Marguerite Tarzia and Bill McCormick, Science, Technology,
Environment and Resources Section
Background to the whaling issue
Since 1986 whaling has polarised the international community.
This followed the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
‘moratorium’ on commercial whaling—a response to
the global over-exploitation of many whale species. Pre-moratorium,
commercial whaling occurred globally with the largest whaling
grounds located in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. Many
species came close to extinction. While some show signs of
recovery, other species remain critically low in numbers. Fin
whales are listed by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature as an endangered species. Disputed population estimates of
Antarctic minke whales are of a few hundred thousand animals. This
estimate is given as justification for currently hunting this
species.
The ban on commercial whaling
The IWC moratorium was initially designed as a pause in
commercial whaling. Rigorous population assessments were planned,
which could be used in a revised management scheme (RMS) to
determine sustainable catch limits for unprotected species.
Although the methodologies for population estimates are improving,
robust numbers for most species (pre and post commercial whaling)
do not exist. The ban on whaling has continued as countries are
unable to agree on both the acceptability of commercial whaling,
and sustainable catch limits. In response to this, Iceland, Norway
and Japan have lobbied hard to reinstate ‘sustainable’
commercial whaling, and have continued to hunt whales under special
scientific permits, or objections to the International Convention
for the Regulation of Whaling. The appendix I listing of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
prohibits all trade for many whale species. Iceland, Norway and
Japan object to the listing of these whale species, which means
that they can trade in whale meat amongst themselves. Recently,
evidence has emerged of black market trade in whale meat from Japan
to South Korea and America—a breach of CITES.
Norway and Iceland
Norway and Iceland objected to the IWC moratorium, and so are
not bound by the ban. They therefore continue to commercially hunt
fin and common minke whales with self-allocated annual quotas.
Iceland also conducts scientific whaling. They both hunt in the
North Atlantic, within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ).
Japan
Japan is bound by the IWC moratorium. Since 1987 Japan has
issued permits to hunt whales for scientific purposes—a
clause in the Whaling Convention permits whaling for
‘essential’ and ‘critical research’. The
scientific program includes whaling in Japanese coastal waters and
the North Pacific and within the IWC Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary
(created in 1994). The sanctuary prohibits commercial whaling, but
does not prohibit scientific whaling. Under Japan’s Antarctic
research program, its annual quota is 850 Antarctic minke whales,
50 fin and 50 humpback whales. This program has angered
anti-whaling countries, who argue that ‘scientific
whaling’ is in fact commercial whaling in all but name. Minke
whale meat from the research activity is sold legally within Japan,
as the Convention requires the meat to be used. Japan denies all
accusations that the scientific whaling program is commercial
whaling in disguise.
Anti-whaling perspective
Anti-whaling countries have consistently voted against a return
to commercial whaling under the RMS, due to fears that commercial
whaling will not be effectively managed, will expand and lead to
over-exploitation, and that sustainable catch limits cannot be
reached when significant uncertainty remains over population
numbers. Some countries oppose the concept of whaling in any form.
This led to an impasse in 2007, which continues to date. At the
same meeting, the IWC passed a non-binding resolution asking Japan
to halt scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean. The IWC
Scientific Committee found that the current research goals were
neither critical nor requiring lethal measures, and that previous
research goals had not been reached.
2010 proposals at the IWC
Since 2007 the IWC has pushed for a workable compromise. During
the 2010 IWC meeting a new proposal was introduced which
recommended:
- maintaining the moratorium but introducing a 10-year interim
period with IWC-regulated whaling and the elimination of
self-allocated quotas and
- capping quotas at significantly lower levels than current catch
limits.
New Zealand backed the proposal as a means to reduce the number
of whales killed over the next ten years. Other countries voted it
down. Australia viewed it as legitimising commercial whaling, with
concessions to whaling nations compromising the long-term goals to
end whaling. Australia presented its own proposal that argued
for:
- an end to ‘scientific’ whaling and commercial
whaling through objection
- phasing out scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary
within five years
- prohibiting all whaling in sanctuaries
- no new species approved for whaling and
- improved consideration of threats and conservation status.
Australia’s role
Australia is one of the strongest anti-whaling countries. It is
committed to non-lethal whale research using technologies such as
satellite tagging and biopsy, to demonstrate that killing whales is
unnecessary.
Australia initiated proceedings in 2010 in the International
Court of Justice against Japan for breaching the Whaling
Convention. Alleged breaches include conducting
‘scientific’ whaling with a lack of relevance to
conservation and management of whale populations, and on such a
scale as to constitute commercial whaling; hunting fin and humpback
whales within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary; and breaching the CITES
Convention through illegal trade.
Future outlook
While Australia has begun legal proceedings, the process and
outcomes of this will be time-consuming, with Japan given until
2012 to lodge initial pleadings. This will not solve the IWC
impasse and an IWC resolution to this issue is necessary. More
anti-whaling nations may begin to consider compromises to regulate
and reduce whaling. In the past 20 years Japan has firmly
maintained its stance on whaling. One possible outcome is for
Australia to develop an acceptable proposal which permits regulated
coastal whaling in the three countries’ EEZs with a phase-out
of whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. This may defuse the
political situation and lead to significant reductions in
whaling.
Library publications and key documents
International Whaling Commission (IWC) website,
Commission information, http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/iwcmain.htm#conservation
Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities, International protection of
whales,
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/international/index.html#future