Saturday, June 25, 2005
Whales and ICRW
Campbell’s tirade was passionate and remorseless, but was it justified?
Undoubtedly, food was an important product of the whaling industry in the early 20th century, but its primary purpose was in the production of oil. Until the widespread production of crude oil in the latter half of the 19th century, most house that were lit or heated by whale oil. For this reason, many species of whale were hunted to near extinction, before the signing of the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling in 1937 and the inauguration of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, in 1946.
The purpose of the agreement is explicit; the preamble shows that it was not about protecting whales, but rebuilding a ‘natural resource’ for future orderly exploitation.
To protect future whale resources, it was understood and agreed that only the regulation of hunting would save certain species of whales and sanctuaries and moratoriums were required to protect feeding and calving areas.
The Convention also established funding mechanisms for the scientific research into whale populations. This research has been carried out diligently and with great success, considering some species of whale spend their entire lives in oceanic waters and travel many thousands of miles per year.
But the purpose of this research was to capture enough information to allow an informed decision on when the hunting of whales could recommence.
Again, the notion that whales were a ‘resource’, to be used sustainably was underlined when a new management policy was agreed, designed to “bring stocks to levels providing the greatest long-term harvests.”
In 1982, the Commission agreed that the commercial take of whales should pause from 1984/85, with the twin exceptions that Aboriginal hunting and a take for scientific studies could continue, within set quotas, until it could be established that numbers were back to a regenerative level.
Since then, the key messages of the original agreement from 1936 have been lost. There is now a widespread view that whales are completely and indefinitely protected and the Japanese are cruel itinerants to the agreement. So it would surprise many to learn that hunting is merely in abeyance, until such time as we can get back to work.
The reason for the discrepancy between public opinion and the realities of the Convention’s agreement is the success of the environment movement – and Greenpeace in particular – in promoting the complete and indefinite protection of all whales. But while Greenpeace has successfully shaped public opinion, the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling still stands.
Japan’s current take of whales, under the pretence of scientific research, is a sham. Japan knows this, the rest of the world knows this. This is why Japan recently sought amendments to the management regime to recommence the legal commercial hunting of whales.
Their motion was defeated and their plan suffered two further blows when the Australian delegation sponsored and won a vote on a non-binding resolution to condemn the Japanese scientific take followed by the defeat of Japan’s request to increase their scientific take. Australia spearheaded the ‘no change’ caucus from a passionate and entrenched perspective, but due to the binding agreements of the ICRW, could only argue for the continued ban based on scientific findings. There could be no moral argument within the bounds of the current treaty.
But are the Japanese justified? Should we recommence the commercial take of whales, surely a natural resource much like any wild fish stock? A wealth of information has been obtained on whale numbers, breeding habits and on the sustainability of stocks. Indeed, the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee probably has a better understanding of whale stocks than any other body has a handle on any other resource from the ocean. We are better equipped and able to carry out sustainable whaling than ever before.
But the world now consumes some 79 million barrels of oil per day. Hunting whales for oil once again would have zero impact on our current crude supply crisis. While a number of boutique oil based products could be produced from whale oil, this cannot be a reason to recommence hunting. On a local scale, provision is made for an indigenous take from the wild for the production of combustible oils, but this must continue to be closely regulated.
The dinner table – on which the majority of the Japanese scientific take ends up – is a more likely possibility, but again, the numbers involved would make an infinitesimal difference to the imbalance of global food stocks. 60 years ago, in many parts of the world, food supply, rather than distribution, may well have been an issue but in this globalised world, hunger is solely a factor of food distribution. So again, whale product could only be a boutique commodity. A small indigenous (“Aboriginal” is the word used) take is sustainable, and currently carried out quite legally, under one of the two exceptions to the moratorium on the commercial hunting of whales agreed in 1986.
The most sustainable ‘use’ of the whale lies in tourism. No doubt over-inquisitive tourist boats interfere with the behaviour of whales to a certain extent (and thus probably impact on whale populations), but this must be infinitely better than sending explosive harpoon heads into their backs, breaking up their complex social groups and mucking around with the ecology of the oceans.
Before the signing of the Convention in 1946, an unregulated commercial whaling industry took many species of whale to near extinction. Since then, there has been countless other examples of wild animal ‘resources’ being driven to extinction or at best, decimation, from which they probably will not recover. In many cases, this is despite regulation and quotas. Only regimes of absolute and indefinite protection have saved species such as the African Elephant, the Siberian Tiger, the Black Rhino or the Himalayan Snow Leopard.
Most of the world does not need to hunt whales today and it is doubtful they ever will again. At the current meeting of the Commission, Senator Campbell had to scratch around for the right words during his emotive plea for continuing the moratorium, as it had to be couched in scientific terms. But surely now whether we hunt whales or not is a moral issue and the time has come to lay the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling to rest. A new comprehensive treaty on the protection of whales must be negotiated.
Whales and ICRW
Posted by Living with Matilda at 5:14 PM
Campbell’s tirade was passionate and remorseless, but was it justified?
Undoubtedly, food was an important product of the whaling industry in the early 20th century, but its primary purpose was in the production of oil. Until the widespread production of crude oil in the latter half of the 19th century, most house that were lit or heated by whale oil. For this reason, many species of whale were hunted to near extinction, before the signing of the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling in 1937 and the inauguration of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, in 1946.
The purpose of the agreement is explicit; the preamble shows that it was not about protecting whales, but rebuilding a ‘natural resource’ for future orderly exploitation.
"Recognising the interests of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks;
Recognising that the whale stocks are susceptible to natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources;
Having decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."
To protect future whale resources, it was understood and agreed that only the regulation of hunting would save certain species of whales and sanctuaries and moratoriums were required to protect feeding and calving areas.
The Convention also established funding mechanisms for the scientific research into whale populations. This research has been carried out diligently and with great success, considering some species of whale spend their entire lives in oceanic waters and travel many thousands of miles per year.
But the purpose of this research was to capture enough information to allow an informed decision on when the hunting of whales could recommence.
Again, the notion that whales were a ‘resource’, to be used sustainably was underlined when a new management policy was agreed, designed to “bring stocks to levels providing the greatest long-term harvests.”
In 1982, the Commission agreed that the commercial take of whales should pause from 1984/85, with the twin exceptions that Aboriginal hunting and a take for scientific studies could continue, within set quotas, until it could be established that numbers were back to a regenerative level.
Since then, the key messages of the original agreement from 1936 have been lost. There is now a widespread view that whales are completely and indefinitely protected and the Japanese are cruel itinerants to the agreement. So it would surprise many to learn that hunting is merely in abeyance, until such time as we can get back to work.
The reason for the discrepancy between public opinion and the realities of the Convention’s agreement is the success of the environment movement – and Greenpeace in particular – in promoting the complete and indefinite protection of all whales. But while Greenpeace has successfully shaped public opinion, the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling still stands.
Japan’s current take of whales, under the pretence of scientific research, is a sham. Japan knows this, the rest of the world knows this. This is why Japan recently sought amendments to the management regime to recommence the legal commercial hunting of whales.
Their motion was defeated and their plan suffered two further blows when the Australian delegation sponsored and won a vote on a non-binding resolution to condemn the Japanese scientific take followed by the defeat of Japan’s request to increase their scientific take. Australia spearheaded the ‘no change’ caucus from a passionate and entrenched perspective, but due to the binding agreements of the ICRW, could only argue for the continued ban based on scientific findings. There could be no moral argument within the bounds of the current treaty.
But are the Japanese justified? Should we recommence the commercial take of whales, surely a natural resource much like any wild fish stock? A wealth of information has been obtained on whale numbers, breeding habits and on the sustainability of stocks. Indeed, the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee probably has a better understanding of whale stocks than any other body has a handle on any other resource from the ocean. We are better equipped and able to carry out sustainable whaling than ever before.
But the world now consumes some 79 million barrels of oil per day. Hunting whales for oil once again would have zero impact on our current crude supply crisis. While a number of boutique oil based products could be produced from whale oil, this cannot be a reason to recommence hunting. On a local scale, provision is made for an indigenous take from the wild for the production of combustible oils, but this must continue to be closely regulated.
The dinner table – on which the majority of the Japanese scientific take ends up – is a more likely possibility, but again, the numbers involved would make an infinitesimal difference to the imbalance of global food stocks. 60 years ago, in many parts of the world, food supply, rather than distribution, may well have been an issue but in this globalised world, hunger is solely a factor of food distribution. So again, whale product could only be a boutique commodity. A small indigenous (“Aboriginal” is the word used) take is sustainable, and currently carried out quite legally, under one of the two exceptions to the moratorium on the commercial hunting of whales agreed in 1986.
The most sustainable ‘use’ of the whale lies in tourism. No doubt over-inquisitive tourist boats interfere with the behaviour of whales to a certain extent (and thus probably impact on whale populations), but this must be infinitely better than sending explosive harpoon heads into their backs, breaking up their complex social groups and mucking around with the ecology of the oceans.
Before the signing of the Convention in 1946, an unregulated commercial whaling industry took many species of whale to near extinction. Since then, there has been countless other examples of wild animal ‘resources’ being driven to extinction or at best, decimation, from which they probably will not recover. In many cases, this is despite regulation and quotas. Only regimes of absolute and indefinite protection have saved species such as the African Elephant, the Siberian Tiger, the Black Rhino or the Himalayan Snow Leopard.
Most of the world does not need to hunt whales today and it is doubtful they ever will again. At the current meeting of the Commission, Senator Campbell had to scratch around for the right words during his emotive plea for continuing the moratorium, as it had to be couched in scientific terms. But surely now whether we hunt whales or not is a moral issue and the time has come to lay the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling to rest. A new comprehensive treaty on the protection of whales must be negotiated.
Posted by Living with Matilda at 5:14 PM
Disclaimer:
| I am employed by Brisbane City Council. All views expressed in this blog are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer. |
Weasel Word(s) of the day:
From WeaselWords.com.au
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home