 |
| Cetacean Society International |
| Three sperm whales in the Bahamas. |
Santiago, Chile
by Bernard Unti
Scientific Whaling and its Discontents
With almost complete certainty that no votes on any matter of substance would occur on Day Three, delegates at IWC 60 took advantage of their time to revisit familiar topics like “scientific” whaling and the sustainable use of whales. Delegates completed their review of the IWC Scientific Committee report. They also heard from representatives from non-governmental organizations standing for and against the taking of whales. While talk of consensus-based approaches continued to infuse the rhetoric of all parties, traditional disagreements and difference of opinion seeped through nevertheless.
Justifying JARPA
Discussion of the Scientific Report inevitably came to rest upon JARPA, the lethal whaling program in the Antarctic that Japan has long sought to portray as “scientific research.” Among the delegations expressing their clear view that there simply was no scientific justification to the program was that of the United States, which seemed to find its voice and its equilibrium on Day Three, after 48 hours of conspicuous hush.
As they have done in the past, Japanese spokesman Joji Morishita and Iceland’s commissioner Stefan Asmundsson raised their customary rationalization that most of the world’s nations conduct lethal research using animals, the latter asking to be corrected by any delegate should he be wrong in his statements.
No one came forward to point out that many IWC member nations have no active lethal animal research programs of any kind, and that many which do frequently prohibit the use of rare and endangered species, such as chimpanzees. However, Switzerland’s commissioner Bruno Mainini intervened to make the point that lethal research uses of animals generally involve highly elaborate protocols and carry a high bar of necessity that must be met before they can be carried out, while U.S. assistant commissioner Doug DeMaster restated the position of the United States that lethal methods were unnecessary for modern whale management.
At lunchtime, the Japanese delegation gave a presentation on JARPA, with approximately half of the delegates and an assortment of nongovernmental observers remaining. Those hearty persons who stayed for the session were treated to a rather confusing and generally unintelligible discussion of competition between whale species over food, speculations about changes in whales’ dietary habits and their prey species, and statements on the need for continuing lethal whale research in this region.
Earplugs, and an Aussie Offer
When the subject of earplug harvesting came up, Japanese assistant commissioner Morishita wryly remarked that it was one of his favorite topics. The IWC standard for research, Morishita said, demands a high level of accuracy, and non-lethal alternative methods for gauging the age and mortality rates of whales are just not as accurate yet. “That’s why currently,” he continued, “the age determination based on earplugs is the best one available, while not precluding the availability, especially in the future, of other methods.”
In a question and answer exchange, the Australian delegation’s Dr Nick Gales, a marine mammal veterinarian, shared his view that after 18 years, it was pretty evident that the use of earplug measures is not providing the information required for sensible management. He got the last word as discussion of Morishita’s favorite topic came to a close.
The afternoon got a lot more interesting when Australia’s Environment Minister Peter Garrett announced his nation’s proposal for a joint non-lethal research program in the Southern Ocean and its willingness to commit substantial funds to the concept. The proposal received strong endorsements from the U.S., the U.K., Argentina and others. Japan’s delegation didn’t respond to Garrett’s offer.
NGOs Say Their Piece
The day’s sessions ended after representatives of non-governmental organizations, three representing whale protectionists and three representing the pro-whaling perspective, addressed the body. This process was the result of several years of discussion with Chair Hogarth, and came to fruition even as the IWC delegates consider the possibility of restricting the access of non-governmental representatives to its meetings.
Strangely, this speaking opportunity, long sought by the non-governmental community, had an underwhelming character, mainly serving to reinforce the clear differences that mark attitudes toward whales both within and outside of the IWC, and underscoring the difficult road that lies ahead for the consensus agenda supported by Chairman Hogarth.
The most substantive of the pro-whale presentations came from Dr. Mamadou Diallo of Senegal, a WWF staff member who touched on a number of HSI priority issues.
Defense of the Dubious
The pro-whaling faction plied its usual themes but without the flare that has provided some of the IWC’s most memorable historical moments. Pro-whaling has some colorful advocates among the cadre of non-governmental observers, including several who distribute their amusing, absurd commentaries from time to time in the foyer of the meeting area. Whether present by dint of conviction or lucre, they are, at IWC, CITES, and other international forums an ever-present reminder that even the most dubious of propositions, including Japan’s “scientific” whaling program, will have its unabashed defenders.
