International Environmental Law Project (IELP) Goes to CITES

NOVEMBER 8, 2002

Santiago, Chile

Governments Reject Japanese Proposal to Allow Trade in Whale Meat and Blubber

Friday is over and almost no decisions have been made by the Parties. It seems impossible that anybody could be tired. Nonetheless, almost no one had any energy to do anything but sleep, especially after two hard fought victories that prevented Japan from reopening legal trade in whale meat and blubber.

Japan submitted two proposals to limit trade in whale meat and blubber "between Parties" to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Japan believed that this limitation would convince CITES parties that trade would be enforceable. By using the phrase "between Parties," Japan's proposal would permit trade between Norway and Japan, for example, but it would prohibit Japan from taking whales on the high seas and then shipping the whale meat and blubber to Japan. CITES considers this "trade" but this trade is not "between" Parties to the whaling convention.

It is difficult to comprehend how a delegation as sophisticated as Japan could make such a mistake, especially when its primary whaling advisor is Canadian. To fix the error, Japan attempted to amend its proposal by limiting trade "by Parties" to the whaling convention.

The ensuing orderly but intense floor debate masked the complicated negotiations that preceded the debate, however. Professor Wold was approached by NGOs to determine whether Japan's amendment was valid under the Rules of Procedure. He said that amendment clearly expanded the scope of the proposal by including more types of trade, as defined by CITES. However, he explained that Japan could reasonably argue that it was merely clarifying its original proposal to make it "more precise." Japan's claim would be reasonable since Japan has killed at least 440 minke whales on the high seas since 1986 and shipped the meat to Japan. It is safe to assume that Japan did not intend to stop such trade.

Prof. Wold then outlined two different paths that the voting process could take, depending on whether the chair ruled that Japan's proposed amendment "increased the scope of the proposal" or made the proposal "more precise." His outline included all the various points of order and challenges to the rulings of the chair that were likely to arise. NGOs took this information to various governments who support the current moratorium on commercial whaling and that believe that Japan should not be allowed to resume international trade until the International Whaling Commission establishes the rules for the resumption of commercial whaling. When the chair ruled that the proposal expanded the scope of the proposal, they used this information to defeat challenges to the chair's ruling.

Even after this procedural defeat, Japan persisted in pursuing its proposals. After a lengthy floor debate, during which IELP noted that CITES rules should defer to the IWC for the establishment of appropriate enforcement mechanisms, the Parties rejected Japan's whaling proposals by a secret ballot.

Monday's session resumes with debates over whether to stop or increase trade in elephant ivory. It promises to be another fiery debate. While many people are heading to the Andes or the coast of Chile for some relaxation, elephant activists are no doubt continuing their efforts to stop the ivory trade.

Links

CITES Secretariat
Twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP12)