Twenty-four years after banning commercial hunting of whales, the International Whaling Commission may be reversing itself.  The argument is that by managing whaling, instead of prohibiting it, whale populations will fare better than they do currently at the hands of international poachers.

Last Thursday, IWC announced its Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales, a “10 year peace plan” to be voted on at the annual meeting in June, in Agadir, Morocco. 

In 1986, the IWC outlawed commercial whaling by setting catch limits at zero.  It now wants to reign in the three countries that whale (Japan, Iceland, and Norway), to set catch limits (well above zero) that are lower than what they set for themselves, and to keep close tabs on their operations.  The proposal explicitly states,

The moratorium remains in place.

(A Japanese whaling vessel pulls a Minke whale up its slipway.  Photo:  Culley/Greenpeace.)

 

Environmental protection groups are reeling at this suspected foot-in-the-door effort to legalized commercial whaling.  Kitty Block, VP of Humane Society International, said,

The way forward here is not to go backwards…It would be awful to think that our greatest efforts to protect whales peaked in 1982 — and that we are now reduced to witnessing the erosion of the tremendous gains we made.

Proponents think that allowing whaling with limits is more pragmatic than letting whale hunters act like Prohibition mobsters.  Geoffrey Palmer, New Zealand’s IWC delegate, said to TVNZ Channel 3,

“It’s no use posturing and not producing actual results.  The actual results are that increasing numbers of whales are being killed…Soon life will be lost down there if this is not brought to an end.”

 

On the contrary, Natural Resources Defense Council claims that the 1986 moratorium reduced annual whale killings by 97% since its implementation.  Joel Reynolds, Director of NRDC’s Marine Mammal Protection Program said,

The moratorium has done more to save whales than the revival of commercial whaling ever could…[IWC’s proposal] is a step backward, to a time when it was acceptable to kill whales for profit.

Dr. Daryl Boness, Chairman of the Marine Mammal Commission, spoke to the U.S. Senate last month, when IWC was tossing around an initial proposal, about the tricky prospect of monitoring whale populations effectively, saying,

It’s critical to make decisions before all the data is available that you would like to have to make clear and decisive conclusions.  One of the things that is critical is that there be a process in place to evaluate the potential alternatives…It is a constant problem that is dealt with in conservation…Clearly one needs to invest more effort in collecting data, but you have to make decisions as you go, with the data in hand.

During his presidential candidacy, Barack Obama took a strong stance against whaling, saying,

I will ensure the U.S. provides leadership in enforcing wildlife protection agreements, including strengthening the international ban on commercial whaling. Allowing Japan to continue commercial whaling is unacceptable.

(Whaling catch in the Faroe Islands.  Photo:  Erik Christensen.)

 

In January 2010, President Obama nominated two experienced marine scientists to the Marine Mammal Commission:  Dr. Michael F. Tillman and Dr. Daryl J. Boness.

March 18, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held its confirmation hearing, and questioned Tillman about the IWC’s burgeoning ideas for whaling limits, namely what the role of the MMC and the U.S. should be in whaling quotas and the moratorium. 

Dr. Tillman responded,

I think that [MMC] could expand their role…Even though there is a moratorium there is whaling going on that is out of control, under loopholes in the convention.  This negotiation that is going on between parties is an attempt to try to deal with closing those loopholes, and bring the IWC back to its role of being the lead organization for conservation of whales throughout the world.

Back in 1982, when the IWC proposed a pause in commercial whaling, Japan formally complained along with Norway, Peru, and the Soviet Union.  It withdrew, however, when the U.S. threatened to ratchet down the fishing quota within its waters.

Does the U.S. still leverage that kind of bargaining power against an economy as powerful as Japan’s?

The IWC proposal ensures that it has worked hard to gain international consensus, with the “firm understanding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” (and when dealing with greed, agree to disagree).

In June, representatives of the 88 states comprising the International Whaling Commission will meet in Morocco to either modify or adopt the plan.

IWC Chair Cristian Maquieira said, hopefully,

It will be a major achievement if, despite some fundamental differences of views on whaling, our member countries can put these differences aside for a period to focus on ensuring the world has healthy whale stocks.

(Humpback whale.  Photo:  Wikipedia.)