Source: The High North publication, "The International Harpoon", No. 4, 1995, published during the 1995 Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission
In its 1993 resolution, the Parliament stated: "Noting that whales are sentient mammals with a high level of intelligence and complex social and cultural activities, the killing of which involves cruelty and cannot be considered in terms of "harvesting" for commercial profit". The need for a more scientific approach is highlighted in the claim that "the whale" is "an endangered species". This approach is also present in the 1992 resolution which asks the EU Commission to "take a firm stand against all activities that might directly or indirectly endanger the life of all marine mammals in all waters." But the shift towards science was not achieved without a battle. Earlier resolutions from the EU Parliament on whaling have been adopted unanimously. This would probably have been the case this year too, had it not been for the amendments. Both of this year's references to science were introduced as amendments to the original text. They were included with twice as many votes in favour as against, with only a few abstentions. In addition, the more critical part of the 1995 resolution text is based on the assumption that commercial whaling is acceptable. The resolution "draws the attention of the members of the IWC to divergent estimates of the whale populations, and the need for systematic controls on all data provided by Norwegian researchers" .and "stresses the need to be very strict on keeping the balance between the estimates of whale populations and the annual catch quotas through the "revised management procedure"". Another new approach this year is the emphasis placed on pollution of the marine environment. The 1995 resolution not only warns in general of the threat of pollution to marine mammals - but also opposes the scheduled dumping of offshore oil installations west of Ireland. The call to the EU Commission to present a report on the basis of the latest information on the interaction between whales and other species in the marine environment is also a new element. Both the 1992 and 1993 versions condemn Norway's resumption of commercial whaling. The 1995 version only stresses "that Norway and Japan are still the only countries which continue to kill whales". This is of course not the case, but the error is not surprising. Inaccuracy has been the hallmark of earlier EU resolutions on whaling. Why no whaling resolution in 1994? Proposals, with the usual condemnation of commercial whaling, were forwarded, but never reached the floor. The Parliament only has the capacity to deal with a fraction of all the emergency resolutions forwarded. That the draft proposals were not afforded the Parliament's time could have been the first signal of a shift; but may also have been a courtesy to Norwegian opinion. The Parliament was hoping at the time for a yes vote inthe Norwegian referendum on EU membership. |
Click here to return to the Save-the-Whale/Seal Contents Page
Click here to return to the High North Alliance Home Page