Modernisation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

Modernisation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) has long been proposed by some contracting states and outsiders as a way of resolving the “Whaling Dispute” within the International Whaling Commission (IWC); however, both sides of the debate have traditionally been unconvinced that they would gain enough benefit to make the process worthwhile.     

The international whaling regime post 2007

Japan's delegation to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) must have gone to the 2007 meeting in Anchorage believing that the prospects of at least the commencement of the process leading to the overturning of the moratorium were better than they had been since 1986. The passing of the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration at the 2006 Meeting, the gathering momentum of their Normalisation agenda, and their own determination to compromise some of their own agenda in the interest of harmony within the IWC, would have formed the basis of this belief. The reality was totally different. There was no compromise by the anti-whaling group within the meeting who also regained the simple majority position which had been lost in 2006.     

Japan׳s whaling following the International Court of Justice ruling: Brave New World – Or business as usual?

Since 1987, Japan has conducted extensive special permit whaling (“scientific whaling”) in the Antarctic and North Pacific. This has been viewed by many as a way to circumvent the International Whaling Commission׳s (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling, which was implemented in 1985. Recently, Australia took Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over this issue. Using various criteria, the Court ruled that Japan׳s whaling was not “for purposes of scientific research” as required by Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and ordered Japan to immediately cease its JARPA II whaling program in the Antarctic. Despite optimism that the Court׳s ruling might spell the end of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic and even elsewhere, Japan has indicated that it will redesign its whaling programs and continue operations. Based upon Japan׳s history at the IWC, I argue here that this was an expected outcome; I predict the course of events over the next months, and suggest that the ICJ ruling, while satisfying as an independent vindication of Japan׳s critics, represents little more than a temporary setback for that nation׳s whaling enterprise.     

Whale watching, the Buenos Aires Group and the politics of the International Whaling Commission

Whale watching is now reputed to be a $2 billion a year industry. This industry has the potential to impact the politics of whaling, specifically the moratorium on all commercial whaling in three ways: by creating political and economic counterweights to whalers, by countering claims about who may legitimately manage whales and to what end and by transforming views about whales and whaling both within whaling states and beyond. This article examines whale watching in Latin America and the Caribbean and the alliance of Latin American and Caribbean members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) known as the Buenos Aires Group (BAG). The BAG group has emerged as coherent group opposing the ending of the moratorium and championing the views of whale watchers. The article finds that whale watching creates a politically important interest group in an area lacking whaling operations; it argues that these regional opponents of whaling provide a counter weight to charges that opposition to whaling is exclusively the providence of rich, urban citizens of developed countries and draw upon politically powerful frames in justifying their opposition to the lifting of the moratorium. Finally, it finds limited evidence that whale-watching is associated with a rise in general concern for marine mammals in the region. There remains the question, however, of what the future of whale watching in the region will be over the longer term.     

Management and conservation at the International Whaling Commission: A dichotomy sandwiched within a shifting baseline

The International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Scientific Committee provides important advice to the IWC on a large variety of cetacean species, sub-species and populations and the issues affecting them. Cetaceans are facing increasing, non-whaling-related threats, and the Scientific Committee (SC), in accordance with the Commission's requests, has strengthened its conservation-oriented research work. A selection of the reports of the Scientific Committee from between 1986 and 2012 was assessed for its: (i) fundamental research; (ii) management; (iii) conservation; and (iv) administrative content, and to identify potential trends over time. Recommendations and their urgency were also examined, as implied from the language used by the SC in its reports. The analysis showed that the work of the Scientific Committee has increasingly been oriented towards conservation issues over the period reviewed, but at the same time this conservation work has received little funding. Increased support for conservation-related research projects is warranted to promote the long-term survival of cetaceans. Based on this review of the content and focus of the Committee reports, the analysis suggested that its issued advice be made clearer, whenever possible, and governments are urged to give due consideration to this science-based advice particularly when urgent conservation actions are needed. In addition, more consistent funding of the IWC's conservation-related research should be pursued to improve international conservation outputs regarding cetacean populations.     

The scientific value of scientific whaling

Scientific whaling has polarized opinion for decades, and its scientific value has been intensely debated. Here, the output of scientific whaling programs is examined by comparing it to the scientific output pertaining to whales of countries that do not practice scientific whaling. Between 1986 and 2013, whaling and non-whaling countries produced, on average, similar total numbers of publications that were directly relevant to the goals of the scientific whaling permits issued by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), and similar numbers of papers that were relevant to whale ecology and conservation but not directly related to IWC goals. Half of the scientific productivity of scientific whaling countries resulted from non-lethal data collection. One-third of publications by whaling countries were published in peer-reviewed outlets, compared to twice as many for non-whaling countries. Publications by whaling countries were cited ~4 times less often than those of non-whaling countries, with no evidence of citation discrimination against whaling countries since the citation rates of papers that did and did not use lethal sampling were similar. These academic criteria suggest that although the overall volume of science produced by scientific whaling countries is similar to that of non-whaling countries, the quality of the science is not. Arguably, academic criteria are not the best way to assess the usefulness of science for management and conservation, but demonstrating links between the science produced by scientific whaling, its integration in management plans and actions, and shifts towards sustainable exploitation or recovery of whale populations is challenging.     

The whaling issue: Conservation,confusion, and casuistry

Morishita's “multiple analysis” of the whaling issue [Morishita J. Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix. Marine Policy 2006;30:802–8] is essentially a restatement of the Government of Japan's whaling policy, which confuses the issue through selective use of data, unsubstantiated facts, and the vilification of opposing perspectives. Here, we deconstruct the major problems with Morishita's article and provide an alternative view of the whaling dispute. For many people in this debate, the issue is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations. This suspicion has its origin in Japan's poor use of science, its often implausible stock assessments, its insistence that culling is an appropriate way to manage marine mammal populations, and its relatively recent falsification of whaling and fisheries catch data combined with a refusal to accept true transparency in catch and market monitoring. Japanese policy on whaling cannot be viewed in isolation, but is part of a larger framework involving a perceived right to secure unlimited access to global marine resources. Whaling is inextricably tied to the international fisheries agreements on which Japan is strongly dependent; thus, concessions made at the IWC would have potentially serious ramifications in other fora.     

The Hogarth initiative on the future of the International Whaling Commission

Dr Bill Hogarth of the USA was the Chairman of the International Whaling Commission from 2006 to 2009. In a typical masterpiece of understatement, at the beginning of his term, he launched an initiative to reform the IWC with the words “it would be useful for the Commission to have a general discussion concerning the future of the IWC, given…the number of issues for which polarisation rather than consensus appears to be the norm”. This paper follows his initiative through three annual, and two intersessional meetings of the IWC, commenting on the major issues and events as well as the actions of the main players. It concludes with an analysis of the results of the initiative, and makes some predictions for the future of the IWC.     

Normalization of the International Whaling Commission

In 2006, the pro-whaling group within the International Whaling Commission introduced a programme of “Normalization” in an attempt to address its long held accusation that the Commission is dysfunctional. This paper traces the twin issues of dysfunctionality and normalization; it looks at the progress of the Normalization initiative so far, and assesses its likelihood of success. The paper also briefly examines “Modernization”, as an alternative for anti-whaling proponents to Normalization.     

Compromise in the IWC: Is it possible or desirable?

It is widely assumed that a compromise position must be reached between pro- and anti-whaling groupings within the International Whaling Commission. This assumption is based on the belief that the Commission will collapse in the absence of any such compromise, and has been the driving force behind a number of compromise proposals in recent years. This paper argues that the fundamental positions of the two groups are so different, and that both groups are getting enough from the current position as to make it unattractive to either group to make any serious concessions toward a compromise position.The suggested solution is for the two groups to “agree to disagree”; using the resulting improvement in goodwill between them to focus on cooperation on those aspects of whale conservation on which they can agree.     

The global potential for whale watching

Whaling as a commercial enterprise is now defunct, not least due to the moratorium placed on it by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) almost 20 years ago. However, two distinct groups, one in favor of ‘sustainable’ whaling and one completely opposed to any killing of whales, continue to argue at the IWC and other political arenas. Almost ignored in this debate is the current growth of the whale watching industry, a logical alternative use for whale populations. Based on ecological and socio-economic criteria, the potential for whale watching is estimated for maritime countries that do not currently engage in this industry. Results suggest that whale watching could generate an additional 413 million USD (2009) in yearly revenue, supporting 5,700 jobs. Together with current global estimates, this would bring the total potential for the whale watching industry to over 2.5 billion USD in yearly revenue and about 19,000 jobs around the world. These results are discussed from an economic and conservation policy perspective, with emphasis on potential benefits and limitations.     

The case for an international commission for the conservation and management of sharks (ICCMS)

The current rate of shark global exploitation and mortality is arguably so high under current management regimes that unless a renewed initiative is undertaken some species of shark will become effectively extinct. Current efforts to sustainably manage shark mortality are driven primarily by domestic laws in a few countries, big international non-governmental organizations (BINGOs) promoting environmental laws in the countries or regions where they exist, a handful of regional fisheries management organizations (e.g., IATTC and ICCAT), and inter-governmental organizations such as CITES. The absence of enforcement capability is often argued as the critical component in the failure to protect sharks from overexploitation. The remedy advanced here goes far beyond the need for stepped up enforcement, and calls for the creation of an entirely new international management regime, the International Commission for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (ICCMS). Such an agency could learn from the experiences of management bodies tasked with conservation of species biologically similar to sharks, such as the International Whaling Commission (IWC), to improve its efficacy. Critics have identified many organizational flaws that reduced the IWC’s effectiveness during its earliest years. Some of those flaws are examined here and remedies are suggested that an ICCMS could use to create a more effective management regime. The life histories of elasmobranches and large whales are compared to illustrate their similarities as a biological foundation for the selection of the IWC as a model.     

Is Japan's whaling humane?

Video taken by Greenpeace of whaling by the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean provided a unique opportunity to obtain quantitative data relevant to the welfare aspects of the killing of whales. Catches of 16 individual Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) were analysed and in two of these asphyxiation appeared the most likely cause of death. Fewer than one in five whales were killed instantaneously and the average time to death for the remaining whales was around 10 min. The presence of Greenpeace did not result in a reduced accuracy of harpoon shots when compared with previous studies.     

Whaling and its controversies: Examining the attitudes of Japan's youth

This article presents the results of a survey examining the attitudes of young Japanese people towards whaling and its controversies. Using an online and paper-based questionnaire, 529 useable surveys were completed by Japanese students (between 15 and 26 years old) from May to December 2007. Factorial analysis, correlation and regression models were used to identify relational predictors underlying the attitudes of young Japanese people on whaling issues. An approval of whaling exists amongst the participating students, with two constructs standing out as contributing the most to this affirmation; firstly, an approval of the consumption of whalemeat by Japanese children; and secondly, an acceptance of the pro-whaling rhetoric commonly produced by the Government of Japan (GOJ) and associated media. This research represents an initial exploration into the attitudinal structures of Japanese students on whaling issues, contributing to a deeper understanding of the complexities that surround the debate.     

Whale conservation : Role of the International Whaling Commission

Gross overcatching of whales in the Antarctic resulted in a series of international agreements in the 1930s designed primarily to control oil output and so to ensure a stable market. These agreements led to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed in 1946. The interests of the industry were paramount in setting catch quotas, so that the major stocks were seriously depleted. A more conservative approach initiated in 1965 has led to the present management policy of the IWC which is aimed at bringing all whale stocks to the levels providing the maximum sustainable long-term yields. The author analyses the issues and implications surrounding these developments.     

Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix

The contentious whaling dispute can be described as a scientific dispute over resource management, the collision between nations that regard whales as food and nations that see whales as special, political game played by politicians who like to be seen as environmentally conscious by opposing whaling, and economic interests of the whaling industry and fundraising anti-whaling organizations. All of these different interpretations are correct, however, none, by themselves, can explain the whole picture of the controversy. This paper, by constructing a matrix, presents a comprehensive picture of this complex dispute and some options for making a progress.     

Balanced harvesting: The institutional incompatibilities

Balanced harvesting is the name of a newly proposed approach to fishing which promises the extraction of high and sustainable fisheries yields while maintaining the structure of the ecosystem from which those yields could be obtained. This is to be achieved through exposing all components of ecosystems (from zooplankton to top predators, including seals, sea birds and marine mammals) to a fishing mortality proportional to their size-specific productivity. This study briefly analyses the incompatibility between balanced harvesting (and its implications) and the stated missions of two major organizations, FAO (which stresses the need of selective fishing in its Code of Conduct for Sustainable Fisheries) and IUCN (which maintains the Red List of Threatened Species), but which have issued reports or organized conferences promoting balanced harvesting. The study also demonstrates the incompatibility of balanced harvesting with the recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. While balanced harvesting appears partly compatible with declared fisheries policies of a few countries, e.g. with regard to whaling, sealing, and indiscriminate biomass fishing, it is not only incompatible with the basic tenets of fisheries science, but also with the vision, gradually emerging globally, that marine organisms such as marine mammals, sea turtles, sea-birds and other fauna have an intrinsic value and right to life that should not be undermined by more of the indiscriminate fishing which currently shapes much of our interactions with the oceans.     

Lessons in precaution: The International Whaling Commission experience with precautionary management

The precautionary principle (PP) only represents a new approach to managing uncertainty in so far that it requires proponents of an activity or substance to provide evidence that the activity/substance is harmless, as opposed to the more traditional “trial and error” approach that has instead placed the burden of proof that something is harmful on its opponents. This article critiques the PP as a policy making tool for managing uncertainty, focusing on the epistemological problems it raises, before then using the International Whaling Commission's experience with precautionary approaches to wildlife management to demonstrate the principle's limits and weaknesses when applied in a highly politicised policymaking environment. The article concludes that while the PP offers some benefits for managing uncertainty, its vagueness and openness to broad interpretation can also result in its application creating, rather than limiting, risks and uncertainty.     

Policies governing the distribution of by-products from scientific and small-scale coastal whaling in Japan

The Japanese government is committed to resuming sustainable commercial whaling, both on the high seas and along the Japanese coastline. To this end scientific whaling programs are supported with public money and the byproducts of the catch are distributed to the public and utilized in a variety of ways. Here we review the policies which govern how these byproducts are disseminated within Japan, as well as how the population as a whole makes use of whale resources. Possibilities for the future, if and when the international moratorium on commercial whaling ends, are also discussed.     

Can bargaining resolve the international conflict over whaling?

As the International Whaling Commission has failed to establish a consensus on the interpretation and enforcement of a moratorium on commercial whaling, the disagreement between Australia and Japan over whaling has recently escalated. Australia, a leading opponent of whaling, questioned Japan's scientific whaling program in the Antarctic at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in 2014 that the Japanese whaling program is unscientific, but Japan revised the program and implemented it after the court ruling. To overcome the current international stalemate regarding whaling, this paper examines the possibility of a bargaining solution to this conflict, particularly through voluntary monetary compensation from Australia to Japan to halt whaling activities. The results of nationwide surveys indicate that Australia's total willingness to pay for the discontinuation of whaling by Japan is significantly greater than Japan's willingness to accept to abandon whaling in the high seas despite a substantial population difference between the two countries. The results suggest that a financial transfer could be a win-win strategy to resolve this long-standing international conflict.