Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 11 • 13th June 2002
Indigenous Whaling Quotas - an Ongoing Battle
Indigenous whaling quotas - an ongoing battle
The US last week announced that it would seek to reverse the decision of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to reject the US-Russian request to renew whale hunting permits for indigenous people. Such permits are normally granted, but were refused at this year’s annual IWC meeting in Shimonoseki, Japan, on 20-24 May. The meeting had ended with several frustrated delegations in both the pro- and anti-whaling camps, and an even greater political split between the two groups. The issue of whaling also arose during the Fourth Preparatory Meeting (PrepCom IV, 17 May - 7 June, Indonesia) for the World Summit on Sustainable Development during discussions regarding language on the management of marine resources.
Indigenous whaling triggers strong disagreement
Discussions at this year’s IWC meeting escalated on the last days when a second vote rejected a US - Russian five-year quota request on 280 bowhead whales for US Alaskan Eskimos and the native people of Chukota, Russia. It is the first time since its 56-year existence that the IWC has rejected a request of this kind as aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas have usually been granted. Pro-whaling nations such as Japan accused the US of double standards, pointing out that the US had blocked a previous proposal by Japan to increase their hunting quota while at the same time seeking to renew quotas for its own indigenous people. According to one Japanese delegate, “Japan is tired of asking year after year for 50 minkes…only to have the United States vote against it…this year, the United States delegation has a message to take back home - end the hypocrisy.”
The US delegation regretted the position of Japan, noting that Japan had always supported aboriginal whaling. The head of the US delegation Rolland Schmitten called the vote “the most unjust, unkind and unfair vote ever taken”. “It appears there is a barter system going on … we’re bartering on something other than quota,” he added, pointing to alleged pressure by Japan on smaller Caribbean countries, which receive overseas aid from Japan, to vote in line with Japan. The vote also caused frustration among the indigenous people in question as they derive 80 percent of their diet from whales.
The US now finds itself in a difficult position, as it has legal obligations to grant the Inuit a whaling quota, which some believe might be the reason why the US Department of Interior is now seeking to reverse the vote. In a letter to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, Neal McCaleb, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, expressed the Departments regret regarding the IWC decision: “I can assure you that my office will continue to advocate forcefully for the continuation of aboriginal subsistence hunts,” he wrote. The Minister-Counsellor for Environment, Science and Technology at the US Embassy in Tokyo also stated that the US would seek reversal of the vote by the end of this year in cooperation with other countries with the hope that Japan would not block the proposal. Joji Morishita of the Japan Fisheries Agency however stated, “as far as Japan is concerned, our basic stance is the same.”
The IWC will meet again next year and will have to face difficult political discussions and a growing loss of faith among several IWC members.
Whaling also contentious at PrepCom IV
The whaling issue also arose at PrepCom IV for the WSSD when Norway proposed language to promote the sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources. Opponents to the proposal said that specifically mentioning marine living resources would include and encourage whaling. The Norwegian delegation, however, argued that the language was taken from Agenda 21, which led others to respond that the language used in Agenda 21 had been taken out of context. The issue was resolved when delegates agreed to change the language to “conservation and management of the oceans”. One observer expressed disappointment that the discussion on sustainable use had been hijacked by the “paranoid” concerns of some countries, most notably the US and Australia, which had focused much of the attention on whaling, thereby undermining a constructive debate on criteria for sustainable use.
Background
The IWC, set up 56 years ago to monitor international whaling activities, imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. The moratorium was set to run until the adoption of an international management regime that would set sustainable quotas and other rules for whaling activities. The regime is yet to be agreed, but whaling nations’ calls for lifting the moratorium are growing louder every year. They claim that certain minke and gray whale populations are now so abundant that they actually threaten the stability of some fish stocks. The clash has spilled over to the arena of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), where the conservation status of these whale populations was one of the issues most bitterly fought over in April 2000 (BRIDGES, Year 4 No.3, page 10 and No.2, page 9). Japan and Norway will again request their removal from Appendix I at this year’s meeting of CITES Parties in November.
ICTSD reporting; “Whale hunt deal fails,” REUTERS, 24 May 2002; “Commission Meeting Ends After Defeats For Both Sides,” UN Wire, 24 May 2002; “Indigenous hunting sparks anger at whaling meet,” REUTERS, 23 May 2002; “US to seek reversal of IWC whale hunt decision,” REUTERS, 7 June, 2002.