Whaling: So Now What?

There are a number of reasons why the International Whaling Commission (IWC) failed to come to agreement over a proposed ten-year 'compromise' package this week. The task that the organization had set itself at this year's annual meeting was to find some form of common ground between whalers and non-whalers, to break a seemingly never-ending deadlock and resolve a situation where whaling, while ostensibly illegal, has for the past several years been increasing.

The state of progress was a mystery to most observers until the moment of denouement: commissioners huddled in private meetings from the Monday morning coffee break until, on Wednesday morning, acting chairman Anthony Liverpool announced that agreement was near even though it was, in fact, far:

The Commission agreed that while it was very close to agreement on a number of issues within the proposed consensus decision, there remain major issues upon which more work is required, including such matters as the question of the moratorium, numbers of whales that might be taken, special permit whaling, indigenous whaling, sanctuaries and trade.

So there you have it. The Commission agreed on everything except most of the important matters that needed to be resolved.

Trade was an issue because most nations wanted an agreement that any whales that were hunted under the deal would be consumed only in the nations whose fleets did the killing; that text remained a sticking point, largely at the insistence of Iceland, which desperately wants to be able to export whale meat to Japan.

As for sanctuaries and the moratorium: well, they were pretty much at the heart of the matter. After all, the IWC voted in 1982 for a moratorium that has ostensibly been in place since 1986; twelve years after that first vote, the Commission adopted a sanctuary in the Southern Ocean that since its inception has been violated as readily as the moratorium, a state of affairs that the deal would allow to continue, even while insisting moratorium and sanctuary would remain in place.

As longtime IWC observer Dr. Sidney Holt pithily pointed out:

How can a rational person claim that one can declare a whale sanctuary, the primary purpose of which is to protect whales from being hunted in that area, and then say that the sanctuary remains but whales can be killed there? How can a rational being claim to be upholding a moratorium [...] but negating its provisions?

And the numbers? Well, there too was an important matter. If anti-whaling governments were to agree to allow whaling to continue at a reduced rate, then the key to their being able to stomach that compromise was just how reduced that rate would be. According to some people I spoke to who have been attending the meeting, the big issue again was Japan's whaling in the Southern Ocean sanctuary and the fact that when Tokyo did table some proposed figures, they were too little, too late.

Those figures are a matter of rumor only, but some reports suggest that Japan was prepared to reduce its Antarctic whaling from its present quota of 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales to a few hundred minkes, perhaps as few as 200 in ten year's time, and a handful of fins. Some observers felt that that was tantamount to Japan throwing in the towel, but given the long and bitter history of disagreements and broken promises in the IWC, it wasn't enough for some. No guarantee of an end to Antarctic whaling, no deal. 

What happens next is uncertain. Some of those involved in negotiations have proposed a cooling off period and a return to discussions twelve months hence, with the existing draft agreement as the basis. Others suggest scrapping the whole thing and either starting over or continuing with the status quo.

Right now, the mood among those involved is somewhat divided between relief and ruefulness. For many environmentalists, the negotiations' failure means their worst nightmare -- a return to sanctioned commercial whaling -- is over, at least for now. Whether that means their dream -- of ending commercial whaling altogether -- is any closer remains to be seen.

Photo: Kieran Mulvaney