Source: The International Harpoon, No. 1, October 20,1997
"CITES parties still see value in keeping the links with IWC but only up to a point. There was a clear undercurrent that IWC needs to complete its work on the RMS sooner rather than later, otherwise the scientific basis by which CITES has opted for operating will become frustrated."
This was the "clear message" IWC chairman Peter Bridgewater
received from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
when it met last June in Harare. Bridgewater was attending as IWC observer,
and was reporting back to secretary Ray Gambell.
"The flavour of the meeting ... was captured in a comment to me from
one delegate that "the winds of change with respect to sustainable
use which began to blow at Rio in 1992 have reached CITES","
wrote Bridgewater.
Contentious Resolution
Of particular interest to Bridgewater was the contentious issue of whether
CITES should base its decisions relating to cetaceans on those of the IWC,
and in particular concerning those matters where the IWC has failed to
act on the advice of its own Scientific Committee.
Specifically, this matter was raised in the context of three proposals
— one from Norway and two from Japan — to downlist stocks of
minke whales.
All minke stocks are currently listed on CITES Appendix I, which prohibits international trade, because the anti-whaling lobby insists that all whales protected from commercial whaling by the IWC should be given maximum protection by CITES also. This, they argue, is in accordance with CITES Resolution 2.9, adopted in 1979, which (they claim) establishes a linkage between CITES decisions and positions taken by the IWC. Therefore, they insisted, CITES should not evaluate the consequences of each proposal independently, but should reject them en bloc.
In accordance with this interpretation, Bridgewater made one intervention at CITES at the request of IWC member Mexico. "[G]iven that your Resolution 2.9 appears extant it may be appropriate for your Convention to consider remaining in step with the IWC," he said.
In reality, however, CITES Res. 2.9 only recommends "that the parties agree not to issue any import or export permit ... for any specimen of a species or stock protected from commercial whaling by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling."
As was made clear in a recommendation from the CITES Secretariat, Res. 2.9 in no way dictates which CITES Appendices those species or stocks should be listed on. Specific listings on appendices should be based on the criteria CITES has decided shall apply, and the Secretariat decided that minke whales did not qualify for inclusion on Appendix I. (see box below)
| "It seems that the whole species Balaenoptera acutorostrata [minke whale] could be transferred to Appendix II because it does not qualify for inclusion in Appendix I with a total population of around one million animals." CITES Secretariat, COP10, Harare. |
Polish PotatoThe IWC’s image was seriously bent out of shape during the two weeks that CITES met in Harare this June.
A proposal to repeal and replace CITES Resolution 2.9 — which arguably links CITES decisions to those of the IWC — came up for a vote early in the conference, and after lengthy debate was defeated by 27 in favour to 51 against. Three proposals to downlist minke whale stocks were put to the vote at the end. In the meantime, the focus of discussion was on the IWC, and close scrutiny was drawn to the disparity between IWC conduct and the desire of CITES to promote sustainable use based on scientific advice.
During the course of this discussion, it was drawn to the attention of CITES that there were certain of their members, who were also members of the IWC, that had vowed to oppose commercial whaling at all costs. Everyone then had to listen while these nations urged them to bear with the IWC just a little longer while it finalised its management scheme for commercial whaling.
The US, New Zealand and Australia all struggled to convince CITES that it was only a question of time before they finalised the Revised Management Scheme — but none had the honesty to admit it was doing everything possible to stall the process.
Peter Bridgewater also joined the bid to cast the IWC in a positive light. The IWC was working to finalise the RMS, he told them, and it would certainly be on the agenda for discussion here in Monaco. He concluded by expressing hope that this issue would be «clarified ... in the near future.»
As they say in Poland, it doesn’t matter how much you polish a potato, you won’t get it to shine!
"World Opinion" Changes Its Mind
A Mythical Beast
"The United States continues to believe ... that Norway should abide by the moratorium, which reflects the international will regarding commercial whaling." Press statement, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Dept. of Commerce, Oct. 10, 1997.
If, as the anti-whaling lobby insists, that mythical beast «world opinion» exists — and we doubt that it does — then world opinion is no longer on their side.
Norway’s proposal to CITES to downlist two North Atlantic minke stocks to Appendix II won a simple majority of 57 votes in favour to 51 against. The two-thirds’ majority required for the downlisting to come about was not achieved, but the vote clearly indicated the strength of support in CITES for the sustainable use principle based on scientific criteria. Equally clear was the lack of confidence in the scientific basis of the IWC’s whaling ban.
«It is the first time there has been a vote in Norway’s favour, which people regard as very significant,» said IWC secretary Ray Gambell to the New York Times. Noting that the objective of the IWC is to promote rational whaling practises, not necessarily to ban them, he said that the momentum achieved by Norway at CITES could carry over to the IWC here in Monaco.
Among international bodies, CITES ranks as one of the very largest, with 136 signatories. That’s quite a lot compared with the IWC’s 39 members, and even more than the mere 30 who turned up last year in Aberdeen.
Can we therefore say that CITES, not the IWC, speaks for the international community on the subject of whaling? If not, would the anti-whalers concede that «world opinion» is divided? At the very least, could the anti-whalers agree to stop using this expression, and substitute it with something honest like "we think"?