanese) to the IWC last year regarding the possibility of it changing the way in which it participates as an IWC member, this year in the Agenda document itself warning that the situation at the IWC must be changed, or "the collapse of IWC will be unavoidable". This in itself is a warning of similar type to that which has been seen from Japan in the past, but this year in the Agenda Japan has stated a clear deadline by which "a clear direction for the future of IWC should be determined and the procedures reformed", namely "by the end of the 61st Annual Meeting at the latest".

This IWC 61 deadline coincides with the end of the tenure of the US as chair of the IWC (at which point the vice-chair - currently Japan - would normally take over), and also with the statement Japan that made last December in reference to it's decision to delay the taking of 50 humpback whales in the Antarctic each year under it's JARPA II programme (i.e., "one or two years", while Japan regards the IWC reform as making progress).

As far as I know, this is the first time that Japan has explicitly stated a deadline as such, and I imagine that Japanese officials had hoped that this added significance would not be lost on other IWC members and observers.

And so it's with a "finally" that today I can say I've now seen the first mention of this in both the Japanese and Western media, seemingly thanks to Kyodo news. A copy of the original Japanese story is here, and a summary translation of the interesting bits is below:

Notice of deadline for commercial whaling resumption - Japan government to IWC member nations

The Japanese government has warned IWC member nations that if discussions towards normalizing the IWC have not progressed by the end of next year's June meeting in Portugal, it "will review the way it participates at the IWC, including resuming whaling unilaterally", it was learnt on the 21st.

At last year's IWC meeting, Japan had suggested the possibility of withdrawing from the IWC or a unilateral resumption, but this time it appears to have set a deadline for discussions. A backlash from anti-whaling nations is expected.

Regarding this year's meeting in Santiago, a Japanese negotiator stated that "the key is whether or not a working group is established to make progress towards a commercial whaling resumption".

It looks like Bloomberg picked up on that story:

Japan may resume commercial whaling if negotiations at the International Whaling Commission don't make progress by the end of next year's IWC general meeting, Kyodo News reported.

The Japanese government notified IWC member countries it may resume commercial whaling if the commission fails to resolve tensions between pro- and anti-whaling parties, Kyodo News said yesterday, citing sources close to the matter it didn't identify.

Of course this deadline is written clearly in the meeting agenda but busy journalists wouldn't have time to read such things.

Some other recent articles that talk about collapse, albeit without mention of the IWC 61 deadline have appeared, such as Richard Black's article at the BBC, and this Reuters story, quoting Joji Morishita:

"I think the Santiago meeting should be remembered as the meeting that saved the IWC, rather than the meeting which finally killed the IWC," said Joji Morishita, director for international negotiations at Japan's government Fisheries Agency.

"We are trying to send out the message that if we fail now, this organization will be dead, and that's a very important message," he told Reuters on Friday.

My view is that Japan is highly unlikely to see any significant or meaningful progress towards normal sustainable whaling at the IWC, no matter how patient it is, or how much it might compromise. There is currently no political reason for those nations that have chosen to adopt vigorous anti-whaling policy to turn around and tolerate any level or form of sustainable whaling (aside from the established double standard of "aboriginal subsistence" whaling). To do so would be an own-goal in terms of domestic politics.

And even once the nations supporting sustainable use of whales do give up on the IWC as a whaling regulatory body, and establish replacements to pick up and fulfil this important mandate, still there is no reason to expect change.

In countries such as my homeland, being against whaling has almost become a part of the national psyche - to be against whaling is an official policy that many people in those nations feel good about. Without a constituency that sees it as a big enough problem to change, it will never be compromised upon. The symbolic, feel-good nature of the policy contributes to this. The whaling dispute is a small, insignificant issue to the vast majority of people, everywhere. Whereas tough negotiations in international disputes such as that involving North Korea have seen real progress made in comparatively short time, the IWC has been going nowhere for years. The dynamic of the symbolic policy against whaling, coupled with a reality that few people have genuine interests that suffer due to the ongoing whaling activity that takes place around the world today, seems to be a large contributor to this inertia. And, as I suggest above, Japan and others giving up on the IWC as a whaling regulatory body isn't going to change that, in my view.

During the recent visit of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia to Japan, he and his counterpart, Prime Minister Fukuda agreed to disagree on whaling. I believe that this is the only realistic way for the dispute to be "resolved" as such. To that end, I suggest that rather than waste too much (more) time and effort at the IWC, Japan and other like-minded nations would be better serving their interests if they start focusing on their alternate options, while maintaining a view on ensuring that the international whaling dispute reaches an equilibrium, via the "agree to disagree" approach.

Labels: IWC 60, IWC Normalization

IWC 60 in Santiago is about to get underway.

Plenary documents are here. Included is, in addition to the Agenda document (introduced previously here), a document outlining the agenda for a pre-plenary meeting for "Discussions on the Future of the IWC" (here). Some others that may be of interest is this one from an outside expert (here) and a related document from Norway (here). Just my recommendations...

The meeting schedule is here.

The Scientific Committee report should be available on Monday, but documents submitted to the meeting and available online are here. Lots of interesting reading there for those so inclined. A particular focus of this year's meeting was said to be the consideration of abundance estimates for Antarctic minke whales. From the documents noted, it seems that only one document presented specifically introduced abundance estimates, this one here.

If you are in the right sort of time zone and are so inclined, you can watch the proceedings on line here.

Labels: IWC 60

It's been interesting to observe the response from a group of International Whaling Commission members to news of Iceland's 2008 commercial whaling quota.

Then

In the year to August 2007, Iceland had issued permits for nine fin whales, and 30 minke whales (there was also an outstanding scientific permit for a small number of minkes as well).

The fin whale quota was granted to Hvalur, which had the hope of exporting fin whale products to the Japanese market. The issue of access to the Japanese market remains unresolved, with the most recent reports in the news media that I have seen noting that Norway and Iceland are "waiting for Japan's response" regarding the matter - this was in late 2007. Depending on the outcome of IWC 60, Japan may finally be able to announce a decision on this matter.

As for the quota for 30 minke whales, meat products from this activity were marketed in Iceland itself.

When the quota period came to an end in August 2007, there was a furore in the western media with Icelandic Fisheries Minister Einar Guofinnsson issuing no revised quota at the time. Reuters quoted him as saying:

"I will not issue a new quota until the market conditions for whale meat improve and permission to export whale products to Japan is secured ... There is no reason to continue commercial whaling if there is no demand for the product."

Many in the west appear to have taken these statements to mean that Iceland intended to withdraw from whaling on a permanent basis, perhaps under the impression that there is no demand for whale meat products - something we often hear from some groups in the commercial anti-whaling industry.

However unlike the media, these groups did (correctly) recognise that this was not a permanent end to whaling, although continued to reiterate their claims that market conditions were unlikely to improve. Also, the International Whaling Commission homepage still today includes a page on Iceland's commercial whaling, unmodified since the time of Iceland's original decision to resume it back in 2006...

Now

With the northern winter over, in May 2008 officials from Iceland's fisheries ministry have recently acknowledged to western media that a new quota has been set for minke whales, with reports that the meat from last year's hunt completely sold out.

The commercial minke quota is up 10, from 30 to 40 this time, although still short of the hopes of Iceland's minke whalers who reportedly hoped to be permitted a catch closer to 100.

Through their new quota allocation, Iceland's fisheries ministry has essentially reaffirmed an official view that Iceland's population of 300,000 appear happy enough to snaffle down at least 40 minke whales (this year).

Said one fisheries ministry official to Bloomberg:

"Minke sashimi is a quite popular starter in Reykjavik restaurants"

Response

Predictably, the same groups from the commercial anti-whaling industry that assert that there is no demand for whale meat were furious, quickly issuing statements suggesting Iceland's economic future is at risk because of the new quotas. Statistics, on the other hand, have shown that tourism to Iceland has continued to increase in recent years, despite Iceland's decision to resume first scientific, then commercial whaling since 2002.

Still, the junior party of Iceland's coalition government sees some risk associated with pursuing a policy of sustainable whaling. Social Democratic Alliance (SDA) party member and current foreign minister for Iceland, Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir reportedly said of the latest quota decision:

"I believe this is sacrificing long term interests for short term gains"

Her recognition that there are (at least) short term gains to be had from sustainable whaling is noteworthy, but I've not been able to find more detail about her beliefs regarding Iceland's long term interests. Later when speaking with Condoleeza Rice, she reportedly asserted that the minke quota is sustainable, so I presume she thinks there is something to the idea of sustainable whaling being a threat to the rest of the Icelandic economy.

My prediction is that time will (continue to) show those concerns are largely misplaced.

Below is a round-up from representatives in countries where commercial anti-whaling groups are prominent.

United States of America:

“This is frustrating news. Iceland is pursuing a completely commercial enterprise driven by profit motive with no oversight by IWC members nor analysis by their scientific committee ... I urge Iceland to reconsider this decision and focus on the overarching principles of the Commission rather than the short-term interests of its whaling industry. At a time when we should be doing more to help protect whales, Iceland is going in the wrong direction”

-- U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez

“The United States is deeply disappointed in Iceland’s decision ... The IWC has begun a process to reduce provocation and enhance negotiations within the organization. This new unilateral commercial quota will only serve to undercut progress and good faith negotiations for long-term solutions in the Commission.”

-- Bill Hogarth, U.S. IWC Commissioner
(link)

European Union

"While there's an exception to the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on the hunt for scientific or indigenous whaling, Iceland still needs to be demonstrate that it is killing these whales for genuine non-commercial purposes"

-- Barbara Helfferich, Commission Environment spokesperson
(link)

New Zealand

“New Zealand welcomed Iceland’s decision to halt whaling last year, and I am troubled that Iceland may be reversing its decision ... Iceland’s resumption of whaling would come at a time when the IWC is making a genuine effort to build trust, and would undermine the trust developed through recent diplomatic efforts.”

-- Steve Chadwick, NZ Conservation Minister
(link)

Australia

"The loopholes that exist - and this is a loophole, frankly, that Iceland have used - need to be closed ... we need to have firm and rigorous science when we discuss the issues of so-called scientific whaling, and we'll be arguing very strongly that the global moratorium can't be compromised any longer."

-- Peter Garrett, Australian Environment Minister
(link)

Closing thoughts

I was somewhat surprised by Mr. Hogarth's comments, albeit only in his capacity as U.S IWC Commissioner. Recall that Norway too continues to unilaterally issue commercial catch quotas, but on a much larger scale than Iceland. This year they set their quota at 1,052, but so far as I have seen Mr. Hogarth has not singled out Norway in the same way as he has with respect to Iceland. This kind of unbalanced and unfair criticism itself bodes poorly for the "good faith negotiations" that he claims will be undercut by Iceland's continuing to issue sustainable whaling permits.

The US's Gutierrez's declaration that Iceland is "going in the wrong direction" by issuing a coastal whaling quota for just 40 minke whales also seems to confirm my expectation (or lack of) with regards to progress towards a compromise at the IWC meeting in Santiago next month.

Finally, if the EU is so keen to speak for member nations on whaling issues their spokesperson will probably want to check those facts before saying irrelevant things in the media.

Labels: Iceland, IWC 60, whale meat market

The IWC's home page has been updated with various documents ahead of the IWC 60 annual meeting to be held in Santiago, Chile.

The big issue this year is whether the IWC has a future, or not.

The annotated agenda document for the plenary can be obtained here.

Comments received from Japan officials (page 6) suggest that they are hoping for a non-confrontational, co-operative meeting, and will refrain from putting forth proposals that will obviously be controversial. They have urged other IWC Contracting Governments to also take such an approach.

Under the agenda item regarding Japan's "Small-type whaling" (page 9), Japan notes that it is prepared not to request a vote or even put forth it's usual proposal regarding a small quota for small-type coastal whaling "providing that substantial or concrete progress on discussions concerning the future of the IWC is being made", in order to "allow more time for plenary discussions on the future of the IWC".

Nonetheless, Brazil has indicated (page 9) that it will put forth a schedule amendment proposal for the creation of a South Atlantic Sanctuary. Ironically, the annotations at the top of the "Sanctuaries" agenda item (page 8) include further comments from Japan urging other Contracting Governments to refrain from submitting proposals for Sanctuaries. Brazil may not have had Japan's comments available when they submitted their own, or they may have and chose to ignore them. Whether the proposal for the Sanctuary does get put to the meeting or not seems likely to be indicative of what happens at the meeting as a whole.

Additionally, under the "The IWC in the future" agenda item itself, Australia has advised that it would submit it's "Whale Conservation and Management: a Future for the IWC" paper for information. Australia introduced this document at the March intersessional meeting, noting that what underpinned it was "recognition of the need for IWC to move toward a contemporary international conservation and management function focused on the conservation of whale populations and embracing the non-consumptive use of whales" (page 12 of the meeting report).

Outside of the IWC, New Zealand has talked of teaming up with Australia for "one big hit" on Japan with respect to it's whaling activities.

With this context, Japan's comments from the IWC Future agenda item are worth quoting in full:

In commenting on the Draft Agenda, Japan noted that it believes that the Commission must devote as much time as possible to [The IWC in the Future] agenda item and that there is urgency to this matter. Noting the current conflicting opinions among Commission members that make it difficult to reach consensus decisions or to hold normal discussions, Japan stressed that unless this situation is changed soon, the collapse of IWC will be unavoidable. Japan considers that the process initiated by the Chair to resolve IWC's problems cannot continue indefinitely and wished, therefore, to remind other members of its statement made at IWC/59 last year concerning the real possibility that Japan would have to review the way it engages with the IWC at a fundamental level. It believes that a clear direction for the future of IWC should be determined and the procedures reformed by the end of the 61st Annual Meeting at the latest. Japan expressed the strong hope that other members will share its view and co-operate to advance the discussions concerning IWC's future.

If the indications and language from Brazil, Australia and New Zealand are anything to go by, it seems likely that Japan and other like-minded nations are to be disappointed at IWC 60, without having to wait until IWC 61 for the big let-down. While it may be that others in the anti-whaling camp are more inclined to take a responsible approach towards this international organization (or persuaded to do so by the Chair), it is doubtful whether the threat of the IWC becoming irrelevant as a whaling regulation organization is of such a serious concern to the anti-whaling nations. The political risks for these nations associated with any possible compromise on their symbolic anti-whaling stance appear likely to outweigh any genuine concerns that they may have about present and future whaling activities.

At the March intersessional meeting, an outside expert who participated talked of the notion of the "ripeness" of the issue for negotiation:

'Ripeness' has been defined by the existence of a mutually-hurting stalemate, i.e. a situation in which the hurt which parties are enduring is greater that the hurt of solving it. Settlement then becomes a matter of 'how' and not 'whether'. He further noted that while 'ripeness' is not a pre-requisite, the likelihood of success is higher if it is present.

Delegates from some of the contracting governments spoke to this later:

It was noted that for this to be the case there must be recognition that the current stalemate is mutually hurting. Some doubt was expressed as to whether this is in fact the case.

As per my suggestion above, I concur with this. The hard-core anti-whaling nations do not appear to be hurting significantly or perhaps even at all because of the current situation at the IWC. On the contrary, many seem to benefit from it. Australia is the best example, with it's national elections last year seeing whaling become a prominent campaign issue. The hurt that does seem present is that that would be coupled with any compromise at a time when their new Prime Minister Rudd has been talking very big talk about bringing about an end to whaling full-stop. It does not seem politically feasible that Australian policy makers could opt to agree to any kind of compromise instead of remaining on the course that they are.

Thus the outcome of IWC 60 seems to be a predictable failure - unless Chair Hogarth is able to wield the USA's considerable influence and put the organization on a different course.

What happens in the aftermath of this year's meeting seems as if it will be more interesting than what happens at it.

Labels: IWC 60, IWC Normalization