It’s that time again – when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) holds its 61st annual meeting. Each year, member nations discuss regulations and positions. This year, the goal was to reach a workable compromise between whaling nations and those against whaling.
In the past few decades, conservation goals have dominated the IWC’s focus. After all, centuries of whaling resulted in dramatically dwindling populations of baleen whales and other species. But thanks to concerted efforts, many species are on the rebound. And that’s the problem. As whale populations grow, some countries are keen to re-establish old whaling traditions.
Pro-whaling nations include Japan, Iceland, and Greenland, among others. There are also nations that have formally lodged objections to IWC regulations, declaring themselves exempt. Norway is an example of a country that whales outside of IWC control – although it is a member nation with a named commissioner.
Iceland has already started hunting fin whales for the 2009 season, with a quota of 150 individuals. This is in addition to 100 minke whales. Greenland is seeking approval to hunt humpback whales along with other species caught under an indigenous whaling clause.
Reaching agreement is challenging. Talks to negotiate a compromise were initiated a full year ago. But the differences of opinion are seemingly insurmountable. For many years, one stumbling block has been whaling for scientific research. The original 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) includes an exemption for any whales caught under these auspices. Japan has used this clause to justify extensive hunting of various species, including minke and fin whales.
New on the table this year is a proposal for certain coastal communities in Japan. It would allow four communities to hunt up to 150 minke whales per year – with meat to be used for food. This extends Japanese whaling beyond a research justification. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, many other areas and nations would also have some claim to historic whaling activity. South Korea has already stated it will follow suit if the Japanese proposal is approved. To address the possibility of excessive claims and over-whaling, one option would be setting out very clear conditions. Establishing workable guidelines will take time.
With so much at stake, it’s worth taking the time necessary to work out a practical approach. The unilateral anti-whaling view has been battered over the years. Many countries have seen local increases in whale populations and assume that small-scale whaling is harmless. Recognizing this fact, the IWC has convened a small support group to work on these issues over the next few months.
What happens to all those whales? Some traditional whaling countries have lost their taste for whale meat – Iceland plans to export most of their meat to Japan. However, aboriginal communities may still use whale products in various ways, including to meet nutritional needs. Realistically, there is no widespread demand for whale meat apart from in Japan, Norway, and indigenous communities.
Weighing all the factors and implications is not easy. How do you compare the size of a marine mammal population with thousands of years of human tradition? It’s apples and oranges – and each person will have a different answer. But clearly the time has come to set out some basic compromises. Otherwise, nations will leave the IWC and whale without the benefit of population estimates and other conservation measures.
Photo credit: f0rbe5@Flickr.com
