 |
| Sperm whales are among target species for Japan's research whaling |
The
International Whaling Commission passed a measure intended to increase
transparency and address allegations of vote-buying. But this comes at the cost
of scuttling a proposal to increase civil society participation.
On the
Channel Island of Jersey, the annual meeting of the International Whaling
Commission, or IWC, was dominated by discussion over the proposal to eliminate
cash payments for membership dues.
Proposed by
the United Kingdom and backed by a number of countries including Germany, the
proposal passed through a rare consensus decision.
Conservation
groups hailed the passage. "It's a huge success," said Nikolas
Entrup, head of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society in Germany, WDCS.
 |
| German WDCS head Nikolas Entrup |
But Entrup
also criticized the commission, and especially a European Union bloc within it,
for its failure to allow non-governmental organizations greater participation.
And
polarization within the commission is affecting its ability to make decisions,
said Despina Simons of the European Bureau for Conservation and Development.
As the
commission's deliberations concluded, some NGOs continue to question both the
legitimacy of current whaling, and the commission's effectiveness in
controlling it.
Vote-buying
It's
believed that payment of membership dues in cash allowed wealthy countries with
strong pro- or anti-whaling interests to purchase the votes of other nations.
Japan, a
country with an appetite for seafood, including whales, was accused of having
bought the votes of smaller – and poorer – nations.
An
investigative report published in the Sunday Times claimed that Guinea, for
example, not only receives financial support to vote on the IWC with Japan, but
that Japan also recruited it onto the commission in the first place, in order
to add to its voting power.
The report
also alleges that Japan paid Guinea's nearly 9,000-euro membership fee to the
commission, as well as covering travel costs.
The Sunday
Times previously reported that the UK paid Belize's IWC dues of around 11,000
euros when its membership had lapsed. Belize then cast a decisive vote with an
anti-whaling bloc.
Japanese
academic Atsushi Ishii told Deutsche Welle that vote-buying was "very
likely," but added, "I would not call it corruption."
More
transparency, less participation
The
27-nation EU, acting as a bloc, helped win over the rare consensus decision for
transparency in membership fees among the 89 countries that belong to the IWC.
Dues for
the commission must now be paid via bank transfer from government accounts.
This will
"very strongly prevent the selling of votes" on the commission,
Entrup told Deutsche Welle.
Chris
Butler-Stroud, chief executive the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society,
indicated that countries' knowing where the money has come from could allow for
better conservation of whales. "There's no place for anyone to criticize
that," Shroud said.
But the
conservation group did criticize Denmark for blocking a part of the proposition
aimed at allowing more civil society participation.
 |
| Greenland wants to increase aboriginal subsistence quotas for humpack whales |
The UK proposal had also suggested that NGOs be allowed to add their views at commission meetings more often. But Denmark, acting on behalf of Greenland, refused to agree to the membership fees point until the NGO speaking suggestion had been dropped.
"One
country should not be able to block 26," Entrup asserted. "This
absolutely goes against democracy and consensus," Entrup said, also
pointing out that Greenland is not an EU member.
Greenland
wants to increase quotas for indigenous subsistence whaling, although whale
conservation groups claim this is a backdoor for it to gain commercial whaling
capacity.
Status of
whales
Many whale
populations around the world were severely depleted by hunting over previous
centuries.
The
International Whaling Commission has upheld a ban on commercial whaling since
1982. Killing whales for scientific research purposes, and indigenous
subsistence, continues to be allowed.
The IWC, in
reviewing of the status of global whale stocks during this year's meeting,
described how some populations of blue and humpback whales seem to be
recovering, although other populations such as that of the critically
endangered North Atlantic right whale suffered a number of ship strikes and
entanglements in 2010.
The
scientific committee for the commission also reported that more data are needed
on Antarctic minke whales, and a gray whale population off the coast of Russia
where oil and gas activities are currently taking place. In addition, the IWC
hailed a new survey program, which has begun its second ocean foray.
 |
| Critics say polarization within the commission adds to difficulties in decision-making |
A report
this month from the Environmental Investigation Agency and the Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society asserts that an Icelandic company is engaging in
illegal trade of whale products, in clear violation of international law and
IWC rules.
"The
whaling commission would be well advised to devote themselves to the problem of
the annual killing of hundreds of whales and the increasing trade in whale
products," WDCS head Entrup said.
That
Iceland appears to not be heeding the ban on commercial whaling points to a
deeper problem within the commission: its lack of enforcement power.
Crisis of
legitimacy?
Despina
Simons from the European Bureau for Conservation and Development said that
polarization within the IWC is making it increasingly difficult for the
commission to reach decisions.
"The
whole thing has become so polarized, the pro-whaling and anti-whaling countries
trying to bring in new countries, new votes," Simons told Deutsche Welle.
Areas of
trust that have broken down add to friction, which distracts the commission
from looking at conservation, Butler-Stroud said.
The
polarization fuels a perception that the IWC is becoming dysfunctional – which
affects its credibility as well, Ishii indicates.
"I
think the countries still have some possibility to slow down the credibility
deficit, by for example agreeing on a Southern Atlantic Sanctuary," Ishii
stated.
In the end,
Entrup thinks the commission must be given enforcement powers, which would make
its decisions truly binding.
"The
IWC needs to be given teeth – protection on paper isn't good enough."
Author:
Sonya Angelica Diehn / Robin Powell
Editor: Anke Rasper
 |
| The whaling body finds itself entangled in conflict - some would say hopelessly so |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.