With both excitement and apprehension, I flew to Adelaide, Australia in late June for two weeks of political maneuvering and negotiating at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). I was familiar with the infamous IWC and its role as a governing and regulating body for worldwide whaling policy. However, this was my first time actually attending the meeting as an official NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) representative for Cetacean Society International.

Over 35 countries and 89 NGOs were represented at IWC~52. CSI, which has a long history with the International Whaling Commission, is a well-known and respected conservation NGO, and this established credibility made it easier for me to speak with government delegates and other international representatives.

The first week in Adelaide involved a series of working group and subcommittee meetings (a smaller gathering of government delegates and NGO's) that dealt with the key issues of aboriginal subsistence hunting, humane whale killing methods and scientific/research whaling.

The second week began the full meeting of the International Whaling Commission known as the Plenary. The first thing that strikes a novice NGO is that the IWC Plenary is a formal negotiating session of an international treaty comprised of member nations (very similar to treaty negotiations dealing with nuclear weapons or global warming).

The most controversial and complicated issue at this year's meeting was the continued development of the Revised Management Scheme (RMS). It was shocking to me to personally watch as international governmental representatives actual worked on detailed legal language that will be used to manage commercial whaling when, not if, it resumes. This legal language would be the RMS.

A moratorium on commercial whaling was adopted by the Whaling Commission back in 1982. However, as we all know, Norway has continued to kill whales in defiance of the moratorium and Japan has disguised their killing of whales under the banner of "scientific" whaling. I was surprised to learn that the moratorium was established with the purpose of stopping whaling until such time as there was an accepted management scheme in place to conduct commercial whaling. A number of NGOs hoped or believed the moratorium would spell the end of commercial whaling. Evidently, the celebration was a bit premature. Japan, Norway and a number of other countries have stayed the course and have never abandoned their desire to resume commercial whaling.

Over the past two decades, member countries that originally voted for the moratorium have since dropped out of the Commission or have stopped attending IWC Annual Meetings. And to make things worse, since 1982, a number of new countries have joined the IWC (thanks to Japanese financial aid) specifically to support Japan and Norway in their push for the resumption of whaling. After eighteen years of negotiations, the International Whaling Commission is now on the verge of establishing a so-called conservative plan for managing whaling that will supposedly allow for a limited number of whales to be "harvested."

The U.S. delegation to IWC 52. At the left is Michael Tillman, Alternate U.S. Commissioner, and next to him is Rollie Schmitten, U.S. Commissioner.

Just prior to this year's meeting in Australia, I noted that many NGOs felt the RMS rule-making process still had a long way to go before being completed and adopted. However, after I attended the formal two-day RMS Working Group session and heard the extended RMS floor debate during Plenary, it was painfully clear that Japan, Norway, their pro-whaling allies and several European countries came to make progress on the adoption of the RMS. Most of the NGOs and some countries protested, but many draft regulations were finalized and subtle differences were listed for future deliberations.

Japan circulated their version of the RMS (an extremely weak set of regulations). Fortunately, these were soundly rejected. However, the "better version" of the RMS progressed further than had been anticipated. In the end, a Resolution was adopted that established a frightening, fast track process to finalize and adopt the RMS within one to two years. As a save-the-whale advocate and CSI representative, I was sickened to find out that a formal resumption of commercial whaling was so close. Equally as shocking was the fact that though the RMS Resolution was supported by Japan and Norway (and the six Caribbean pro-Japanese countries), the Resolution itself was actually drafted and proposed by China, Oman, Korea, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and Mexico. Those opposed to the Resolution were the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Monaco, Austria and Brazil. As you can see, many countries support what is said to be a form of limited, highly controlled commercial whaling. As I write this report, I sincerely feel the best we NGOs can do is to continue our fight for the strictest RMS possible and to promote commercial whale watching as a long-term replacement for the killing of whales.

The high profile issue at this year's IWC meeting was the drive by Australia and New Zealand to create a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. The concept had a tremendous amount of support from many countries, however a three-quarters majority vote was needed to pass the formal sanctuary proposal. Unfortunately, a vote of 19 yeas to 11 nays and four abstentions all fell far short of the total majority needed. As the CSI representative, I helped more experienced advocates lobby for passage of the Sanctuary. However, we not only faced Japan, Norway and their six Caribbean "friends," who opposed the Sanctuary, but the following also voted AGAINST the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary: China, Denmark, and Guinea (a new IWC Member Nation financially supported by Japan). Abstentions were registered by Ireland, Korea, Oman and Russia. Australia and New Zealand vow to propose the South Pacific Sanctuary again at the 2001 IWC Annual Meeting (scheduled for London in July next year).

Norwegian delegation to IWC 52. Note that the gentleman third from left is wearing a harp seal pelt vest!

Expanded scientific whaling by Japan was another hot topic this year. A diplomatic war is being waged over Japan's continued use of self-issued scientific permits to cover its commercial take of minke whales in the Antarctic Southern Ocean Sanctuary and in their coastal seas in the North Pacific. Japan, unsuccessfully, tried once again to have the Southern Ocean Sanctuary dissolved, which is where they do the majority of their scientific whaling. Luckily, this move was so soundly rejected that it didn't even come up for a formal vote. All this has become a controversial subject and many resolutions have been adopted calling on Japan to stop whaling. Regrettably, these past resolutions do not carry enough legal weight to force compliance; Japan has blatantly ignored all of them.

This year, Japan gave formal notice that it intends to expand scientific whaling by harpooning more minke whales, as well as adding Bryde's and sperm whales to their kill quotas. I witnessed "diplomacy in action" as various countries urged Japan to give up. Very strong opposition was also voiced against the expansion of scientific whaling. Two resolutions challenging scientific permit whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and the North Pacific easily passed. Unlike past resolutions, national delegates within Japan will face high-level pressure to withdraw their proposal.

Japanese delegation to IWC 52. Gentleman on right is Commissioner Morimoto - a formidable foe.

Another important issue at this year's meeting was the tracking of whale meat in the marketplace using cellular DNA analysis. By tracking the whale meat, specialists and inspectors would follow smuggling and the illegal trade of whale meat. A significant blow to these efforts to monitor illegal whale meat in markets of Japan and Norway occurred when a "DNA in the Marketplace" Resolution was soundly defeated. This one resolution demonstrated just how precarious the situation is with regards to European countries now being willing to accept some form of commercial whaling. Joining Japan, Norway and their seven pro-whaling allies (Guinea now aligned with the Caribbean six) in voting AGAINST were: China, Denmark, Korea, and Russia. And adding to the shock of it all, Chile, Ireland, Mexico, Oman, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland all ABSTAINED from voting on this important whale protection initiative.

I sincerely regret to inform CSI members that Japan and Norway now clearly enjoy the consistent (rock-solid) support of Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Guinea (all bought and paid for thanks to Japan). AND there are the new friends of China, Denmark, Korea and Russia. These twelve commercial whaling votes can block any substantive change to or challenge of the commercial whaling debate. And when you add in the sympathetic abstentions of Chile, Ireland, Mexico, Oman, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, even simple-majority resolutions drafted to curb the advancement of commercial whaling don't stand a chance.

Delegation from Brazil. Left to right are José Truda Palazzo, Jr. (Director of International Wildlife Coalition - Brazil and supported by CSI), Commissioner Tavares and Regis de Lima. Great allies for the whales.

An issue of extreme importance to CSI and all our members is the killing of gray whales by the Makah tribe of Washington State. Unfortunately, this was a non-issue on the floor of the IWC meeting this year. Although five opponents of Makah whaling, including Makah elder Alberta "Binki" Thompson, came to Adelaide, they could find no country willing to challenge (and embarrass) the United States delegation. The US still strongly supports Makah whaling and it appears they will continue to do so in the future. Two Makah tribe members were part of the official U.S. government delegation. The Makah's quota to kill gray whales has to be renegotiated in 2002, so Alberta and her supporters vow to come back next year and continue their fight.

Two resolutions were adopted at IWC~52 that will help two highly endangered species of whales. The eastern Arctic bowhead whale, thanks in great part to Annelise Sorg of British Columbia and a willing U.S. government, was given some much needed support. A resolution was adopted protesting the Canadian government's repeated intentions to allow Canadian Eskimos to kill one bowhead whale from the highly endangered stock of eastern Arctic bowhead whales. Due to efforts by the World Wildlife Fund and the willingness of many member nations, a resolution was passed calling upon Canada and the United States to further protect the rare North Atlantic right whale. Specifically mentioned was the need to do something about ship strikes and stationary fishing gear, including lobster trap lines and bottom fishing gill nets. Both of the above mentioned resolutions were adopted by overwhelming consensus.

A subject of significant importance to CSI (and to me) is whale watching. I paid particular attention to the continuing development of this issue at this year's meeting. The Commission's Scientific Committee, attended by Brazilian researcher Marcia Engle (thanks to the generous support of CSI), held a two-day workshop on whale watching. The issue of whale watching was satisfactorily advanced at IWC~52. Regrettably, the concept of substantially replacing whale killing with whale watching is not strongly endorsed by many of the member countries of IWC.

The meeting ended on a very sad tone due to the fact that the adoption of the RMS is perhaps only one to two years away; that Japan still intends to continue with expanded scientific whaling; and that Norway intends to continue whaling in the North Atlantic. Overpowering was the fact that Japan is openly buying votes of the six Caribbean countries and other impoverished nations like the Solomon Islands and Guinea. Member dues and transportation costs for delegates from these nations to attend the IWC Annual Meetings are all covered by Japan. Clearly, if the Caribbean islands and the other smaller nations didn't support Japan, the South Pacific Sanctuary would have passed. Many NGOs, but not many nations, are still working to challenge this vote-buying scandal.

And if matters aren't bad enough, there is to be an "intersessional" IWC meeting specifically to further the progress with the completion, adoption and implementation of the RMS. This meeting is to take place in February of 2001 in Japan (that's less than six months from now!). And adding to our injuries, New Zealand and Japan both were vying to be the host country of the IWC Annual Meeting in 2002. In a secret ballot many of our anti-whaling friends must have crossed over, as the vote was won by Japan. Holding IWC meetings in the extremely costly nation of Japan reduces the capability of CSI and other pro-whale NGOs to attend and lobby on behalf of the gentle giants we have all vowed to protect.

Heather Rockwell is Assistant Director of the International Wildlife Coalition. Photographs by Dan Morast, courtesy of the International Wildlife Coalition.