Date published: 2006/06/11
The BBC says:
Pro-whaling nations look set to command a majority of the votes when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) annual meeting begins on Friday.
Several countries which appear likely to vote with the pro-whaling bloc have joined the body in recent weeks.
UK marine affairs minister Ben Bradshaw said he is "very concerned".
A pro-whaling majority could lead to the scrapping of conservation and welfare programmes, though not a return to full-scale commercial whaling.
That would need three-quarters of the delegates to vote in favour, which is extremely unlikely.
But a simple majority would be enough to end IWC work on issues which Japan believes to be outside its remit, such as welfare and killing methods, whale-watching and anything concerning small cetaceans such as dolphins.
...
Formed in 1946, the IWC's original purpose was to regulate commercial whaling; and after it became obvious that some species were being depleted to the verge of extinction, that regulation took the most robust form possible: a global moratorium.Norway made a formal objection to the ban and has continued to hunt, though catching radically fewer numbers than a century ago. Japan, and more recently Iceland, hunt under an IWC ruling which allows nations to catch whales for "scientific research".
Both have stepped up the size of their annual hunts in recent years, with the 2006 catch on target to exceed 2,000, the largest take since the introduction of the moratorium in 1986.
Pro-whaling nations insist that a limited return to commercial hunting is possible; stocks of some species are high enough, they maintain, charging that the IWC has become an organisation dedicated to preventing whaling, contrary to its purpose.
At the IWC's foundation is supposed to be sound science; arguments such as which stocks are sufficiently robust to hunt are in theory answered on a strict scientific basis.
But there are huge variations in estimates of minke whales, the species currently most hunted, which makes it almost impossible to set global catch limits.
The scientific process has also become mired in politics, with decade-long discussions on a mechanism called the Revised Management Scheme, designed to facilitate a return to limited commercial whaling, breaking down earlier this year.
...
Whatever the moral rights and wrongs, it seems like that after years of trying the pro-whaling bloc may have built itself a working majority this time.The run-up to each IWC meeting sees the opposing groups of nations trying to bring supportive new members into the organisation.
The Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Cambodia have reportedly joined in recent weeks at Japan's behest.
But an accurate tally will only be possible when the Commission convenes on Friday in St Kitts; only then will it become clear which countries have sent delegates and paid their subscriptions, entitling them to vote.
"[The pro-whaling nations] had a majority last year on paper," said Ben Bradshaw, "but because some of their allies failed to turn up or pay their dues we won all the votes - but one of them by only one vote."
Whaling is one of those issues where common sense and tolerance have long since been removed from the argument. The pro-whalers want to hunt, and the anti-whalers want to stop it, both more for "religious" than for "scientific" reasons.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").