APPENDIX 11 ARTICLE BY ROBBINS BARSTOW PUBLISHED IN WHALES ETCETERA ENTITLED "SAVE THE WHALE: SAVE THE IWC," VOLUME 1, 1985 Save the Whale: Save the IWC Robbins Barstow Reprinted with permission from WHALES ETCETERA, Volume I, 1985, a publication of the Connecticut Cetacean Society. The International Whaling Commission is currently the only organization capable of protecting, conserving, and managing the great whales of the planet on a global basis. Without the IWC, humankind's common heritage of the world's largest living creatures would be permanently at risk, subject to unregulated exploitation and potential extintion. For this reason, concerned citizens and leaders of all nations must agree to adopt immediately as a high priority goal the preservation of the IWC. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed at Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1946, by representatives of 15 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. These governments, "recognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks," agreed to establish an International Whaling Commission, "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry." Since 1946, many additional countries, large and small, have also recognized their stake in global whale conservation and joined the IWC. There are now some 40 member nations, representing the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the earth. At its annual meeting in 1982, by a vote of 25-7, the IWC adopted a regulation providing that: "Catch limits for the killing for commerical purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits." (IWC Schedule, Section 10, Subsection (e)) Japan, Norway, and the U.S.S.R. have filed formal objections to this regulation and therefore, under the provisions of the Treaty itself, are not legally bound to adhere to this moratorium on all commerical whaling when it is scheduled to go into effect in 1986. It is still fervently hoped that moral, political, and economic pressures, and a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind," will lead these three nations to withdraw their objections before the moratorium's effective date. But meanwhile the big question has become: "Does the end of whaling mean the end of the IWC?" The answer must be an emphatic "No!" The International Whaling Commission must continue to serve as the international organization primarily responsible for the conservation, management, and study of the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks. It must be recognized and supported more than ever as the one, indispensable, global body "to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources." (Convention, Article V, Subsection 2 (a)) In point of fact, the 1982 moratorium resolution itself requires the continuance of the IWC for four specific purposes: (1) monitoring the moratorium; (2) keeping the provisions under review, "based upon the best scientific evidence"; (3) undertaking, by 1990 at the latest, a "comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks"; and (4) considering "modification" of this provision and the establishment of catch limits other than zero at future dates. It should also be pointed out that even if Japan, Norway, and/or Russia do not withdraw their filed objections to the moratorium, they are bound by the Treaty and its implementing rules to report to the IWC, "within two days after the end of each calendar week" when whaling, data on the number of "whales by species taken, as well as other data required by the Schedule" in accordance with the provisions of Article VII of the Convention." (IWC Schedule, Section 26, Subsection (a)) Moreover, even with the moratorium on commercial whaling fully in effect, the IWC remains responsible for monitoring: (1) aboriginal subsistence whaling, such as gray whales taken in the North Pacific (USSR), humpback whales taken in Greenland waters (Denmark), and bowhead whales taken from the Bering Sea Stock (USA) (IWC Schedule, Section 13), and (2) whaling carried out "for purposes of scientific research" under special permits granted by any Contracting Government (Convention, Article VIII, and Schedule, Section 30). There are also many other compelling reasons for maintaining an active and viable International Whaling Commission on a permanent basis for the foreseeable future. Some of these are spelled out in the original 1946 Convention, which still holds good. They include: (1) "studies and investigations relating to whales and whaling," either independently or "in collaboration with or through independent agencies of the Contracting Governments or other public or private agencies, establishments, or organizations" (Convention, Article IV, Section 1); (2) the publication of reports of IWC activities, as well as "statistical, scientific, and other pertinent information relating to whales and whaling" (Convention, Article IV, Section 2); (3) receipt of reports which the Convention provides that "each Contracting Government shall transmit, . . . at intervals of not more than one year," concerning "scientific information available to the Government with respect to whales and whaling" (Convention, Article VIII, Section 3); and (4) receipt of information which the Convention provides that "each Contracting Government shall transmit" regarding "full details of each infraction of the provisions of this Convention by persons or vessels under the jurisdiction of that Government as reported by its inspectors" (Convention, Article IX, Section 4). For the above purposes, Annual Meetings of representatives of all Contracting Governments are imperative. Also imperative are annual meetings of the Scientific Committee of the IWC, which generally have preceded the formal IWC sessions, and which are attended primarily by scientists appointed by their respective governments. The Scientific Committee reviews reports and other materials being presented to the IWC, provides invaluable analyses, and makes recommendations to the IWC itself. The advisory role of the Scientific Committee is indispensable to the future of both whales and the IWC. Further obligations of the IWC already established include a "general review" of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary, set up in 1979 for a ten-year period, and the provision of expertise on matters related to whales for other international organizations. Both CITES (Endangered Species) and CCAMLR (Antarctica), for example, specifically call for input from the IWC. Also, the IWC is a focal point for the implementation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Marine Mammal Conservation Plan. In addition to the foregoing, increasing consideration has been given in recent years to the possible need for the IWC to fulfill important functions in new or extended areas of global concern. IWC meetings have discussed issues such as the "non-consumptive utilization of cetacean resources," the study and management of small cetaceans, ecosystem approaches to whale conservation, and environmental quality and pollution of the seas. These areas of possible further involvement hold the potential for significant benefit for member nations in years to come. At its June 1984 Annual Meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, the IWC agreed to set up a "Working Group on the Future Activities of the IWC." A preliminary meeting of this group was held in Cambridge, United Kingdom, 12-14 February 1985, and it will meet again just prior to the 1985 Annual Meeting of the IWC in Bournemouth, United Kingdom, in July 1985. All those who care about whales on this water planet should hope and pray that the results of this group's deliberations will be positive, and that they will be supported by member governments. The future of the International Whaling Commission must be sustained. WHALES ETCETERA Connecticut Cetacean Society Wethersfield, CT 06109 APPENDIX 12 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INSERT BY REPRESENTATIVE BONKER ENTITLED "WHALE PROTECTION WILL BE ENHANCED THROUGH THE GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENT WITH JAPAN," DECEMBER 9, 1982. APPENDIXES TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INSERT INCLUDE A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 3, 1982, FROM HON. CHARLES H. PERCY, A FORMER SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND HON. BOB PACKWOOD, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON, TO HON. KENNETH DAM, ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS, REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED STATES-JAPAN GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENT (GIFA); AND A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 4, 1982, FROM HON. Kenneth W. Dam, Acting SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS, TO SENATOR PACKWOOD, REGARDING THE UNITED STATES-JAPAN GIFA WHALE PROTECTION WILL BE ENHANCED THROUGH THE GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENT WITH JAPAN Mr. BONKER. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers H.R. 3942, which contains the new governing international fishery agreement with Japan, I would like to enter into the RECORD two items to amplify and to clarify the legislative history of this GIFA. One is a letter of December 3, from Senator Packwood to the Acting Secretary of State which sets forth concerns that I share about Japan's continuing disrespect for the International Whaling Commission's decisions on commercial whaling. The other is the Acting Secretary of State's response of December 4. At the 1982 IWC meeting, the United States led the conservationist countries to a major victory in the decade-long struggle for increased whale protection: the IWC voted overwhelmingly to place a moratorium on all commercial whaling in 3 years. However, Japan has filed an objection whose purpose is to exempt Japan from compliance with the commercial whaling moratorium. Japan's decision to file an objection demonstrates once again its intent to ignore important whale conservation measures. Last year Japan filed objections to two key IWC provisions banning the use of the cold harpoon and sperm whaling. As the leader of the whaling nations and as the country that has most consistently sought to undermine the IWC's regulations, Japan's requests for fisheries allocations in the U.S. 200-mile zone deserve special scrutiny. I support the GIFA with Japan as providing a sound basis for promoting and enhancing the interests of our domestic fisheries industry. However, I believe that in addition to the needs of our fisheries industry Japans's conduct on whaling should be taken into account when we consider the sharing of our fisheries resources. That is the point of the exchange of letters between Senator Packwood and the State Department. The State Department's letter says, in part: "We are also prepared to use available laws and regulations, beginning this spring, to prevent Japan from thwarting the IWC cessation decision." My understanding of the State Department's letter is that future U.S. Government decisions on fisheries allocations under the GIFA will depend upon whether Japan decides to abide by the IWC's regulations and withdraw the objection it filed to the 3-year deferred cessation of commercial whaling. Mr. Speaker, the administration's commitment to consider Japan's conduct on whaling when allocating our fisheries resources under the GIFA will strengthen our country's longstanding pledge to support whale protection efforts. The letter follows: U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Hon. KENNETH Dam, DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In our letter of August 31, 1982, to Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige, signed by 66 U.S. Senators, we called for the United States to strive vigorously to prevent whaling nations from filing objections against the IWC decision to impose a moratorium on commercial whaling beginning in 1986. "If we succeed in preventing objections against the IWC cessation decision," the letter concludes, "we will avoid a period of tension and uncertainty with respect to fisheries. This will permit U.S. fishermen and processors to conclude fishing agreements which promote the interests of the majority of citizens, including fishermen from both whaling and non-whaling countries Unfortunately, objections have now been filed by several nations. The period of "tension and uncertainty (in) our relations with whaling nations with respect to fisheries," which we had hoped to avoid, is clearly upon us. However, despite the fact that the largest whaling nations have already filed objections, we do not feel that acceptance by all nations of the cessation decision is necessarily unobtainable. Paragraph five of our August 31 letter urges that "In addition to a clear statement on the Pelly and Packwood amendments . . . (the U.S.). assure the whaling nations that other means available to us to reinforce the IWC will not be ignored. For example, the allocation process within FCMA provides ample discretion to adjust allocations (either up or down) in response to a wide spectrum of U.S. objectives and concerns. This means of lending substance to U.S. policy on whaling should certainly be considered. GIFA's under FCMA are, of course, another area subject to review by Congress.' In the case of Japan, we note that the decision to object was made during the final weeks of a "lame duck" government, after intense internal debates. The incoming government is committed to improving relations with the United States. The incoming regime may be induced to reconsider the prior government's objection to promote improvement in Japanese-United States relations. The intense nervousness among Japanese officials, the Japanese fishing industry, and the Japanese press over fisheries relations with the United States, makes it inevitable that the new Japanese GIFA, and allocations to be made under the GIFA, will be very much on the minds of Japan's new leaders as they review the whaling policy adopted by the previous regime. The U.S. Senate and House are currently in the process of reviewing the GIFA within the 60 days provided by FCMA. As you know, the current GIFA will expire before this 60-day period has elapsed which makes action during the "lame duck" session imperative. Given the intense public concern over whaling reflected in the August 31 letter, our conclusions with respect to the GIFA cannot be entirely divorced from the whaling question. It is necessary for us before reaching any final conclusion on the GIFA, to have a clear statement on whether the Administration is willing to use measures such as those mentioned in paragraph 5 of our August 31, letter to Secretary Baldridge (referenced earlier in this letter). In making this statement we realize that any use of these measures must only be done after full consideration of the likely effect on the United States fishing industry. It is not our intent that this policy result in harm to this very critical sector of the American economy. Lastly, we must stress the time constraints we face on this issue. Due to the pending expiration of the Japanese GIFA, it is crucial that this issue be resolved during the "lame duck" session. Therefore, we must ask that your response to this inquiry be recieved by December 8 at the very latest. Any delay past that point could well threaten our ability to ensure action on the GIFA diring the "lame duck" session. Cordially, Hon. BOB PACKWOOD, CHARLES H. PERCY. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 4, 1982. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing with regard to the United States-Japan Governing International Fisheries Agreement (GIFA) which is before the current special session of Congress for approval. As you know, we strongly advocate approval of the GIFA at the current session. The Agreement should be approved on its own merits. It will provide substantial and direct benefits to the United States fishing industry. At the same time, we share your commitment to the full and effective implementation of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) decison providing for a cessation of commercial whaling. It is our intention to use the means at our disposal to secure this objective. In this regard, however, we believe that disapproval of or fail |