Subject: So. Oceans Sanctuary Discussions
(no name) ((no email))
Mon, 29 Jul 1994 12:24:00
Return-Path: <WHE_WILLIAM@flo.org>
Received: from flo.org by VMSVAX.SIMMONS.EDU (MX V3.1C) with SMTP; Fri, 29 Jul
1994 12:12:22 EDT
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 12:15:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: WHE_WILLIAM@flo.org
To: whalenet@vmsvax.simmons.edu
Message-ID: <940729121512.1f62d@flo.org>
Subject: So. Oceans Sanctuary Discussions
From: SMTP%"MARMAM@UVVM.BITNET" 29-JUL-1994 02:57:25.47
To: WHE_WILLIAM
CC:
Subj: Equal Time
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 18:53:15 -0700
Reply-To: Marine Mammals Research and Conservation Discussion
<MARMAM@UVVM.BITNET>
Sender: Marine Mammals Research and Conservation Discussion
<MARMAM@UVVM.BITNET>
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was rbaird@SOL.UVIC.CA
From: Alan Macnow <amacnow@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Equal Time
X-To: marmam@uvvm.uvic.ca
To: Multiple recipients of list MARMAM <MARMAM@UVVM.BITNET>
Charles Webb of the Antarctica Project recently criticized
one of my postings. As the posting had not been in MARMAM,
most of the MARMAM readers would not have seen what Mr. Webb
criticized. So that they know, here it is:
ANTARCTIC SANCTUARY VOTE VIOLATED WHALING CONVENTION
The reasons Japan is filing an objection to the Antarctic
Sanctuary are that there is no scientific justification for it,
and its passage violated the purpose and provisions of the In-
ternational Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW).
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established
to implement the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling.
The purpose of the Convention is clearly stated: "to pro-
vide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make
possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."
Under Article V of the Convention, no measure can be
adopted that is not "necessary to carry out the objectives and
purposes of this Convention and to provide for the conservation,
development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources."
All measures also must be "based on scientific findings."
The Antarctic Sanctuary, as passed, was not necessary "to
provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks" because all
of the endangered or depleted whale stocks would remain fully
protected against whaling under the commercial whaling
moratorium currently in place. Even if a limited amount of
whaling were permitted under the so-called Revised Management
Procedure developed by the IWC's Scientific Committee, only the
very abundant stocks of Antarctic minke whales, currently num-
bering over three quarters of a million animals, would be af-
fected. None of the endangered or depleted species, such as the
blue, right, fin, or humpback whales, would be touched.
The Sanctuary, of course, also violates the requirement
under Article V to provide for the "optimum utilization of the
whale resources."
"This forum (the IWC) has been converted from a whaling
Convention to a whale-protection Convention," admitted Cliff
Curtis, the Greenpeace whale campaign coordinator.
Two years ago, when France first proposed the idea of an
Antarctic Sanctuary, the majority of the IWC Scientific Com-
mittee could find no scientific nor biological justification for
it. Neither could other scientific bodies, such as the Scien-
tific Committee for Antarctic Research and the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission.
At last year's IWC meeting, the French Commissioner
dropped any pretense of science and admitted that the raison
d'etre for the sanctuary was purely political. Anti-whaling
pressure groups in his country, the United States, Germany, the
U.K., Australia and New Zealand simply wanted to stop all whal-
ing.
This February the IWC convened a "Working Group Meeting"
on Norfolk Island in the South Pacific to examine the legal,
ecological, geographic, and economic implications of establish-
ing the sanctuary. The Working Group framed a number of impor-
tant questions, such as the effect of a sanctuary on the ocean
ecology, and means of meeting the established conservation and
utilization requirements of other groups and treaties dealing
with the Antarctic waters.
However, despite protests, the Antarctic sanctuary measure
was steam-rollered through without any attempt to answer the
questions raised by the Working Group.
The action was similar to 1982, when the anti-whaling
proponents recruited 17 small countries to pack the vote and ram
through a commercial whaling moratorium against the advice of
the IWC Scientific Committee.
This time, two more countries were recruited to pack the
vote for passage of the sanctuary: Austria and Antigua and Bar-
buda. Antigua and Barbuda, first recruited by anti-whaling
groups in 1982, lost its vote in 1987 because it did not pay its
annual contributions to the IWC. Suddenly this year, on the eve
of the sanctuary vote, it somewhere found the resources to make
a substantial down-payment on $232,000 owed to the IWC. The
country, with one of the worst credit reputations in the world,
still owes millions to the Organization of American States and
every other international organization to which it belongs.
Austria was reportedly recruited by Greenpeace. Its
commissioner at the IWC meeting was its ambassador to Mexico.
Other countries were "persuaded" to vote for the sanctuary
for various reasons. Mexico last year moved to the anti-whaling
position as one of the requirements for joining NAFTA. This
year, Chile abandoned its sustainable utilization position in
order to enhance its NAFTA eligibility position. Russia, a
whaling country itself, became a sanctuary enthusiast rather
than risk losing U.S. economic aid. Denmark, too, long an op-
ponent of the sanctuary, was forced to change its position in
order to obtain the additional allocation of 100 north Atlantic
minke whales it sought for its Greenland Eskimos.
Anti-whaling proponents may think that passage of the
sanctuary was a great victory. Actually, it may be the death-
knell of the IWC.
Last year, the credibility of the IWC was severely shaken
when the chairman of its Scientific Committee, British scientist
Philip Hammond, resigned in protest over the organization's
"disregard" of science, "contempt" of scientific recommenda-
tions, and anti-science decisions taken to promote political ob-
jectives.
This year, by contravening its own Convention, the IWC has
provided member countries with good reason to leave the organi-
zation.
-end-
FROM: Alan Macnow
Consultant to the
Japan Whaling Association