2004 IWC report - pg 2

Acting Chair for this year's meeting was US Delegation Commissioner, Rolland Schmitten, preparing for the Opening Day of Plenary. Photo courtesy International Wildlife Coalition

But they're still very much on the US Navy's sonar. The Scientific Committee report, "Environmental Concerns," began with a rundown of the "Mini-Symposium on Acoustics" that was formed after last year's IWC meeting. The Scientific Committee "noted the importance of the emergent threat of anthropogenic [man-made] sound to cetaceans and other elements of marine ecosystems (e.g., fishes, pinnipeds)..." The first seven pages (of the 41-page document) were devoted to acoustic impacts on marine life. The document ended with no fewer than 22 recommendations involving the use of high-intensity, mid-frequency military sonar, seismic oil and gas surveying, possible mitigation measures, and increased multi-national research efforts. This detailed concern for noise pollution in the marine environment was unprecedented at the IWC and it signals the rising global awareness of the harmful effects of loud, underwater noise. In fact, in October 2004, the European Parliament voted 441 to 15 to urge member nations to curtail use of active sonar in European waters, and to create a multinational task force regarding sonar and other anthropogenic noise..

Japan continued to try to win any way it could, from the aforementioned vote-buying, to the blatant disregard of the Commission's repeated resolutions decrying the so-called "scientific whaling" Japan conducts each year in the Antarctic and the western north Pacific. This year, Japan presented two new proposed Schedule Amendments, both of which were defeated, that would have given them a quota of 150 Bryde's and 150 minke whales. Of course, Japan knew both would be defeated because a ¾ majority is required for any changes to the Schedule and neither the pro- nor anti-whaling factions had enough votes to carry a ¾ majority. Lightheartedly quipping "we never give up," Japan, for the 16th year in a row, presented its resolution to "alleviate the continued difficulties caused by the cessation of minke whaling to the communities of Abashiri, Ayukawa, Wadaura and Taiji" (known as "community-based whaling," a new category of commercial whaling under the Schedule). After the US assisted with amending the wording to make it more palatable, this resolution was passed by consensus!

While the Japanese and other pro-whaling delegations applauded this outcome, I sat in stunned silence, perhaps naively, (1) at the complicity of the US in achieving this moral victory for Japan and (2) at the fact that no vote was taken but merely passed by consensus. I suspected that this was the strategy all along; in order for the US to get Japan off its back on the bowhead quota, the US was obliged to help get this resolution passed for Japan. One way to do that was to try for a consensus passage rather than go for an actual vote when they were lacking the necessary ¾ majority. Interestingly, on the last day of Plenary during a lively but respectful private discussion about the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) and how the US seemed to be "fast-tracking" its adoption, out of the blue Commissioner Hogarth said, "we don't have an ulterior motive," and "it has nothing to do with making a deal for the bowhead." Considering that this subject hadn't been broached by anyone, the timing of his statement was revealing, coming as it did on the heels of the US helping Japan get its community-based whaling resolution passed. Of course, this is pure speculation on my part, but as the old adage goes, actions speak louder than words.

The US suffered a credibility gap with NGOs and other delegations on the issue of the RMS, an instrument that has been contentiously debated for 13 years and must be ratified before the moratorium on commercial whaling can be lifted. Despite assurances from Commissioner Hogarth that the US would never support the lifting of the moratorium and that this administration is anti-whaling, there was a prevailing perception that the US's co-sponsorship of this year's proposed resolution will expedite the finalization of the RMS. Commissioner Hogarth responded that co-sponsorship ensured that the US would have a seat at the table for drafting of the final language for presentation at next year's IWC meeting. ACS has never believed that ratification of the RMS would automatically lead to a lifting of the moratorium (and indeed most like-minded countries share this position), but we do continue to believe that any version of the RMS must be as strongly worded as possible to ensure compliance.

 More