1 / 15

Future of Whaling, 17 March 2010

The Future of the IWC and Norwegian and Japanese Whaling. Jennifer L. Bailey Professor Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Future of Whaling, 17 March 2010. The issue.

jiro
Download Presentation

Future of Whaling, 17 March 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Future of the IWC and Norwegian and Japanese Whaling Jennifer L. BaileyProfessorNorwegian University of Science and Technology Future of Whaling, 17 March 2010

  2. The issue • The IWC adopted a ”pause” (aka as the ”moratorium”) in commercial whaling adopted in 1982, to take effect after 1985/6 season. • Highly disputed -- attempts to end the pause have thus far failed • An increasing amount of whaling is taking place outside of the IWC • Whaling under objection • Research whaling

  3. Does the IWC have a future? • Many see the IWC as dysfunctional • Disagreement over mission • Work hindered (RMS not approved) • Frequently hostile tone to procedings • Does not manage most whaling occuring today • Some talk of pulling out of the organization • Will the impasse over the ”moratorium” kill the organization?

  4. Note • Three kinds of whaling are recognized: • Aborigianal Subsistance Whaling • Commercial Whaling • Research or Special Permit Whaling • This lecture discusses only Commercial Whaling and Research Whaling • The whaling carried out by Japan, Norway and Iceland is legal according to the ICRW • Whaling under objection and research whaling • Misgivings about Iceland

  5. The attempt to reform the IWC • Serious, long-term effort began in 2007 • Much time, money and attention expended • A draft ”consensus decision” has been produced • Will it be given a chance?

  6. What is needed to achieve a deal? • Recognition from key parties that reaching a compromise is in their interests • Mutual respect • A balanced proposal that calls for compromise from all parties

  7. All should have an interest in a viable IWC • For those who oppose lifting the moratorium (at present or at all) • Whales are being taken despite the moratorium – now over 2009+ whales yearly • Whaling occurs largely outside of purview of IWC • IWC is the only authoritative body for regulation (or a ban) • IWC’s diverse membership adds legitimacy

  8. Interest: Whaling States • Impasse can be seen as serving short term interests • Japan, Norway and Iceland set own terms for whaling • (CITES restrictions have an impact here, but are outside this lecture) • Long term disadvantages • Undermines global governance in general –bad example • Undermines international reputations • Opens the door to others who wish to whale • Ultimately risks reverting to days of no regulation

  9. What to do? • Build mutual respect among the parties • Build a good compromise

  10. Building mutual respect • Recognize that all key parties share: • Acknowledge that whales are not just commodities • Non-scientific arguments • Strong engagement/passion on the issue • Knowledge – and the lack of it.

  11. A real compromise: The draft ”consensus decision” • A draft only • ”Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” • All must make concessions but get real benefits: • Pro-moratorium parties • Get • A very strong management regime • A reduction in numbers of whales taken • Whale sanctuary in South Atlantic • Whaling limited to those already doing so • Strong recognition of non-lethal uses for whaling • Must accept • Principle of commercial whaling

  12. Whaling states and whalers • Get: • Openly commercial whaling for duration of agreement • Confirmation of the principle of commercial whaling • Condemnation of risky sea protest activites (Safety at Sea) • Must accept: • Temporary Suspension of ”research whaling”, ”objection category • South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary (principle?) • Lower quotas

  13. A suggestion -- • Why not limit whaling exclusively to whaling for human consumption?

  14. This is a 5-10 year plan • ”Moratorium” remains in place • Research and objection whaling provisions remain in place • Duration of 10 years, but review after 5

  15. A decisive moment • Much rhetoric on whaling • Who means what they say? • As the leading whaling states, Japan and Norway have a special responsibility • Historical legacy of whaling looms large

More Related