VIEWPOINT By Liz Karan Pew Charitable Trust

The Pacific islands spread across a vast swath of ocean, with few airports and many time zones between them, but they have one critical thing in common – dependence on the ocean and the environment for economic independence and food security.

Reaching agreement on how to use and protect the ocean is one of the reasons so many leaders gather for the annual meeting of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), which helps coordinate protection and sustainable development in the Pacific region for its 27 member states and territories.

At the SPREP meeting, which was held in September, members discussed the United Nations’ process for addressing the need to protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

These areas include the high seas, which make up more than two-thirds of the world’s ocean yet have no cohesive management structure to institute conservation measures like marine protected areas (MPAs) or highly protected marine reserves.

Given the huge areas of high seas that make up much of the Pacific Ocean, the region’s island nations, several of which work together at the UN in a grouping known as Pacific Small Island Developing States, or PSIDS, have a critical stake in how the United Nations’ negotiations go – particularly in making sure that strong language to protect the ocean is written into the eventual treaty.

While nations have pledged to protect 10 per cent of the ocean by 2020, science has demonstrated that, in fact, 30 per cent of the world’s ocean needs protection.

A new implementing agreement on high seas protections, one that enables the establishment of MPAs and marine reserves, can build in a way to include these important conservation tactics.

As part of the focus on the high seas, Pew held a side event that included Minister Vodrick Detsiogo of Nauru, SPREP director-general Kosi Latu of Samoa, and Pacific Island Forum Secretariat deputy secretary general Cristelle Pratt.

At the event, a positive discussion was held on the way for the Pacific as a whole – including the PSIDS – to play an active role in treaty negotiations in New York.

“The status quo is unacceptable,” said Minister Detsiogo. “A new, legally binding agreement will help ensure a fair governance regime and a healthy ocean for ourselves and future generations.”

The SPREP meeting presented an important opportunity to continue engaging PSIDS and other Pacific nations in the ongoing talks.

In 2017, there will be two final meetings at United Nations headquarters in New York, which will ultimately lead to the recommendations needed to move forward with treaty negotiation.

But such progress will be impossible without Pacific leadership. As active participants in the negotiations at meetings such as SPREP, Pacific island leaders remain vital voices calling for high seas protections.

- Liz Karan is the senior manager for The Pew Charitable Trusts’ campaign to protect ocean life on the high seas.

Compromise may save more whales

VIEWPOINT

By Steven Freeland

Western Sydney University

Whales had another big win last week – allegedly. The Australian-sponsored resolution adopted by the International Whaling Commission will, in theory, make it harder for nations such as Japan to award themselves special permits for “scientific” whaling.

But the non-binding resolution is likely to have little material effect on whales themselves.

Australia’s delight at the new resolution echoes its response to the International Court of Justice’s 2014 ruling that Japan’s JARPA II whaling programme was unlawful.

But since then it has been business as usual for Japan, which simply created a new and different research programme – one that makes it very difficult for Australia or anyone else to take it to The Hague again.

It is hard to see what these legal and diplomatic victories have achieved in a practical sense, beyond prompting Japan to entrench its resolve to continue with its whaling programmes.

It is time for some new tactics. Legal and diplomatic skirmishes with Japan and other pro-whaling nations might feel like the right thing to do. But they deliver little benefit to the whales, and could potentially provoke pro-whaling nations into leaving the IWC altogether.

Before setting out my views as to the way forward, I must state that, on a personal and moral basis, I am absolutely opposed to any whaling whatsoever. I would like to see the complete cessation of whaling by any country in the world.

Unfortunately, however, it does not appear that the events at the recent IWC meeting will change much in practical terms.

To be sure, any reform of the IWC is welcome. However, the failure to achieve the required three-quarters majority for the establishment of a South Atlantic whale sanctuary, coupled with the non-binding character of such resolutions, means the IWC has once again proven itself incapable of achieving a strong consensus on contentious issues relating to the protection of whales.

Herein lies the problem. Although this might sound strange coming from a law professor, I believe that the formal legal system is not an effective way to resolve long-entrenched impasses in a way that best serves the interests of the whales themselves.

This is particularly true when the issue draws such emotional responses from all sides. Using the IWC as an ideological battleground does not get us very far in terms of protecting whales.

In its early years, the IWC was characterised as a “whalers’ club”, allocating quotas to member states at levels that significantly harmed whale numbers.

Over the past 30-40 years, however, nations such as Australia, New Zealand and Britain have become fiercely anti-whaling, and the commercial whaling industry has met its demise.

As a result, the IWC has over time adopted a much stronger anti-whaling stance, putting it at odds with the whaling states (including Japan, Norway and Iceland) and causing considerable tensions within the IWC.

These tensions have been exacerbated by the fact that, even though the underlying sentiment of many member states has changed, the terms of the 70-year-old treaty have not.

That makes it hard for the IWC to morph seamlessly from a resource-management body into a conservation forum.

The worst-case outcome would be if Japan (or any other whaling state) feels it is being pushed too far at IWC meetings, and decides to withdraw altogether, which nations can do with as little as six-months’ notice under Article XI of the Convention.

Such a country would no longer be bound by any of the restrictions established under the treaty regime – including the moratorium on commercial whaling that has been in effect since the mid-1980s.

Breaking away from the IWC would undoubtedly bring with it significant political and diplomatic costs, making it perhaps unlikely that nations will seriously consider it for now.

But if the adversarial tensions continue, pro-whaling states could eventually decide simply to leave the IWC process in order to pursue commercial whaling with little or no international controls.

If this were to happen the IWC would have presided over an ecological catastrophe for whales.

Japan’s response to recent developments has shown that a complete cessation of whaling cannot be achieved, at least in the short term. The only rational and pragmatic response is therefore to ensure that as few whales as possible are taken.

I believe the only way for that to happen is for IWC members to agree a compromise based on widely accepted environmental principles such as sustainability.

The sad fact for strong anti-whalers such as myself is that this may involve some whaling, albeit on a far more controlled basis than at present.

In this way, the dubious reliance on “scientific” purposes as a disguise for what many observers regard as commercial whaling would end, replaced by a credible system to which everyone has agreed.

It is important not to lose sight of the ultimate purpose here – to preserve whales and do everything possible to protect them. The current emotionally charged legal and diplomatic battles, no matter how worthy and principled, aren’t really in the best interests of these magnificent creatures.

An international management regime based on cooperation and clear, objective principles offers a far more promising prospect for their future than the current stalemate. - ABC

Steven Freeland is the Professor of International Law at Western Sydney University.

Diver found after 12 hours adrift off Queensland coast

AUSTRALIA – A solo diver lost at sea for 14 hours overnight has been rescued from open waters off the north Queensland coast by a search helicopter more than 50km from his dive site.

The 68-year-old man was on a solo dive at the wreck of the SS Yongala, 20km off Cape Bowling Green, south of Townsville on Sunday when he failed to return.

Searchers found the man’s boat at the site of the Yongala wreck around 8.45pm but there was no sign of him.

But he was later spotted waving to a rescue helicopter in the ocean 50km south-east of the Yongala wreck on Monday morning and winched to safety. He was taken to hospital where he is recovering from mild hypothermia.

Air rescue officer Alan Griffiths said it appeared the diver had failed to realise how strong the currents around the Yongala wreck could be.

“I said to him, ‘gidday mate, do you want a lift?’” Griffiths said as he was lowered down from the chopper to rescue the diver.

“He’s gone by himself, which is a bit naughty, he jumped in the water from his boat and then realised the current was so strong and he simply couldn’t get back,” Griffiths told ABC radio.

A friend who knew his dive plans raised the alarm with police, prompting a huge air and sea search.

Griffiths said the diver, who was not using his personal locator beacon, had seen three helicopters and a plane searching for him earlier in the morning.

“He was very, very lucky,” the rescue officer said. “He said to me ‘you need to buy a lottery ticket’, and I said ‘No, you need to buy a lottery ticket.”

Acting police inspector Graeme Patterson said it was a huge task. “It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack,” he told reporters on Monday.

The sea temperature around Townsville was 27.2°C on Monday.

A Queensland police spokesman, Acting Inspector Graeme Paterson, said: “Every hour that somebody spends in the ocean their chances diminish, so the fact that he’s been found in the first 24 hours is amazing.”

The Yongala was a luxury cruise ship which sank in a cyclone in 1911 with 122 people on board. It is regarded as one of the world’s best dives.

It was reported initially that the man had spent 12 hours in the water before it was corrected to 14.

- PNC sources