TL: MEDIA BRIEFING - WHALERS' CUNNING SCHEMES TO BE RESISTED SO: GREEPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: JUNE, 1997 Japan and Norway, the world's `whaling dissidents', are trying to create contradictions between CITES and the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Acceptance of the proposals they have submitted to the CITES conference would thwart efforts fully to implement the moratorium on commercial whaling. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF WHALES? The world's richest populations, the Antarctic baleen whales, may serve as an example of the whale's fate. They were devastated one by one in the course of this century (see box), in order of value: the blues first, then the fin whales, etc. Warnings were voiced, but consistently ignored. BOX Antarctic whales, before and after... Species Before whaling After whaling Blue whale 250,000 1,000 Fin whale 500,000 20,000 Sei whale 180,000 40,000 Humpback 100,000 12,000 (Figures are best estimates available, accurate to plus or minus 50 percent, and even less accurate for the most depleted species) END OF BOX WHAT HAS THE IWC DONE FOR WHALES? The IWC was established in 1946 in an attempt to bring the situation under control. `The history of whaling has seen overfishing of one area after another and one species of whale after another,' the IWC founders wrote, `to such a degree that it is essential to protect all species of whales from further overfishing.' A fine pledge, but the IWC was no match for a thriving industry. Serious attempts at management and conservation did not begin until the 1970s. In 1986, the IWC's moratorium came into effect and zero catch limits were imposed on all species. Norway, however, filed a formal reservation, so that their continuing whaling operations are not in direct breach of the ban. Japan filed an objection, but later withdrew it. In 1994, the IWC declared a large whaling sanctuary in a fairly extensive area all around Antarctica, by a vote of 23 to 1. Again, Japan lodged an official objection. At the moment, a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) is being developed, which could in due time enable the IWC to allot non-zero quotas for certain species in certain areas of the world. WHAT DOES CITES SAY ABOUT WHALES? CITES Resolution 2.9, passed in 1979, recommends that no international trade take place in whales that are protected by the IWC. The CITES Convention requires co- ordination of management measures between CITES and the IWC. Since the IWC instituted its moratorium on commercial whaling, all great whales have been listed on Appendix I. WHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED IN HARARE? Japan has proposed to repeal Resolution 2.9. It has also proposed to shift several populations of three whale species from Appendix I to Appendix II: the minke whale in the Okhotsk Sea, the Western Pacific and the Southern Hemisphere, Bryde's whale in the Western North Pacific and the grey whale in the Eastern Pacific. In the same vein, Norway has proposed to downlist the North Atlantic minke whale. WHAT HAPPENS IF RESOLUTION 2.9 IS REVOKED? A repeal of Resolution 2.9 will allow international trade in whales whose capture is forbidden by the IWC, thereby bringing CITES and the IWC into conflict with one another. It could bring pressure on the IWC to comply with the whaling nations' moves to reopen commercial whaling. Moreover, in its proposal, Japan implies that there should be no protection for species that are still abundant. This is in contradiction to both IWC and CITES guidelines, which seek to maintain or create a safe margin between the current population level of a given species and the danger zone. BUT AREN'T THERE SUFFICIENT WHALES ANYWAY? Since whales uniquely have their own, widely recognised international authority for conservation and exploitation matters, the IWC, CITES should adhere to its policies. The whaling industry has always said that there are sufficient whales but the history of whaling indicates that great caution should be exercised. The IWC commands the best scientific expertise and most reliable statistics available, and is preparing a management scheme for commercial whaling. Discussions about whaling must wait until the IWC has agreed that the moratorium can be lifted. ISN'T DOWNLISTING-WITH-ZERO-QUOTAS A NICE COMPROMISE? The CITES Secretariat has proposed to accept Japan's and Norway's downlisting proposals, but attach a zero trade quota to each of the populations concerned. Not only would such a move be in stark contradiction to the downlisting criteria which were agreed at the last CITES conference, it would also pose a threat for the future. Whereas downlisting is subject to the well-specified conservation criteria just mentioned, CITES has no such guidance for quota-setting, which leaves the door wide open for the zero-quota to be increased later. Even worse, a technicality in the CITES rules implies that the zero quota would not apply to Norway - it would be free to export all whales it caught, even though they are caught under an objection. Japan would be free to import and market whales caught on the high seas provided they claimed that the catches were for scientific study. Greenpeace strongly urges the CITES parties to refrain from any move towards allowing the trade in whale products, so as not to undermine existing protection for whales or the moratorium imposed by the IWC. Also, CITES's own downlisting criteria unequivocally militate against shifting whales to Appendix II. For further details see the official Greenpeace submission to the CITES conference.