The 59th Annual International Whaling Commission Meeting wrapped last Thursday in Anchorage, Alaska.
If you were distracted over the last couple of weeks, as I was, and missed some of the discussions, including at this blog, you can catch-up by having a look at the very long thread following a note from Rune Frovik, Secretary of the High North Alliance, posted on May 23, 2007.
In the blog post Rune correctly predicted that the issue of aboriginal whaling could be a “a very hot issue”.
It was. And most nations except Japan got mostly what they asked for in terms of traditional/aboriginal hunting:
– Greenland can now hunt two bowhead whales annually
– Greenland’s request to also take 10 humpback whales a year was postponed until next year
– The quotes requested by USA, Russia, St Vincent and the Grenadines were adopted by consensus
– Japan’s request for a minke whale quota to four coastal communities was rejected
According to Rune, “There is an extreme lack of consistency, a very unfair treatment of Japan’s reasonable and limited requests. The IWC is a breeding ground for hypocrisy and double standards where the anti-Japanese sentiments are running high.”
I have previously expressed my disappointment at the International Whaling Commission condoning the slaughter of rare whales by indigenous peoples using what are arguable inhumane traditional methods, while ruling against the commercial harvest of more common species by more humane methods in a piece published in July 2005 entitled ‘No science and no respect in Australia’s anti-whaling campaign’.
Next year the IWC meeting will be in Santiago, Chile.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The Japanese only accepted the IWC controls under duress, and according to long established legal precedent in both anglo/american and most OECD cultures, any agreement made under duress is entirely voidable.
They should set up their own IWC with automatic exclusion of non-maritime nations and any nation that does not accept the core objective of the original commission to sustainably manage the whale harvest.
They should then arm their whaling ships. Declare a 5km radius around each ship to be an industrial workplace and then board and sink any pirate ship that disobeys any order to vacate the zone, placing any captured eco-terrorists in their own equivalent of Guantanamo.
The reaction from the anti-whaling NGO infested western media has been unsuprising – ostensibly completely oblivious to the consequences of the IWC eternally failing to fulfil the mandate which the pro-sustainable use nations expect of it.
The big news this year will not be the IWC meeting, but what happens in the aftermath.
One hopes that other international agreements are upheld in far better faith than this one – to conserve whales and make for the orderly development of whaling industry – has been.
I mean what a grubby nation. Fancy us putting up with this crap after WWII. They shouldn’t even have a vote on anything global for at least 1,000 years or be in the UN. Sink any Nipponese ships found whaling in Australian waters. No time for mucking around or being unpatriotic.
Object lesson for David:
David – don’t !
Feedback from anti whalers at the meeting was that things got very tense – emotional – as current issues such as value of whale watching tourism were pushed aside by pro whalers.
Back again to the issue subsistenence/ aboriginal whaling vs Japanese coastal whaling.
Anti whaling nations say allowing coastal Japanese whaling will open up big scale commercial whaling operations. They do have a point on this.
Meanwhile Rune is complaining a bit why the communities of Hafnafjordur(Iceland), Reine ( Norway) and Taiji( Japan) are penalised by the US and the anti whaling forces and why similar local whaling operations by aboriginal communities are accepted globally, some points need clarifications.
As it is right now Northern hemisphere whaling , especially the Norwegian one, are quite accepted globally, mainly because of their character of subsistence whaling.
Everything could IMO be settled out in a quite compromise willing way, if the whaling nations didn’t want to expand whaling operations and talking about ” maximal utilization”.
Let Norway, Iceland and Japan have very small whaling quotas , accepted by anti whaling nations and the NGOs and in turn Japan must abandon all plans to hunt the humpbacks and whaling in maybe Australian territories.
I checked out Greenpeace International’s comment on the Japanese coastal whaling proposal. They in turn accused the Japanese of double talk as they didn’t recognise the indigenous Ainu people…a brand new element in the whales discussion!
This kind of gross hypocrisy makes me want to train up as a harpoon operator. Show me a humpback.
As Ann wrote on the last whaling thread:-
>the discussion here on Jen’s blog keeps high standards
and thankfully we have Mott here to illustrate this.
“Show me a humpback.”
The results could be interesting. If I showed you a humpback the whale would go unscathed as you wouldn’t believe me. If David showed you a humpback you’d be imprisoned for destroying either a restaurant or expensive nets. If Ann showed you a humpback it would have a 50/50 chance of escape. And if Luke showed you a humpback it would be as he pulled down his pants to illustrate where you can go where the sun don’t shine.
Ann,
Talk of a compromise is now most probably too late, and unlikely anyway as the hardcore anti-whaling nations are little more than puppets of the self-interested NGOs with more interest in their misguided anti-whaling campaigns than in respect for international agreements which are the responsibility of sovereign states to uphold in good faith.
If indeed the whalers do take heed of UNCLOS and establish new organizations for whaling, the NGOs are likely to have far less influence than they do at the current time. They have been able to yield influence over the “green-vote” greedy “environment” and “conservation” ministers that represent those hardcore anti-whaling nations at the IWC, but with bilateral or multilateral agreements signed amongst whaling / pro-sustainable use nations, they can do little other than scream loudly, for little gain. Whinging to the Aussie and Kiwi “conservation” and “environment” ministers about it will no longer yield useful results. They may try to target the vote-greedy politicians that reside a wrung or two higher up the ladder, but this is equally unlikely to bear fruits. Few nations would be prepared to put their greater economic posterity at risk over the whaling issue, which even the most vote-greedy of politicians surely recognise is more a “cash whale” than a true issue of concern.
As long as the whaling nations play their cards slowly and calmly, they can have things their way.
Sounds like you are talking about Japan:-
>greedy
>Whinging
>”cash whale” (as opposed to scientific one)
>As long as the whaling nations play their cards slowly and calmly, they can have things their way.
That’s right. It’s all about these nations having their way, stuff what the rest of the world thinks. Echoes on the small stage too.
Travis,
Yes, what the “rest of the world” thinks is not especially relevant, given the insignificant issue that whaling is in real terms.
The whaling nations are sovereign states, they have the support of numerous other sovereign states, and after a quarter of a century most of them are fed up, and if you don’t like it, I do suppose there’s little else for you to do than post criticisms here. There may be sympathy for views such as yours in the anti-whaling propaganda infested western media (that of the so called “rest of the world”), but elsewhere you’re pretty short on luck.
The alternative for the anti-whaling nations was to stand up to the self-interested NGO groups and their misguided anti-whaling campaigns and work together with the whaling nations in good faith on the basis of the international agreement that they signed all those years ago.
They chose not to explore this alternative, and they have only themselves to blame for their intransigence and self-righteousness. Whinging at the whalers and talking about “dummy-spits” as Australia’s “environment” minister has done is an indication of the low availability of good diplomatic skills down under.
Frankly I don’t think Japan will put its wider economic interest at stake just to satisfy a few loopy food fetishists. Western public attitude on whaling is way beyond what NGOs orchestrated.
So David stop “turning Japanese” and believing your own propganda.
Mate you were done like a dinner at IWC.
>and if you don’t like it, I do suppose there’s little else for you to do than post criticisms here. There may be sympathy for views such as yours in the anti-whaling propaganda infested western media (that of the so called “rest of the world”), but elsewhere you’re pretty short on luck.
LOL! Yes David, you have been lean on your criticisms here and expressing how you don’t like it! You are so arrogant that you really can’t see that that which you accuse the anti-whalers of doing you are actually doing yourself. It is most amusing to watch.
My, the intransigence and self-righteousness of it all!!! I don’t want to play anymore. I’m going to start my own club (oh, I said that last year).
>Western public attitude on whaling is way beyond what NGOs orchestrated.
Exactly Luke, but it suits David’s argument (well, this one anyway!)
I’d welcome further elaboration on the view that for Japan the whaling issue is just a matter of satisfying “loopy food fetishists”.
What indications are there to suggest that the hard-core anti-whaling nations (Australia and New Zealand) would seek to make the whaling issue more than just a point of disagreement in what are otherwise very good relationships?
David says it’s too late for my ” compromise ” solution, but there ‘s another IWC meeting next year…
Re the talk that whalers can put up their own whaling organisation, methinks it will be regarded as an ” outlaw” one as whales are a highly migratory species and the international convention on whales states that its a concern for the international community and not only a concern for whaling nations….however, they in turn use the UNCLOS paragraph stating that coastal nations have the right to use their natural resources.
Re compromises. It would have been a good gesture of Japan , if they had abandoned the plan to hunt the humpbacks.
It seems like Iceland has abandoned the plan to hunt the Fin whales due to a lack of market in Japan but also as a gesture of goodwill???
Ann,
Indeed there’s another meeting next year, but contracting governments are free to withdraw from the convention as of June 30 next year by giving notice by January 1. If they do so I guess they would simply choose not to turn up to the meeting.
Whether Japan withdraws or not is another question, but IMO of lesser interest to the actions that they and others will take outside the IWC in the interim.
Having already offered to compromise on pretty much anything to gain even the smallest of quotas for their coastal whaling communities, there is nothing left for Japan to propose.
Sorry, but dropping the humpbacks from JARPA II in exchange for nothing (other than “goodwill”) is not a successful bargaining tactic. After 25 years of bad faith in whaling discussions I’m sure the Japanese have learnt the meaning of “fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me”.
By the way, from UNCLOS Article 65
“States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study.”
There’s room for a new organization, and it’s clear that the IWC is no longer an appropriate one anyway.
Article 65 pertains to the EEZ, but Article 120 also notes the same for the high seas.
Also under Article 117:
“All States have the duty to take, or to cooperate with other States in taking, such measures for their respective nationals as may be necessary for the conservation of the living resources of the high seas.”
Sustainable use is consistent with conservation – no problems here.
Article 118:
“States whose nationals exploit identical living resources, or different living resources in the same area, shall enter into negotiations with a view to taking the measures necessary for the conservation of the living resources concerned. They shall, as appropriate, cooperate to establish subregional or regional fisheries organizations to this end.”
Thoughts?
Article 119 makes reference to “to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield”, whereas under the RMP populations would be maintained at levels above this.
This is a good one: “States concerned shall ensure that conservation measures and their implementation do not discriminate in form or in fact against the fishermen of any State.”
Looks good for whalers if you ask me.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm
Of course, what action Japan takes remains to be seen.
In a way it would be good if Rudd won the election and the folks had their little game of huff and puff in the southern ocean. For nothing would be more certain to guarantee they are a one term government than the resulting 32 cent dollar.
Pity about the world parity price of oil at the bowser though. Put every dollar you can spare into coal stocks because the cheap dollar will mean gigaprofits.
While whaling is a very visible cause of whale’s deaths, entanglements and bycatches are a much bigger cause to cetacean mortality.
Meanwhile there is an international outcry to save the whales from the harpoon, much attention on the entanglement and bycatch issue has not reached the common man in the street. Nor has it been discussed much at the IWC meeting.
The Norwegians submitted to the IWC a study on entanglements on the Northern Right Whale and regards to animal welfare issues. They pointed out that entanglements in various fishing gear posed a big threat to the whales welfare.
Something that I personally would like to discuss more and wondering if those vocal anti whaling nations themselves are more prepared to save cetaceans in their waters from bycatches.
Environmental organisations complained at the IWC meeting that the entanglement and bycatch issues were ignored.
Here’s a photo showing the response of the leader of Japan’s small type whaling association to events in Anchorage:
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20070601-05283524-jijp-bus_all.view-001
Ann,
The fund-raising groups could encourage the “conservation” nations to set up a new body to specifically talk about those issues, if they are really concerned about them. There’s nothing written anywhere that says talk about cetacean conservation must take place in the international Whaling commisssion.
Yoshio Kobayashi, a high ranking official at the Ministry of Agriculture Forests and Fisheries today told reporters that it was clear from the IWC meeting that the anti-whalers have abandoned the view that the IWC should be a resource management organization, and that he sees no hope of the IWC being normalized.
I’m still yet to be enlightened as to what the “wrath” of the anti-whaling nations would entail, should the sustainable use nations chose to resume commercial whaling in some form outside of the IWC.
David,
I don’t know what Greenpeace is currently thinking about Japan and other sustainable use nations leaving the IWC, but from discussions from previous years they don’t seem to mind Japan leaving the IWC, so I don’t see the ” wrath”.
From ststements from Norway, they yet don’t want to leave the IWC???
Anyway, both the antis and pros do think that the IWC is dysfunctional, and honestly don’t Japan do exactly as it wants anyway???
Moderate minded persons have however expressed that they would be sorry if Japan left the IWC, and thinking that this would be a ” blow”.
David,
My personal opinion is that Japan, Norway and Iceland believe it is important to members of UN bodies and the whales issue really ain’t that important…
“While whaling is a very visible cause of whale’s deaths, entanglements and bycatches are a much bigger cause to cetacean mortality.
Meanwhile there is an international outcry to save the whales from the harpoon, much attention on the entanglement and bycatch issue has not reached the common man in the street. Nor has it been discussed much at the IWC meeting.”
Meanwhile thousands of small cetaceans get killed by deliberate hunting. This has reached “the man in the street” even less than bycatch and entanglement, which at least got airplay with the ‘dolphin safe tuna’ issue.
It is a matter of degrees. There is a bigger outcry to save Southern Ocean whales from harpoons than those in the North Pacific.
“Environmental organisations complained at the IWC meeting that the entanglement and bycatch issues were ignored”.
They were mentioned, and it appears more so than ship strike, climate change and competition for food resources. The IWC is not the body to be giving these issues and mitigation measures the time they deserve.
Ooops, read : “..Japan, Norway and Iceland believe it’s important to be members of UN bodies”
Note as well that Iceland has applicated for a seat on the UN Security Council….
Draft resolution to CITES from some prominent anti whaling nations:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC59docs/59-19.pdf
They in turn seem to praise the IWC and the decisions made by the Scientific Commitee, in contrast to some/most GP supporters that state ” who cares what IWC says”!
Ann,
I’m sure Greenpeace will love it if Japan leaves the IWC, it will give them more opportunities for grandstanding (despite their ostensible concern about true conservation issues at odd times here and there).
I doubt Norway will leave the IWC either, the relationship that they have with the IWC works OK for them, another framework might be more beneficial though.
> honestly don’t Japan do exactly as it wants anyway???
I don’t have that impression at all.
> My personal opinion is that Japan, Norway and Iceland believe it is important to members of UN bodies and the whales issue really ain’t that important…
The IWC isn’t a UN body as far as I know (?!)
For sure, Japan has been incredibly reluctant to withdraw from the IWC, although they have floated the idea numerous times throughout the years. This is why you’ve seen them explore other avenues such as lobby other nations to join the IWC and support them (i.e. “buy votes” as critics have elected to characterize this as), and hold a normalization meeting earlier this year. At the same time there is also the history of Japan accepting the RMP and also agreeing in principle to an RMS. They feel they have compromised as far as possible, for nothing at all in return.
Quitting without exploring the options has they have would have been reckless, but they have done all they can think of within the IWC framework, to no avail.
Thus the time has come for other options to be explored, and Japan has been waving flags about this since the normalization meeting in February this year. I wrote about this on my blog a few days before the IWC meeting started. The westerners were all in their typical “vilify Japan” mode, but they’ve taken their eye off the ball, or alternatively, whatever the whaling nations do is of no concern to them.
Something that the western media hasn’t been reporting (and the Japanese media has) is that Japan’s suggestion the other day of possibly leaving the IWC was apparently the first time Japan has ever mentioned the possibility within the IWC meeting itself. The Japanese media reports that this was “extremely rare” for Japan (as are times when Japan has withdrawn from international organizations since WWII, perhaps never).
At a press conference after the IWC meeting, with respect to Japan’s path forward, a journalist questioned whether the nations in favour of sustainable use would be surprised by Japan’s upcoming actions. Joji Morishita noted that they are often in contact with their counterparts in those nations and so he didn’t think that they would be surprised – on the contrary he noted that an official from St. Lucia had told him that he thought Japan has been “too patient” (I would concur!).
I don’t know about Iceland and Norway – they may remain in the IWC as long as it continues to suit them, but I’m sure they’ll collaborate with Japan and others on alternative options as well.
> They in turn seem to praise the IWC and the decisions made by the Scientific Committee
They are just saying this because Japan will request CITES to review the scientific basis of it’s listings. Meanwhile the IWC has ignored the advice of it’s own Scientific Committee for yonks. It’s just another illustration of the circus that the IWC has become. I’d not be surprised if demoralized scientists fed up with the IWC would not be interested in contributing in any new international framework.
Just read a press conference with the new Minister in charge of MAFF. He told reporters that he agrees with the view of the delegation to the IWC that there is no hope of normalizing the IWC as a resource management body, but when pressed on whether this meant Japan would ditch the IWC he clarified that what Japan will do has not yet been decided, saying that “as it is at the moment” the IWC is crap (basically :)) Unless they have other ideas for how to achieve their objectives within the IWC, it seems most likely that they will do something else. As Joji Morishita said earlier this year:
“Something will happen this summer”.
The minister confirmed that there are (currently) three possible options:
1) Withdraw from the IWC
2) Establish a new organization under UNCLOS
3) Resume commercial whaling in the EEZ
In the Japanese way, the minister noted that what happens now will only be decided after listening to opinions from within the country, talking with like-minded nations, as well as the delegation to the IWC. Consensus decision making, with those who are on the same wavelength 🙂
Within Japan, withdrawing from the IWC has apparently had the strongest backing.
So how about this for an idea for option 1):
a) withdraw from the IWC
b) give notice of a resumption in commercial whaling
c) note a willingness to return to the IWC only after the IWC has set reasonable catch limits in accordance with scientific advice
d) go ahead with whaling if the IWC falls to show up to the party
Fair enuff. Don’t get your own way – pull up stumps. Simplifies matters no end. Stop poncing around and do it !
Make our day !
” the IWC is not an UN body ” -David
Sorry,it’s an international organization and :
“The 1970s saw the beginning of the global anti-whaling movement. In 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment[7] at Stockholm adopted a proposal that recommended a ten-year moratorium on commercial whaling to allow whale stocks to recover.[8] The reports of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species[9] in 1977 and 1981 identified many species of whales as being in danger of extinction. Finally, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, completed in 1982, provided inter alia that “states shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of whales shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for the conservation, management and study ”
One more option, David, “all of the above”.
After such an extraordinary display of patience on the Japanese part, any response by half measure would still only be seen by the bimboscenti as a sign of weakness. In my view, go for it.
1) Withdraw from the IWC
2) Establish a new organization under UNCLOS
3) Resume commercial whaling in the EEZ
4) Allocate all current whale mortality from all sources to all nations on a portion of GDP basis
5) And don’t piss about with notices of resumption or invitations to join. Give them courtesy when they earn courtesy.
That’s the beauty of international society, it’s a wonderful patchwork of sovereign states which can do whatever the hell they please.
While those of the “kill no whales!” persuasion may like to make out otherwise, the problem is that the whalers aren’t getting their own way at the IWC circus, it’s that the IWC is supposed to be something which it has been the opposite of for the past quarter of a century.
With no hope of this changing, there’s certainly no moral obligation on any sovereign state to remain adhered to the agreement as it’s not being adhered to in good faith by others.
Ian,
You’re a hard man! Japan’s foreign ministry is a little bit prissy about these things though, after what happened back in the old days leading up to WWII.
>Something that the western media hasn’t been reporting (and the Japanese media has) is that Japan’s suggestion the other day of possibly leaving the IWC was apparently the first time Japan has ever mentioned the possibility within the IWC meeting itself.
So previously they have been mentioning it outside the IWC for the benefit of the western media? There goes those double standards again.
>Give them courtesy when they earn courtesy.
Wise words. Is that why no one is ever courteous to you Ian?
>While those of the “kill no whales!” persuasion may like to make out otherwise,
You seem to forget (conveniently or blindly)that those of the “kill whales” persuasion are actually killing whales. It is amazing how you seem to think that anti-whalers have got what they want. Whaling still happens and quotas go up. Ooops, there goes another of those double standards.
Excerpt from an Norwegian article about aboriginal whaling:
” Papers submitted to the IWC by Russian authorities in 1996.
The majority of the gray whales were gunned down by 350 to 550 shots. Some by 700 shots. The TTD of the 67 of the 85 gray whales were at least 3 hours, some TTDs were 9 hours.
Weapons used to kill the whales were Kalasjnikovs , pansar weapons and pansar canons.
It seemed like the Iniuts had no clue where to shot the whale in an appropriate way. They just shot until the whale bled to death.
According to George, the Norwegians have offered advice to help improve killing methods, but I have no idea if anything has happened.
http://www.dyrebeskyttelsen.no/artikler/df1996-4e.shtml
> So previously they have been mentioning it outside the IWC for the benefit of the western media?
Who’s he trying to pick a fight with now…
The reason why they were mentioning the possibility of them leaving the IWC before mentioning it within the conference where it will also go on the official record is evident enough.
>You seem to forget (conveniently or blindly)that those of the “kill whales” persuasion are actually killing whales.
Phwat?
> It is amazing how you seem to think that anti-whalers have got what they want.
Phwat?
Ann,
I seem to remember hearing that Russian whalers were collaborating with other whalers in efforts to improve their hunts – I seem to recall it mentioned in one of the reports related to aboriginal subsistence hunts or whaling killing methods workshop at the IWC 58 St. Kitts meeting.
This comment belongs actually on the other thread discussing whale intelligence.
This article states that ” minke whales are closest to humans in re to numbers of brain cells”
Dunno it they had made studies on other whale species as well???
Minke whale brain cells numbered to 13 billions .
It was as well noted that males(humans) had more brain cells than females!!!!! Hmmmm….
But, but, a very funny conclusion of the article was that nobody knew if there was any advantage with more brain cells????
http://knr.gl/index.php?id=183&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=22351&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=143&cHash=1b36327db7
The above article was published in the scientific journal ” Anatomical Record”.
Whoops, correction in caps: “the problem is NOT that the whalers aren’t getting their own way at the IWC circus, it’s that the IWC is supposed to be something which it has been the opposite of for the past quarter of a century.”
So David and Paul Watson share the same view that Japan should leave the IWC….
Actually, an entertaing post by Watson:
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_070604_1.html
A blog at Japan’s “livedoor” portal has a thread on the “IWC withdrawal” story, and has generated more than 2,000 responses since June 1st. Almost all of them are in favour of Japan withdrawal. The blog seems to share the readership with the popular 2ch discussion forums that are popular in Japan. Some comments:
“Japan is always weak when it comes to miltary force and Asia, but when it comes to FOOD we change completely”
“So what will the IWC do with Japan gone? Talk amongst themselves about ‘how cute are those whales?’, ‘aren’t those whales sooo smart?!'”
Of the remarkably few people not supportive of Japan withdrawing from the IWC, one of them seemed to have read Turnbull’s diatribe and translated it into Japanese (the dummy-spit thing), but they were promptly mocked by other posters.
A blog post from Joji Morishita also received lots of feedback, with again almost 100% support for Japan’s position, with just one or two dissenters (one of them I’m pretty sure works for a anti-whaling outfit based in Japan).
Indeed he is often entertaining, but always completely deluded.
>Who’s he trying to pick a fight with now…
Anyone who doesn’t see your point of view is easily dismissed as trying to pick a fight David. Standard tactic for you.
>The reason why they were mentioning the possibility of them leaving the IWC before mentioning it within the conference where it will also go on the official record is evident enough.
Yeah, right. You have been reading too many ICR media packages – you are beginning to sound just like them. Whatever you want to believe, but it is amusing to watch! Funny how the NGOs get slammed by you for ‘performing’ for the media…
>Indeed he is often entertaining, but always completely deluded.
Now that’s more like it. Self-criticism is definately not something the Japanese practice, but you have shown independent thought here with a self assessment. There’s hope yet.
Hi,
Sorry, no time to participate. Below some link about Norway’s IWC policy. In a letter to the editor, the Norwegian deputy foreign minister, states that Norway’s interests are best served by participating in the IWC, even if the IWC does not work properly, than leaving. One argument is that with the IWC it is easier to disseminate scientific information about the status of whale stocks.
Sure Ann can translate these links:
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/article1818527.ece (letter to the editor)
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/leder_morgen/article1808531.ece (editorial)
http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/46756 (news piece igniting the debate)
Rune
Hi Rune,
Thanks for the links…unfortunately I have problems to open the Aftenposten links, maybe George can give us a rough translation if he is not back on the deck???
Anyway, a summary from the Norwegian ABC news:
” Positions locked in the IWC.
Norway will once again propose that the annual IWC meeting only will be held every other year.
According to the Norwegian IWC Commissioner Mr. Karsten Klepsvik, there is a limit for how long the whaling nations will stay within the IWC. But to define this limit is a political issue.
We have issues with the use of resources , when up to 70 nations are sending their delegates to the meeting and not much will be achieved.
Both prowhaling and anti whaling nations have recruited new members. Prowhaling Panama, Nicaragua and Costa Rica have switched positions. They are now motivated by eco-tourism.
Mr. Klepsvik believes in a small victory for the Norwegian proposal for the quota calculation model in the management of minke whales , that will be discussed in Anchorage.
The proposal/note/ brief record, will be discussed this year in the Scientific Committee, and will come up in the plenary session next year.
If accepted, the Norwegian quota can be slightly increased.”
Travis,
As always, there is little more that needs to be said other than to thank you for your most critical and valuable contribution here. We would all be entirely lost without the extra element that you bring to the discussion.
In the news…
“BERLIN — Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and European Union leaders agreed Tuesday on the need for immediate and strong action to stop global warming, committing themselves to taking the lead on setting a new international framework to fight climate change…
Abe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso agreed on the need for a long-term target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% or more by 2050. They noted that a new approach is needed to ensure the participation of all major emitters of greenhouse gases in a new framework to fight global warming from 2013, after the current Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas reduction expires in 2012.”
Not even in my wildest dreams can I imagine any nation seriously considering trade sanctions against Japan over the little storm-in-a-tea-cup whaling issue…
Shucks thanks David! Feeling’s mutual, of course.
Short summary of the Norwegian daily papers Dagbladet’s editorial that Rune posted:
The editorial believes that the IWC Commissioner’s statement ” there is a limit for how long the whaling nations will stay within the IWC” is a bit rigid and sceptic against Norway’s international foreign policy.
Norway usually is positive about international bodies and cares about smaller nations interests.
Meanwhile the international community has poor knowledge about whale stocks and whale abundances and make statements against harvests of natural resources, the paper points that taking care of the interests of the whalers do oppose inernational opinions/ bodies.
But opposition against international bodies is very un-Norway like.
The paper points out that the establishment of the ICW was also because of the overharvesting by Norway of whales.
It must as well be understood that some nations are not satisfied with Norway’s management of fisheries resources , for example of cod.
The majority of Norwegians think that there are too many nations recruited to the IWC. They are especially angry that landlocked nations are IWC members and nations that have no interest in whaling.
Sorry, the editorial was posted in Aftenposten, now I don’t think it really matters….
Why is it that I get the image of David sitting there in samurai dress with a sword. Tell me it’s not true.
Article: 10 questions to Paul Watson.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3747
Excerpt from the article:
“…we have turned the cow into the largest predator on the planet. The amount of water and resources utilized to raise domestic animals for food is irresponsibky high”
Watson: “…as a co-founder of Greenpeace , I feel like Dr. Frankenstein…
The crazy circus moves to CITES:
“The meeting passed an amendment saying that CITES should not re-assess whale stocks while the commercial moratorium remained in place.”
Pfwat?
The IWC refuses to do it’s job so CITES abdicates it’s own mandated functions as well?
Question: How many international organizations are the “environmentalists” prepared to render dysfunctional over this?
Answer: As many as there are!
David you give the “environmentalists” a lot of clout. Influential they may be, but what does that say about scientists and other advisors, or is it easier to blame NGOs?
Greenpeace Nordic’s Oceans Campaigner stated in a press release that Norway must take initiative and renew the IWC from being only an organisation dealing with whaling issues and leading IWC towards working with issues dealing with marine pollution, ship strikes, bycatch by different fishing devices and climate pollution.
As it is now , these issues are only briefly discussed.
It seems though as David and Libby believe that annother organisation/body should deal with those topics????
http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/innenriks/article868123.ece
Huh, it’s not crystal clear that there has been a pre-emptive strike on science here?
What type of people would ever seek to do such a thing… I guess I must not jump to conclusions…
Nothing to stop a new body being set up by those nations that feel so keenly about it Ann, although I don’t see a problem with such issues being discussed at the IWC either, if it were actually doing it’s core business as well.
A Japanese blog that took up Malcolm Turnbull’s comparing Japan’s indication at the possibility of a change in it’s approach to the IWC to a “dummy-spit” received more than 2300 comments in response. The same blog took up Sea Shepherd’s terrorism earlier this year, and in that episode received only 1300 comments.
My regards to Malcolm for helping give yet another boost to pro-whaling sentiment here 🙂
Must have taken a while for you to do 2300 sock puppet posts.
Luke, unfortunately the comments were closed before I got a change to have my say…
Thanks again Malcolm!