|
Sustainable
eNews |
November 2002 |
|
|
IWMC
World Conservation Trust |
|
Closing the Whaling Loophole
November 7, 2002
|
Animal rights groups like to promote the idea that
scientific research whaling is "illegal" and that Article VIII of
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which
permits it, is a "loophole" because it allows countries to hunt
whales. Of course, logically, it is impossible for both of these positions
to hold up since they are mutually exclusive. And, in reality, an Article
of a Convention can hardly be described as a loophole, while compliance
with it cannot be described as illegal.
The real whaling loophole is the precedence on trade issues
that CITES has given to the International Whaling Commission (IWC). In all
normal circumstances it makes sense for CITES to defer to a specialist
regulatory body. But the IWC is not normal. After establishing a zero quota
on whale species without proper scientific evidence, the IWC has proceeded
to maintain it well beyond the time when specific scientific assessments
should have been completed that would have allowed new catch quotas to be
set.
When CITES passed its resolution agreeing not to issue
trading permits for species protected by the IWC, it could have reasonably
assumed that IWC decisions would be backed by science. After all, that was
over twenty years ago - before the moratorium.
Now, in spite of extensive scientific data demonstrating
the abundance of species like the minke whale, a small block of around
twenty countries, with a simple majority of about four votes, ensures that
the moratorium remains in place. This is a real loophole because, by
deferring to the IWC, CITES is effectively blocked from making decisions on
the trade of whale products. CITES is denied the ability to properly assess
for itself the status of the science and is prevented from coming to the
conclusion that trade could be justified.
The anti-whaling countries have so effectively hijacked IWC
procedures that in Santiago they are opposing Japan’s proposal to
transfer abundant minke and Bryde’s whales to Appendix II on the basis
that no IWC monitoring and implementation system is in place. They
nonchalantly overlook the fact that it is they who have used their small
majority in the IWC to systematically and deliberately delay the Revised
Management Scheme (RMS) for the past eight years.
Two years ago, the Secretary-General of CITES, Willem W.
Wijnstekers, wrote to the Chairman of the IWC in the following terms:
"The listing of whale stocks in Appendix I of CITES… may in a number
of cases be contrary to the biological criteria for including species or
populations in that appendix… It is… crucial that the IWC should soon
make important progress towards the adoption of a Revised Management
Scheme."
It is time for CITES to live up to its responsibilities and
send a strong message to the IWC that this loophole will not be tolerated
indefinitely. The IWC does not deserve to be treated with such dignity.
|
