IWC 67 Day 4 Statement from Australia

Intervention by Nick Gales Australia Commissioner on Way Forward (Agenda item 12) - Japan's proposal to take steps towards resuming commercial whaling.

Nick Gales (centre), Mike Double (left) and Frank LaMaccia

·         Australia thanks Japan for introducing its proposal on The Way Forward to the Commission.

·         At the start of the week you all heard Australia’s well known and long-standing policy position opposing a resumption of commercial whaling presented by Senator, the Honourable, Anne Ruston.

·         It is not my intent to reiterate our policy, or its very solid foundations, in this intervention.

·         Rather, I will talk to two issues;

·         Firstly I will reflect on what it is we are debating here, and the manner in which we characterise our divergent views.

·         Secondly, I will briefly reflect on the manner in which this proposal has been presented to the Commission and the fundamental issues that it presents us with – irrespective of our views on whaling.

·         So, firstly – to the substance of this debate:

·         What is at stake here is a question of whether or not a commercial enterprise – a business – in this case whaling – should resume again after it was belatedly and appropriate bought to an end after decades of over-exploitation.

·         What remains of the whaling business today is an enterprise that has little - and diminishing - demand for its products, in many cases is reliant on State subsidies and at a global scale has essentially lost its social license.

·         This is NOT a debate about human rights, nor is it a debate about the important subject of global food security.

·         It is a business proposition against which any parties hold legitimate environmental and welfare concerns.

·         Having said that – I fully respect the rights of any Party to this convention to make their case for a resumption of commercial whaling – just as Japan’s proposition is doing here.

·         In return, I ask that the members here today respect my right to represent the Australian policy which opposes any resumption of commercial whaling.

·         Some members have stated that Australia’s clear and strong support for the rights of aboriginal hunters – a policy position I was proud to articulate in yesterday’s historic vote – is at odds with our opposition to the commerce of whaling.

·         It is not. Both positions are long-held by Australia, and both reflect the clear and legitimate elements, including science and the mandate of the Australian people, that inform our policy positions.

·         The answer to the question I have heard posed at this meeting of whether or not the divergent views on commercial whaling can coexist in this organisation is a simple yes:

·         It has ever been thus.

·         Each party enacts its legitimate right to express their views and engage in the IWC’s decision making processes.

·         While debates can be robust the IWC is resilient and continues to deliver on its business of conservation and management.

·         I will move now to the second part of my intervention on the manner in which Japan’s proposition has been bought before us.

·         At IWC66, Japan introduced its proposal to commence informal discussions on the substantive policy differences between Commission members within the IWC. They called this process ‘The Way Forward’.

·         A number of Contracting Parties provided their views on a range of questions posed by Japan and these were provided on an informal, social media site, or, at the request of some members, were distributed in IWC circulars.

·         A little over three months ago Japan submitted their package – also called ‘The Way Forward’: A proposal to this organisation that is unmatched in its scale of ambition since the establishment of the moratorium on commercial whaling 30 years ago.

·         That ‘The Way Forward’ can, in one step, move so rapidly from an informal consultation process to the package Japan presents to us today raises serious questions about the intent of this package and how we can be realistically expected to deal with it.

·         Many of us in this room can recall the lengthy and difficult negotiation process on the Future of the IWC; a process that, despite serious engagement from many IWC members, ended without an outcome that addressed the differences in views on whaling.

·         At the heart of The Future of the IWC was an intent to see if a compromise could be struck between those who sought to resume commercial whaling and those who wished to conserve the world’s whales without the threats of commercial whaling and focus on the many new threats whales and dolphins now face.

·         No compromise proposal was ever agreed.

·         Winding forward nearly ten years and we are presented with a hugely ambitious proposal that seeks to resume commercial whaling; a proposal that presents no element of compromise and a proposal that three months ago took members of the Commission by complete surprise.

·         Despite all this we are asked to accept this proposal by consensus and in its entirety.

·         Not only does such an approach suggest an unwillingness to engage in the type of good faith negotiations we have seen in delivering the ASW Schedule Amendment, but [as we have heard from other speakers] the proposal itself contains so many procedural and legal ambiguities that – irrespective of views on whaling – there is no appropriate mechanism to resolve these within the timeline and with what appears to be largely an ‘all or nothing’ approach we have heard from Japan.

·         Chair, given the stark and uncompromising ambition of this proposal and the manner and rate in which it has been presented to the Commission it is hard to avoid the difficult conclusion that the proposal has been designed and bought forward with the intent and in the clear knowledge it will fail.

·         If such a conclusion is valid, it is not for me to speculate as to why this might be the case.

·         However, I do wish to be clear on what narrative may arise from the discussions on Japan’s proposal if this is the case.  

·         If this proposal fails it is likely that the failure will be as much based on the manner in which the proposal was delivered to the Commission, its legal irregularities and the unworkable procedural changes it proposed as on differences in fundamental positions on commercial whaling.

·         The IWC is functional; it has agreed and workable decision making procedures, it is quite appropriately reviewing its governance arrangements and its decisions reflect the balance of views of the 89 Parties to this Convention.

·         Its Sub-Committees are of the highest international standard and the Commission continues to deliver important and effective outcomes on the conservation and management of whales.

·         Not all Parties can achieve their own primary objectives; we only need to reflect on the patience and tenacity of the proponents of the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary who have failed to see their proposal adopted after 20 years of efforts.

·         But – like most other members, they stand by the Convention’s rules and procedures and don’t seek to change them, they continue to work constructively on the broader work of the Commission and attempt to shape their sanctuary proposal to gain greater support from Contracting Parties.

·         Japan’s desires to resume commercial whaling have also been clearly stated for a long time – and efforts to convince the Commission to support their ambition have failed – in our view for sound scientific and policy-related reasons.

·         However Japan chooses to respond to the results of the Commission’s consideration of ‘The Way Forward’ any narrative that suggests it failed due to dysfunction in the IWC or that there is anything wrong with the manner in which Contracting Parties exercise their legitimate rights to vote according to their own well found views will find little plausible support.