Anti-whaling nations win 'great victory' against Japan proposals

[Chi65]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/17/whale17.xml

Anti-whaling nations win 'great victory' against Japan proposals
Japan suffered an unexpected and total defeat when it tried to start attacking a 20-year-old ban on commercial whaling at the International Whaling Commission's meeting in the Caribbean state of St Kitts and Nevis last night.
The member countries of the UN whaling treaty voted down two proposals by Japan - the most significant one for secret ballots so that small Pacific and Caribbean nations that receive Japanese aid could unpick the protection of whales without fear of retribution.
Conservationists had feared that Japan would win a narrow majority
The other proposal sought to prevent the commission from discussing the fate of dolphins and porpoises as well as whales.
Ian Campbell, Australia's environment minister and a leader of the anti-whaling bloc, said: "The great victory is that we have raised the levels of understanding of this issue to levels that have probably not been seen since the 1970s.
"Tens of thousands of whales have been saved because of the moratorium that is under threat."
Conservationists and anti-whaling countries had predicted that the Japanese were likely to win a narrow overall majority of pro-whaling nations at this year's meeting.
However, quiet lobbying by anti-whaling countries led by Australia, Britain, New Zealand and South Africa, and environmental groups, appeared to have seen off the threat, though only by the narrowest of margins.
Earlier, in the first vote of the five-day talks, anti-whaling nations managed to hold on to a majority in a vote about whether to drop an item about the conservation of small whale, porpoise and dolphin species from the agenda.
The vote was won by 32 votes to 30, with one known pro-whaling nation, Senegal, absent and Denmark abstaining.
Japan had opened the conference with a demand for the resumption of commercial whaling.
Japan and other whaling nations such as Norway and Iceland almost got a simple majority at the annual IWC meeting a year ago in South Korea, but some allies failed to pay their dues and could not vote and others did not turn up. It is unclear as yet who let them down this time.
Sarah Duthie, of Greenpeace, said: "Whaling history may not have been rewritten this year but it was too close for comfort. The anti-whaling countries must see this as a wake-up call and add action to their rhetoric.
"Greenpeace will once again challenge the whalers on the high seas; the question is, what are the anti-whaling countries prepared to do?"
So, thats at least something, I was already wondering and thus researching, what the UN has to say to the general issue.
This makes at least clear, that there will be a limit of what they are willing to take. Gladly!
I was already wondering, why it was so quiet here today. . . :-)

[caster51]

St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration
58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission
June, 2006
St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua & Barbuda, Benin, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Republic of Guinea, Iceland, Japan, Kiribati, Mali, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nauru, Nicaragua, Norway, Republic of Palau, Russian Federation, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Togo, Tuvalu.

EMPHASIZING that the use of cetaceans in many parts of the world including the Caribbean, contributes to sustainable coastal communities, sustainable livelihoods, food security and poverty reduction and that placing the use of whales outside the context of the globally accepted norm of science-based management and rule-making for emotional reasons would set a bad precedent that risks our use of fisheries and other renewable resources;

FURTHER EMPHAZING that the use of marine resources as an integral part of development options is critically important at this time for a number of countries experiencing the need to diversify their agriculture;

UNDERSTANDING that the purpose of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is to “provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry” (quoted from the Preamble to the Convention) and that the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is therefore about managing whaling to ensure whale stocks are not over-harvested rather than protecting all whales irrespective of their abundance;

NOTING that in 1982 the IWC adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling (paragraph 10 e of the Schedule to the ICRW) without advice from the Commission’s Scientific Committee that such measure was required for conservation purposes;

FURTHER NOTING that the moratorium which was clearly intended as a temporary measure is no longer necessary, that the Commission adopted a robust and risk-averse procedure (RMP) for calculating quotas for abundant stocks of baleen whales in 1994 and that the IWC’s own Scientific Committee has agreed that many species and stocks of whales are abundant and sustainable whaling is possible;

CONCERNED that after 14 years of discussion and negotiation, the IWC has failed to complete and implement a management regime to regulate commercial whaling.

ACCEPTING that scientific research has shown that whales consume huge quantities of fish making the issue a matter of food security for coastal nations and requiring that the issue of management of whale stocks must be considered in a broader context of ecosystem management since eco-system management has now become an international standard.

REJECTING as unacceptable that a number of international NGOs with self-interest campaigns should use threats in an attempt to direct government policy on matters of sovereign rights related to the use of resources for food security and national development;

NOTING that the position of some members that are opposed to the resumption of commercial whaling on a sustainable basis irrespective of the status of whale stocks is contrary to the object and purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling;

UNDERSTANDING that the IWC can be saved from collapse only by implementing conservation and management measures which will allow controlled and sustainable whaling which would not mean a return to historic over-harvesting and that continuing failure to do so serves neither the interests of whale conservation nor management;

NOW THEREFORE:
COMMISSIONERS express their concern that the IWC has failed to meet its obligations under the terms of the ICRW and,


DECLARE our commitment to normalizing the functions of the IWC based on the terms of the ICRW and other relevant international law, respect for cultural diversity and traditions of coastal peoples and the fundamental principles of sustainable use of resources, and the need for science-based policy and rulemaking that are accepted as the world standard for the management of marine resources.

Whaling and the Silencing of Carribean Nations

Although the presentation is bland (they should have atleast used some still images to gather attention), what he says is interesting and it is not that long so try watching it.

Department of Fisheries Negotiating Officer Mr. Morishita talks about how much of the whaling policies is led by small economically underdeveloped Carribean nations, but Japanese as well as foreign media largely report whaling as a Japan VS. Anti-Whalers issue.

http://www.oniazuma.com/2008/01/department-of-fisheries-negotiating.html

[Chi65]

. . . . . . . . . . .cold coffee

[caster51]

I like Iced one:cool:

[Chi65]

Yep, in summer, shall we have one then? ;-)
The japanese one is good!

PS. I happen to know a bit about for example Japan/Africa relations, because I was invited to some, when in Japan. . .and I have a list of newcomers from there and other parts of the world the last years.

[caster51]

Japan hits out at 'polarised' whaling council
Staff and agencies
Friday June 16, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
The Japanese government today threatened to pull out of the International Whaling Commission unless the ban on commercial killing is overturned.
Jouji Morishita, the director of international negotiations on whaling for the Japanese Fisheries Agency, said the IWC was "polarised" and failing to effectively manage the world's whales as a resource.
Speaking as representatives from 70 countries attended the opening of the IWC's annual meeting on the Caribbean island of St Kitts, Mr Morishita denied that Japan was bribing other countries with offers of aid to secure their support for a restoration of commercial whaling.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have never done that, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "The Japanese government has never been involved in such activities."
Mr Morishita insisted he did not want uncontrolled whaling, but the enforcement of a scientific formula devised by the IWC for managed catches in sustainable areas.
"Overturning the ban has some misunderstanding. It sounds like there would be no control," he said. "But overturning the ban from our point of view is a resumption of managed whaling.
"The IWC is, we think, very polarised and not working as a resource management organisation. We like to make progress to normalising this organisation so that this organisation can manage whaling while protecting endangered and depleted species.
"However, if we cannot normalise this IWC, I don't think this organisation has a reason to exist."
A ban on commercial whaling has been in force since 1986. However, Japan wants a restoration of the trade amid claims that some endangered whale species have successfully replenished.
For the past two decades, Japan and Iceland have continued whale hunting by using a loophole to claim it is being done for scientific purposes. However, whale meat is regularly sold in Japanese shops and restaurants.
Norway is the only country that ignores the moratorium and openly conducts commercial whaling.
Environmental organisations fear pro-whaling nations are poised to regain dominance of the IWC following intense Japanese lobbying.
In the Caribbean, Japan has given six countries - St Lucia, St Vincent, Antigua, Dominica, Grenada and St Kitts - more than $100m (£54m) in fishing aid since 1998. Most have backed it on whaling.
Anti-whaling campaigners claim Japan is attempting to gain the support of other countries - some of them landlocked - in order to obtain a pro-whaling IWC majority.
Although it is considered unlikely that Japan will obtain the 75% margin required to overturn the whaling ban, a simple majority could enable it to pass sweeping changes.
"They'll be able to control the voice of the IWC and make statements under the organisation's banner in support of commercial whaling," Bill Hogarth, the head of the US delegation - which votes with anti-whaling countries such as Britain, Australia and New Zealand - said.
The meeting will be a fight for "the heart and soul" of the IWC, Vassili Papastavrou, a whale biologist for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, warned.
"It will be in the hands of the whalers for the first time since the 1970s," he said. "It's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house."
Raphael Archibald, a spokesman for the St Kitts delegation, said the focus should shift from strict conservation to sustainable fishing and whaling.
"There are stocks of whales that are very abundant," he said. "What's the idea of having them just there, increasing, increasing and increasing?"
Mr Archibald said secret ballots were needed to protect countries from those who disagree with their votes. St Kitts typically votes for whale hunting, but claims its tourism industry suffers as a result. Iceland, Norway and Japan have killed 2,500 whales in the past 12 months - more than in any year since the ban came into effect.
Earlier this week, the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise, which took part in a campaign to block Japanese whalers operating in the south Atlantic earlier this year, was banned from entering St Kitts waters.
"We are shocked that St Kitts has banned the Arctic Sunrise, and can only assume that the government of Japan has convinced the authorities to prevent us from entering in the hope that our criticism of whaling will be silenced," John Bowler, of Greenpeace International, said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1799553,00.html


Who cares?:p

[Sarapva]

I've heard that the Caribbean Islands have a good whale-watching industry with tourists, so they wouldn't necessarily be pro-whaling.

I just looked up the next IWC meeting this year, and it will be in Santiago, Chile in June. We'll see what changes are made then (hopefully even less whaling)!

From quote above:
St Kitts typically votes for whale hunting, but claims its tourism industry suffers as a result.

[caster51]

so, Australia oppose it because of whale-watching industry ? LOL
then it is not interested in Norway?

[Chi65]

Why don't you blame Inwood then?. . .its interesting anyhow, who influences whom and how. . .and builds up enemy-pictures, as only one example.
Now its the others only, funny. . .
I happen to know, that the mouths side with moneygivers.

And that is more than wellknown in several mentioned countries, who does in fact invest there, and not just yesterday.

What is so sad, that the contaminated meet, given to own children as "health food" in Japan, will work by iteself in the end. . .I wonder, if the Japanese really know this.
ICR says, the antarctic meat is not contaminated, but. . .all the probes of obviously scientific whaling meat in shops were!

They also state the following loud and clear:
It is important to understand that the treaty that established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is a treaty designed specifically for the conservation of whales in order to make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. It is not a treaty for the total protection of whales.

money, money, money

Oh, and not to forget, Inwood and his norwegian friends, as he says himself. . .

[caster51]

And that is more than wellknown in several mentioned countries, who does in fact invest there, and not just yesterday

why are there so many exception like india , some countries in south Amarica and africa:blush:

[Chi65]

Japan is quite present in south America, for long :-)
They even call them the third or so generation of Japanese. I also met many in of them in Japan. (Not to forget the former Japanese president of Peru there!)
Same in the carribean region.

See this and according countries:

http://web-japan.org/links/foreign/central/central.html

About India, I don't know yet since when. But it can be found out easily.

Here we go:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/india/index.html

All clear?