Small type-Whaling and BIG TIME POLITICS

THE MORATORIUM
The International Whaling Commission's task is to regulate whaling to a sustainable level. In 1982 the Commission decided that all commercial whaling should be stopped for a five year period starting in 1986. The reason given for this was that not enough knowledge nor good enough tackle was available to allow the establishment of what could be regarded as a sustainable harvest of stocks. The Commission's Scientific Committee was divided as regards the necessity of such a moratorium.

The period of suspension was to be spent collecting better information on the size of stocks and to develop a quota calculation model which could ensure safety from depletion. The moratorium decision was to be reviewed "by 1990 at the latest", and a comprehensive research programme on the stocks in question was launched.

CHANGING ATTITUDES
By 1992 all the pieces required in the moratorium resolution were definitively in place. New, reliable stock estimates were available for a number of the stocks in question and a new quota calculation model had been prepared. If the results of the work of the Scientific Committee were used, it would result in the harvest of several minke whale stocks both in the North Atlantic and in the Southern Hemisphere. However, several of the member nations have changed their minds. In may 1993, Dr. Ray Gambell, Secretary of the Whaling Commission, wrote the following in a report to the European Council:

"Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and the USA have argued that commercial whaling cannot be allowed until there is firm evidence on the status of stocks; that guaranteed control and monitoring systems are in place, and improvements are achieved in the humane killing practices. However, the position of these countries became clearer this year with the statement by the USA that it opposes the resumption of commercial whaling even if these requisite conditions are satisfied."

Everything seems to indicate that the Whaling Commission is unlikely to allocate commercial whaling quotas for the next few years, either. A three-quarter majority is required to establish quotas.

LEGAL DECISION
Against this deadlocked situation, Norway decided to resume the minke whale harvest in 1993 without the permission of the IWC. According to international law this was an entirely legal decision. Pursuant to the IWC's own regulations, Norway had lodged a reservation against the moratorium and is therefore not bound by it.

"The Whaling Commission is breaking its own rules by neglecting the recommendations of its Scientific Committee," claims Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland.

Iceland left the Whaling Commission in 1992 in protest against it not living up to its own intentions. Canada left as early as 1982 and is not contemplating joining again, despite the fact that its own aboriginal population in the North West Territory has resumed the catch of Greenland whales.

So far, Norway has decided to maintain its membership of the IWC and to work towards ensuring that the organisation fulfils its own intentions. The Norwegians hope that the IWC will set sustainable quotas for the harvest of minke whales in the North East Atlantic.

SUSTAINABLE USE
Brundtland fears that the Commission is in the process of harpooning the principle of sustainable use as the fundamental principle for international cooperation on the environment:

"When did the international community decide to stop hunting and using animals for human consumption...? I ask you that direct question because it is impossible to continue with international cooperation on the resources of the ocean, or any other resource....if preservation alone dominates the issue," she said in a speech to the European Council on February 4, 1992.

Gro Harlem Brundtland was also prime minister when Norwegian minke whaling was stopped in 1987. Because of the Norwegian reservation, the harvest continued for two years after the moratorium took effect in 1986.

The official Norwegian reason for stopping whaling was "uncertainty of the size of stocks" but threats of sanctions made by the USA also played an important role. A comprehensive research programme was put into immediate effect in order to improve knowledge of the status of stocks. Counts were carried out in 1988 and 1989, and in 1992, on the basis of these surveys, the Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee unanimously confirmed that the best estimate of the size of the stock was 86,700.

This should have meant a green light for minke whaling.

NEW CONDITIONS
In 1991 the Commission appended its list of conditions for lifting the moratorium to include, amongst other things, an inspection system and demands to be made on the data reported from the harvest. Norway and Japan have been unsuccessful in asking for a deadline for the completion of this work. Sweden's request of an extra inter-sessional meeting in order to make progress with the work on inspection systems was refused. Such an extra meeting will be held in 1994 to discuss the introduction of a sanctuary in the Southern Pacific.

THE CHAIRMAN RESIGNED
On May 26 1993 the Chairman of the IWC Scientific Committee, Briton Phil Hammond, wrote his letter of resignation. He was resigning in protest only three weeks after he had been unanimously re-elected by his 100 colleagues in the Committee. In the meantime, the Commission had held its annual meeting.

In his letter of resignation Hammond writes:

"What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations on a matter of primary importance are treated with such contempt."

"The Commission could now put in place a mechanism for the safe management of commercial whaling, regardless of whether "the moratorium" was lifted... the future of this unique piece of work... was left in the air.. the reasons for this were nothing to do with science. Although, despite the unanimity of the Scientific Committee's recommendation, some Commissioners used selective quotations out of context from the Committee's report to justify not adopting the revised management procedure on "scientific grounds".

"I can no longer justify myself being the organiser and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such disregard by the body to which it is responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the Committee to spend their valuable time... knowing how the results of this work may be treated... I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as Chairman of the Scientific Committee."

BEFORE ITS TIME
In 1946 "The Convention for the Regulation of Whaling" was signed by most of the whaling nations. Altogether 17 nations ratified the treaty which also included the establishment of a management body, the International Whaling Commission.

The whaling treaty was before its time. It was based on the principle which several decades later became known as sustainable use. It was a treaty on the use of a common resource which in principle was available to all nations. As far as fishing in international waters is concerned, we have only recently been able to catch a glimpse of hope for an equivalent agreement.

The Convention's objective states that it shall "... provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry." Furthermore, it states that depleted stocks are to be preserved, but that "... increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured." All resolutions made by the Whaling Commission are to "provide for the conservation, development and optimal utilization of the whale resources, ...shall be based on scientific findings" and "take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry."

"The whole convention is geared to promote whaling," said Ian Stewart, Whaling Commissioner from New Zealand to the New York Times on May 18,1993. He claimed that the majority of members nations no longer agree with the Commissions objectives and that they are opposed to commercial whaling. Even so, no attempt has been made to renegotiate the treaty. According to the treaty, the member nations are obliged to work actively towards the fulfilment of the treaty's objectives.

RESPONSIBILITY
The IWC held its first meeting i 1949. In the fifties, the Commission was unable to live up to its objectives. Short-term profit considerations were dominant. The whaling industries were supported by their governments, and quotas were set far higher than the sustainable level.

"The turning point came in 1965 when for the first time in history the Commission agreed to establish a catch limit lower than the best scientific estimate of the sustainable yield," writes J.L. McHugh, former leader of the U.S. delegation to the Whaling Commission.

In 1965 the blue whale was given total protection. Two years later, the same thing happened to the humpback. By the early seventies, the Whaling Commission had become a responsible organisation. One after another, the great whales were either given total or partial protection.

CHAMPIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENT?
By the end of the seventies, the whale had become an important symbol for the environmental movement. Demands for a moratorium were put forward with increasing intensity, and whale protectionist organisations lunched enrolment campaigns. In 1977, the Whaling Commission still had 17 members. In 1982, when the moratorium was passed, the number had increased to 37. Among the more recent members was inland nation Switzerland.

Private organisations have observer status at the Commission. During the 1993 IWC meeting, 86 organisations took part as observers, carrying out intense lobbying activity. The great majority of these have total protection as their aim. Among these observers we find Beauty Without Cruelty, Save the Children, A&M Records Sink or Swim and, of course Greenpeace and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

MARINE MAMMALS IN RIO
It has been claimed that the UN environment conference in Rio, UNCED, passed a resolution declaring that whales and other marine mammals were to be exempt form the principle of sustainable use. This is not correct. UNCED recognizes "the responsibility of the International Whaling Commission for the conservation and management of whale stocks and the regulation of whaling pursuant to the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of whaling". As we know, this convention is based on the principle of sustainable utilization.

The fact is that as far as marine mammals are concerned, UNCED allows each individual country exemption from the principle of optimal utilization of all marine resources. The U.S.A. and Great Britain are therefore not obliged to harvest stocks of marine mammals, as they are with regard to fish stocks. But this does not affect the right of Norway, the Faroes, Iceland, Greenland and Japan to a sustainable use of marine mammals, or the IWC's duty to live up to the aims of the Whaling Convention.