IWC puts off key decisions on future whaling
Updated
There has been a reprieve for Japan at the International Whaling Commission. Delegates at the week-long IWC meeting in Santiago, Chile, have agreed to buy more time before any decisions are made on the resumption of commercial hunting. The future of the whaling body itself is also on hold, with IWC delegates agreeing to set up a working group over the next 12 months.
Presenter:Rob Sharp
Speaker: Sarah Clarke, environment reporter
CLARKE: The working group that there are 20 members of this working group which include Japan and Australia and they've simply got 12 months to report back to the IWC at its next meeting which is in Portugal next year. How it will operate, we don't know. The terms of references have not been dictated. We've had very little time with discussions on the floor today to establish how this will work. But what they are saying is that these key members of this working group can contribute by offering ways they believe that the IWC can move forward. But when I say that Australia will introduce proposals, where they believe the regulatory body should look at conservation laws. So and obviously as a whaling body, obviously Japan's going to present its case, which it believes should be more of a whaling body, looking at actually hunting, rather than conservation. So exactly where this actual working group will achieve, no-one knows and there is concern it may be actually nothing. It's just simply a delaying procedure.
SHARP: Doesn't it effectively mean though Sarah, for Japan at least, it's another 12 month delay and another 1,000 whales?
CLARKE: It does, that's exactly what some of the concerns from the environmental groups is simply we've got 12 months of delaying procedures whereby Japan can again go ahead with its scientific whaling. Yes you're right, it's another 1,000 whales protecting more in its annual scientific research program over summer. And that's the concern that's been raised by some countries. Yet other countries like including Australia, Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, said well, we've had no agenda or changes in the past. This is an historic step forward in that we can get these two opponents at the table and we may have more action or more of a productive gain by actually having a working group compared to say the results in previous years.
SHARP: There's also been a change to voting rights. What does that exactly mean?
CLARKE: Look, the voting rights, that's interesting. That was a development today whereby new members cannot actually have voting rights just 30 days after they joined. So these new rules don't come into affect until next year. Now some green groups and some conservationists have said this is a positive step, because countries simply can't join the day before, and then suddenly have voting rights and be able to vote say with Japan on key votes. But then again it may just mean Japan gets more organised and can actually encourage countries to join say a month, two months before the meeting begins. So it's an interesting change and in terms of reference in the way the IWC will operate.
SHARP: Australia has been accused of refusing to budge on anything at the IWC meeting, heading to the negotiating table effectively I guess with nothing to offer Sarah. Is Australia a lone voice out there? How does Australia sit with the rest of the region?
CLARKE: Well compared to recent years, Australia is obviously continuing its complete opposition to any form of whaling. We haven't seen or heard much from New Zealand. New Zealand said it is opposed any form of commercial whaling, but suggestions have been made that a compromise deal could be in Australia's interests whereby if Japan agrees to stop scientific whaling, therefore and in return, Japan then was able to coastal whale, this would be a compromise deal that would kill less whales each year. But Australia says it will not compromise. It will not agree to any form of whaling and certainly the resumption of whaling allowed. But other countries like New Zealand, very specific countries have been very quiet, but of course this year we don't have votes. There are no resolutions, there have been less discussion on the floor. The rules have changed. It has been a very quiet discussion this year.
SHARP: How important is the region then in the overall voting process when votes do take place?
CLARKE: Well, if there are no votes, it seems to be the case of the numbers being on other side, it's less relevant. We haven't heard any discussion from the Pacific countries this time round, simply because there has been no reason to. In the past, various proposals or resolutions are put to the floor and countries declare their position, whereas this year, not only have we had long lunch breaks and long morning teas and less discussion, more private meetings, but there have been no votes, which means that countries don't necessarily have to declare their position.
SHARP: I guess Japan has a sense of respectability while they are under the IWC's umbrella. Now, if they step outside that, what sort of credibility would Japan have?
CLARKE: I think it would be a diplomatically a wrong step and I think a lot of countries would agree with that. It's agreed this year so far to stay within the IWC because it sees at least this debate moving forward. At the moment, there is a stalemate. There has been for a number of years here. And every year, Japan threatens to walk away from the IWC. It would not be in its best interest to walk away diplomatically, if you look at the past couple of years, there are in enough trouble as it is I should say. You have got Australia and New Zealand and the United Kingdom and the United States often kind of raising the anti against Japan. I think if Japan did walk away, and did start or resume whaling and overturned in a global moratorium in commercial whaling, it would be frowned upon.
