& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Whaling : a Conflict Between Ethics and Economics
THE argument about whether whaling should be resumed Is getting more bitter. Acrimony is growing among the nations of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and Iceland. Norway and Japan claim conservation groups arc hijacking the Commission.
ft all bolls down to a conflict of economics over ethics. Should wc continue to fire harpoon-ladnchcd exploding grenades Into sen-dwelling mammals which have a large, developed brain and a complex social system, for financial profit?
Is it humane to chase a wounded, dvtng whale for miles through the sea, before hauling ft half dend aboard a factory ship?
British Agriculture Minister John Gummer said It Is akin Io a farmer hurling a spear with a bomb attached into n cow and then chasing it through five field* on the end of a rope.
The Japanese went to this years IWC meeting determined to ensure that whale meat will continue lo be served up as a delicacy In lop restaurants In Tokyo. Yokohama and Kyoto.
Their request to continue hunting minke whales for 'scientific research" In Antarctica (288 were killed last year) was granted — and those whales end up on restaurant tables.
The Japanese commended the IWC for meeting In Glasgow. a city "whose wealth Is based on whaling.' But the last whale was processed In Glasgow over 200 years ago, and few Glaswegians would welcome the return of the whaling
In^fact. Britain and New Zealand are the leading anll-whallng nations. With Norway. Ireland and Japan determined U see a resumption of commercial whaling. Glasgow's IWC was bound to prove a showdown.
Commercial whaling had been banned at the 1985 IWC meeting because previous kill quotas had over-estimated whale stocks and the numbers that could safely be killed. Populations were seen to be plummeting.
The Glasgow meeting was largely seen as a victory for conservation. The moratorium was continued for another year and five resolutions on protecting small cetaceans — not hunted by whalers and usually Ignored by the IWC -
were adopted.
Norway went to the meeting determined to start commercial whaling again and pledged to defy the IWC by killing as many whales as It liked. Iceland walked out.
Norway said the IWC had deserted Its original purpose of managing commercial whaling and been taken over by a conservation minority.
Iceland. Norway and possibly Japan may now form a rival forum to the IWC. where nations who want to ignore the consensus ruling of the IWC and kill whales indiscrlml natcly. will presumably be able to do so.
The crucial decision on whether the whaling moratorium is delayed until next year. Meanwhile. • Revised Management System (RMS), a new whale kill quota syslcm developed over seven years, was
approved by 16 votes to one.
The RMS Is supposed to provide a rational basts for exploiting whales. It Is designed to replace the old IWC system by providing an accurate whale kill quota giving the "maximum sustainable yield" — the greatest harvest of whales, year after year.
If the 16 nations who voted to back the RMS, vote for Its implementation next year, commercial whaling may well become a reality again. Whaling fleets, which have kept ticking over by exploiting the "scientific whaling" loophole, will be able to re-start whaling with a vengeance.
So reprieve for the whales is only momentary and Glasgow was far from being the simple victory for conservation some thought it to be.
Antl-whallng nations and conservation groups feel it is
high time the IWC entered the post-Rfo World Summit era by bringing environmental concerns to the fore-
David Bowles, of the Britain-based Environmental Investl-Sitlons Agency, says: "The lasgow meeting Was very positive. but It procrastinated on
the issue of setting up an Antarctica whaling sanctuary, of launching a survey of all the environmental threats facing whales, and on the RMS."
France proposed the setting up of an Antarctic whale sanctuary where all whaling would be banned, but no decision was made. And Britain proposed a survey into the overall environmental threats facing whales — pollution and ozone depletion.
The environmentalists and pro-whaling nations agree on one point : that the IWC is losing direction and that change Is needed. But .they are pushing in diametrically opposed directions.
Norway. Japan and Iceland would like an IWC that simply oversees whaling quotas. They say all other issues are outside the remit the IWC was set up to serve.
At present, action is desperately needed on 66 species of cetaceans not hunted by whalers If they are to survive. Eight — the Vaqulta, Baiji, Harbour Porpoise, Dall's and Stripe, pilot Whale, Narwals, Belugas and Commcrson's -face extinction.
Il Is time the IWC accepted that the threats facing the world's whales come from many sources other than the whaleKs harpoon, and that It needs to act to ensure thclr survival.
Ironically, next year's IWC meeting Is In Japan. By Its end minke whale steaks may be legally permissible on the menu of the hotels In which the delegates are staying.
Or maybe not. A recent MORI poll showed that 60 per cent of Japanese feel the killing of whales Is no longer Justified. The question Is: who will be buying? — Gemini News
About the Author : DAMIEN LEWIS Is a British environment and development Journalist.