So close, but no deal on whales

The "whales eat fish" argument is often cited as a reason to maintain hunting.

The wording of the consensus resolution agreed here asked delegations, which include most of the world's governments, to acknowledge that "there is inadequate scientific information to support an assertion that controlling great whale populations can increase fisheries yields".

Pew and WWF argued that having Japan and Norway put their names to this would make it impossible for them to use the "whales eat fish" argument in future.

The conservation groups behind the consensus, the Pew Environment Group and WWF, believed it could help build bridges between Norway, Japan and Iceland and their opponents which could, in the end, lead to a diminution of the whaling industry.

"We had an excellent spirit of co-operation and consensus," said Sue Lieberman, head of WWF's global species programme. "We felt that we had a resolution, but these are the ins and outs of negotiations."

Japanese officials who had participated in an intensive series of consensus-building discussions during the week - at which Australia was also represented - were furious at the last-ditch attempt to introduce stronger wording than had been agreed.

So where officials from other anti-whaling nations agreed, one calling the last-minute intervention "despicable".

The Australian delegation here declined to comment.

The amendment tabled by Australia asked delegations instead to acknowledge "that the great whales play no significant role in the current crisis affecting global fisheries".

A number of nations, Japan among them, could not accept the wording or the manner of its introduction. Although it passed with a substantial majority, the anti-whaling bloc will not be able to say that Japan accepted it.