 |
| OAR/NURP/UNCW |
| Humpbacks are a matter of contention. |
Santiago, Chile
by Bernard Unti
Back to the future, with no humpbacks for Greenland
Chairman William Hogarth’s consensus drive took a hard hit on Day Four as the IWC split over Greenland’s proposal for an increased aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW) catch take involving humpback whales. The vote was 29 yes, 36 no, and 2 abstentions, as European and Latin Americans voted en bloc to prevent the three-quarter majority necessary for passage.
The U.S. delegation, which had been working behind the scenes to persuade Denmark to withdraw the Greenland proposal, voted to support it. The United States had hoped to convince sponsors to introduce the proposal for 10 humpback whales per year at IWC 61 in Madeira, Portugal, instead.
Consensus Breaks Down
Not even a closed session of the commissioners at the start of the day could keep back the flood of discord. When the commissioners reconvened in open session, Denmark introduced the proposal on behalf of Greenland, its independent province. Suddenly, three days of mostly tranquil proceedings gave way to stormy speeches of the downhill quickly variety. The IWC was back to business as usual.
Slovenia, speaking for the bloc of European Union members, announced that the EU nations would not support the Greenland proposal. The prickly Russian Federation commissioner fired a shot across the bow, accusing the EU group of ignoring the assessment of the Scientific Committee, which had concluded that the addition of humpbacks to the Greenland take would not likely harm the stock.
A chorus of African and Caribbean nations chimed in too, citing their concern for the rights of indigenous peoples and respect for science. Japan’s Joji Morishita, in a moment of brazen hypocrisy, also played the card of aboriginal sympathy. “I share the pain of the people of Greenland. I feel a lot of anger,” Morishita said.
If sincere, this was a relatively recently developed empathy, for it was Japan along with the Caribbean nations at IWC 56 in Shimoneseki that spitefully scuttled the Alaskan and Russian aboriginal subsistence whaling quota when it came up for a vote. That time around, an intersessional meeting had to be called to straighten out their mischief.
Science and Commerciality at Issue
A central point of contention in the debate over the Greenland proposal was what use to make of the Scientific Committee’s evaluation of the humpback’s status. Most of the whale-friendly nations saw no ringing endorsement there, but the U.S. delegation, and that of Switzerland, diverged from the pack and voted “yes.”
The United States, which had endeavored to persuade Denmark and Greenland to wait a year and submit the proposal at IWC 61 in Madeira, Portugal, cited the finding of the Scientific Committee as the key factor in its decision to support the bid. However, all week long the Greenland proposal had been entangled in controversy over the commerciality of transactions tied to Greenland’s ASW quota and the inadequacy of its statement of need. A biting WSPA exposé asserted that there was extensive commercialization of the whale meat trade in Greenland, and several analysts familiar with the proposal pointed to its slipshod character.
The vote on the Greenland proposal marked the first time that the European Union, under new rules, voted as a bloc at IWC. With Denmark abstaining under legal exemption, 20 of the 21 member states of the Union agreed to oppose the Greenland proposal.
Until the Greenland vote occurred, the IWC’s hostile factions had behaved with restraint in deference to the chairman’s plea that the IWC steer clear of rancor and controversy at a sensitive moment in its history. The Japanese, after several years of ratcheting up the rhetoric about bolting to form a new organization, did not advance their proposal for small-scale commercial coastal whaling.
For their part, throughout the week, the Latin American leadership, notably Chile and Brazil, were consistent in stating that their bloc would not introduce a proposal for a South Atlantic Sanctuary for a vote this year. And they didn’t. As an agenda item, however, the concept received strong affirmations of support from the United States, Australia, Chile, France, the UK and others.
The U.S. delegation’s support for the Greenland bid was a disappointment to HSI and other groups. “The Greenland proposal did not include a reliable statement of need,” said Patricia A. Forkan, president of HSI, “and its aboriginal subsistence whaling program is mired in controversies about its extensive commercial aspects. The European Union and Latin American blocs saw the Greenland proposal as shoddy, and we had a right to expect our own delegation to do the same.”
The U.S. position on aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas is naturally influenced by the fact that the U.S. is a whaling nation, with Alaskan tribes that whale under the ASW rules. This was also evident in the U.S. delegation’s response to Austria when the subject of whaling by members of the Makah tribe of Washington State came up. The U.S. delegation expressed its legal view that the taking of a whale by five Makah men in September 2007 was not a violation of IWC regulations, while conceding that it was an illegal take under U.S. domestic law.
Forkan lamented the injurious effect of the vote forced by Greenland and its allies, saying, “No one would have been hurt by a decision to defer debate on Greenland until next year, while the Chairman’s plan to improve practice and procedures at the IWC goes forward.”
