 |
© F. Bassemayousse
For a few years, it undergoes a severe crisis due in particular to :
- the flexible founder text allowing members to circumvent its decisions, including the most important, such as the moratorium about commercial whaling adopted in 1982 (by the right of objection or by the right of scientific whaling).
- an active diplomacy from Japan aiming at enlarging the votes of “hunting countries” in order to get the relative majority. Until 2005, this majority of votes was held (with a narrow margin) by the “protecting countries”, in which France is in. In June 2006, for the first time since the commencement of the moratorium, the countries in favour of the resumption of catching got the majority by one vote.
What is the IWC for ?
The IWC’s role is to :
- Provide a complete protection of certain species (blue whales, humpback whales),
- designate specified areas as whale sanctuaries,
- set limits on the numbers and size of whales which may be taken out of the moratorium,
- prohibit the catching of suckling calves and female whales accompanied by a calf,
- prescribe the opening and closing seasons and areas for whaling.
Otherwise, the Commission stimulates, co-ordinates and funds whale research, publishes results of scientific research, promotes studies into related matters such as the humaneness of the killing operations.
The Scientific Committee's report provides an annual review of the major issues affecting cetacean conservation and starts an investigation on global warming and pollution consequences on cetaceans.
The IWC counts 77 countries in 2007, of which 20 member-states of European Union. France belongs to it since it started.
The IWC meets every year in a member state : in 2005, in Ulsan (South Korea) - in 2006, in St. Kitts and Nevis (a Caribbean island), and in 2007 in Anchorage Alaska (USA)
IWC’s decisions are being prepared by committees (scientific, conservation etc), sub- committees (aboriginal subsistence whaling, infractions), and workshops. Then they are adopted in plenary sessions, by consensus or relative majority, along the rule “one man (whale commissioner)”, “one vote”. A ¾ majority is required to modify the convention and its annexes.
© F. Bassemayousse
1982’s moratorium.
In 1982, populations of most of the whales species had been reduced over 80% by industrial whaling. Facing a threat of extinction of certain species, the IWC provisionally forbid the commercial whaling by a moratorium. Nevertheless, it allowed catches for scientific purposes and also aboriginal subsistence catching in Denmark (Groënland), in Russia (Siberia), in Saint-Vincent and Grenadines islands (Caribbeans) and USA (Alaska), with precise quotas.
The moratorium still applies since 1986 and is still in force.
It was planned as well, as of 1990, to assess the impact of that measure on cetaceans population and to consider some modifications regarding the restoration of catching quotas for certain species, in case of resumption of the commercial whaling.
Texte Véronique Sarano
 |
|
|
A few clarifications : -
Why scientific catches are allowed ?
The scientific permit catches has been adopted several decades ago, when scientific research was done on captured animals. Since then, the investigations methods have changed very much and they can be done on living whales: so this clause is no longer relevant and applicable.
Washington convention allows member states to « object » any decision taken by the International whaling commission, providing this objection is done in time. Two countries used of this right : - Norway objected the 1982 moratorium. Thus it is the only country to whale commercially since 1993 and recently informed about its intention to increase its whaling quotas. The “protecting countries” wish the objection right to be withdrawn.
Some « hunting countries » argue that the moratorium on commercial whaling has harmful effects on captured fishes stocks because the whales would eat large quantities of fishes of a commercial interest (pretending it’s 5 times more than the fishing industry itself) This argument is totally unfounded. In one hand, part of the whales such as whalebone whales (rorqual, blue whale, humpback whales..) are essentially eating plankton and small shrimps (krill). In another hand, this theory disregards the numerous interactions between the different species and the complexity of food chains. Thus, some fishes are the preys of other predators (such as squids) which are by turns eaten by the whales. Eliminating the whales would mean increasing the population of these predators which are competing with humankind. Moreover, the main regions where the whales are living on (Antarctic zone specially) do not correspond to the usual fishing areas. Finally, most of the fishes eaten by the whales have no commercial value, so the whales are not living on the usually fished stocks. Actually, this argument is covering up the main reason of the fall-off in fishes stocks : the overexploitation by fishing industry.
Since 1982’ moratorium, the extinction of certain species has been avoided. But other dangers are watching the cetaceans : pollutions, sea traffic, underwater noises, accidental captures, climate changes.. To consider those risks, IWC has created a conservation committee in 2003. |
