BREAKING RANKS Denmark goes it alone on whaling policy An analysis by Dr. Sandra Altherr and Jennifer Lonsdale A report commissioned by ABOUT THE AUTHORS GLOSSARY Sandra Altherr, biologist, co-founder of Pro ASW Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Wildlife. Has attended annual meetings of the International Whaling Commission EU European Union (IWC) as an observer since 1998. CITES Convention on International Trade Jennifer Lonsdale, co-founder and director in Endangered Species of Wild of the Environmental Investigation Agency. Fauna and Flora Has attended meetings of the International Whaling Commission as an observer since IWC International Whaling Commission 1987. JARPA Japanese Whale Research Program The Report was commissioned by under Special Permit in the SHIFTING VALUES, an agency based in Antarctic Vienna, Austria, working towards a shift of our values within species and JARPN Japanese Whale Research Program environmental conservation and animal under Special Permit in the protection efforts. western North Pacific JCNB The Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Shifting Values e.U. Beluga Scheidlstr. 45 A-1180 Vienna NAMMCO The North Atlantic Marine Austria Mammal Commission [email protected] www.shiftingvalues.com NGO Non-Governmental Organisation RMP Revised Management Procedure - the computer model by which catch limits for baleen whales would be calculated should commercial whaling be resumed RMS Revised Management Scheme - the scheme that would manage commercial whaling should it be resumed in the future . STCW Small-Type Coastal Whaling 2 CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2. INTRODUCTION 7 3. DENMARK'S BALANCING ACT BETWEEN ITS OVERSEAS TERRITORIES AND THE EU 9 3.1. Denmark and CITES 9 3.2. Declaration 25 vs. a Common Position by the European Union 9 4. INCONSISTENT POSITIONS BY DENMARK ON WHALING 12 4.1. Support for Commercial Whaling 12 4.1.1. Threatening the Moratorium on Commercial Whaling 12 4.1.2. 'Sustainable Use' versus EU legislation on whales 14 4.1.3. Sympathy for 'Scientific Whaling' 15 4.1.4. St. Kitts Declaration 16 4.1.5. CITES and International Trade in Whale Products 16 4.2. Blurring the Boundaries between ASW and Commercial Whaling 17 4.2.1. Support for Japan's 'Small Type Coastal Whaling' 17 4.2.2. Support for Norway's Whaling 18 4.2.3. Support for Iceland's Whaling 19 4.2.4. Humpback Whale Catch Quota for Greenland 19 4.3. Constraining Conservation 21 4.3.1. Conservation Committee 21 4.3.2. Opposition to new Whale Sanctuaries within the IWC 22 4.3.3. Transparency and Good Governance 22 4.3.4. Small Cetaceans 22 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 3 © Scott Portelli © Regina Asmutis-Silvia 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Within the European Union (EU) cetaceans decisions on Schedule Amendments at IWC (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are strictly meetings. Since then, Denmark has obstructed protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC 1 and complicated negotiations aimed at achieving (‘Habitats Directive’) and by Council Regulation this common position. No. 338/97 which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of This report reveals how Denmark's policies in Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 2. Any incidental three main areas are inconsistent with EU capture, killing and sale of cetaceans by EU directives, regulations, and agreements: Member States is prohibited. Therefore it could be assumed that all EU Member States work 1) Direct support for commercial whaling and together cooperatively with the aim of securing international trade in whale products; effective protection for cetacean species, including 2) Contributing to the blurring of the boundaries from direct hunting. It could also be assumed between Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling that EU Member States collectively play a (ASW) and commercial whaling, including leadership role in the conservation and welfare of supporting Japan's repeated requests for coastal cetaceans at the International Whaling commercial whaling under a proposed new Commission (IWC) and CITES. However, this is category of whaling; not the reality. 3) Reluctance to support proactive conservation initiatives, including those initiated by the The Danish Government is obliged to represent IWC Conservation Committee, and the the interests of Greenland and the Faroe Islands creation of new whale sanctuaries. in all international fora. Both are part of the Danish Kingdom but not members of the EU Denmark holds the EU Presidency from and both conduct non-commercial hunts for 1st January to 30th June 2012. Its position with cetaceans. This report demonstrates that Denmark respect to the IWC and the conservation and has gone beyond its responsibilities to these two welfare of cetaceans is of high importance, territories. It has consistently ignored its particularly as the 64th Annual Meeting of the responsibilities as a member of the EU; instead IWC takes place from 25th June to 6th July 2012. supporting commercial whaling initiatives and Although its Presidency ends two days before interests. the IWC's plenary meeting starts, it will continue to have a leadership role to play at In 2008, the European Commission required EU the meeting as the Presidency transitions to IWC members to agree a common position for Cyprus. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. 2 Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 of 9 December 1996. 5 The Council of the European Union Decision Accordingly, we for establishing a common position for the next three meetings of the IWC was adopted in 1. call on the Danish Government and the EU December 2011. This new common position Commission to ensure that Danish policy on includes a statement by the Government of whaling is firmly aligned with the principles Denmark that it will not be able to support the and provisions of the European Union Decision3. towards the protection of whales, dolphins and porpoises; A new government in Denmark was formed on 3rd October 2011, led by the Social Democrats. 2. call on the Danish Government to: It has appointed a new Commissioner to the - consult with the Member States of the EU IWC and there is some hope that Denmark's in a transparent manner and act in good position with respect to the conservation of faith to support and contribute to the whales, dolphins and porpoises (cetaceans) may IWC's procedures to better manage change. aboriginal whaling activities; - avoid future conflicts over related matters This report documents the position of by engaging constructively in timely Denmark at the IWC over the past two negotiations and preparations for IWC decades and demonstrates that it has acted meetings with EU Member States; predominantly in support of pro-commercial - actively support the IWC's work to whaling interests and initiatives, regardless of address threats to small cetaceans in their relevance to the interests of indigenous accordance with their strong protection whaling communities in Greenland. It also status under EU legislation; shows that by actively supporting commercial - actively work with the Government of the whaling, the Danish Government is ignoring Faroe Islands to fully implement CITES the views of the majority of Danish citizens legislation within the Faroese Islands; and its responsibility towards EU legislation, - oppose the resumption of commercial the IWC and CITES. whaling in all its forms. © Scott Portelli 3 EU Council, 12th December 2011, Interinstitutional file 2011/0221 (NLE) 6 © Rob Lott 2. INTRODUCTION All large cetaceans4 are subject to the provisions moratorium which it took when it rejoined the of two international conventions. In 1981, the IWC in 2002, despite having previously accepted Convention on International Trade in Endangered the moratorium. Species (CITES) banned international trade in products of great whales by listing these species on For two decades the IWC has been unable to CITES Appendix I 5. In 1982, the IWC agreed to a resolve differences between member countries ban on all commercial whaling. Commonly regarding whaling and the IWC's role. The pro- known as the moratorium, it was implemented in conservation member countries focus on 1986. These are two of the most important developing the work of the IWC to address the conservation decisions of the 20th century, but ever increasing environmental threats to cetaceans they are continuously undermined by three and the marine environment, on ensuring the commercial whaling nations: Norway, Iceland and moratorium on commercial whaling remains in Japan. place, and on providing for the proper and sustainable management of Aboriginal Subsistence The IWC issues catch limits for only two Whaling. Meanwhile the pro-whaling nations categories of whaling: relentlessly pressure the IWC to legitimise commercial whaling and blur the clear distinction 1. Commercial whaling between commercial whaling and Aboriginal 2. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) Subsistence Whaling. Commercial Whaling Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Commercial whaling catch limits are set at zero Under IWC regulations, Aboriginal Subsistence until such time as the moratorium is lifted. Despite Whaling catch limits are granted for specific this, three IWC member countries carry out indigenous communities whose nutritional, commercial whaling using loopholes in the IWC subsistence and cultural needs for whaling it has Convention, the International Convention for the recognised, namely Greenland, Chukotka in the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Japan classifies its Russian Federation, Alaska, and Bequia