At the 55th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission, scheduled for June 16–20 in Berlin, Germany, The HSUS will work to convince swing nations that the IWC is not "broke"—as some whaling nations allege—but that the organization has simply evolved into one more concerned with whale conservation than with the whaling industry.
Convincing these swing nations will be vital for the passage of the Berlin Initiative, a Mexico-submitted resolution that clearly identifies the IWC's current mission: that the conservation of whales, without lethal exploitation, is the primary position and focus for the commission and its committees. The initiative, says Patricia Forkan, HSUS's executive vice president who has been attending IWC meetings since 1973, is merely a legal acknowledgement of the international organization's evolution since its founding in 1946.
"While countries such as Norway and Japan argue that the purpose of the IWC is to regulate whale populations for food consumption, there are clear indications that both the IWC and the greater civil society have moved beyond an initial stage of conquest and consumption to a respect for the rich interrelationships in the natural world," Forkan notes.
"The Berlin Initiative is an acknowledgement that the IWC has evolved into a conservation organization, one designed to protect and ensure the survival of cetaceans for present and further generations," Forkan adds. "It's an acknowledgement that the IWC, as it was originally founded, no longer exists. The IWC's primary purpose is no longer to conserve whale populations so that certain countries can then turn around and kill them."
The Berlin Initiative is expected to be the major resolution of this year's IWC meeting. But there are other important issues on the table, too, including Iceland's proposal to resume whaling for "scientific research" and the ongoing debate over the contents of the Revised Management System.
A brief overview of the major issues at the 55th IWC meeting:
Iceland
During votes on controversial and confused procedural issues at an October 2002 intercessional meeting, Iceland was able to rejoin the IWC with a reservation (an objection) to the commercial whaling moratorium. This means that Iceland is not bound by the moratorium, and is legally allowed to hunt whales commercially. The island nation says it will probably resume commercial whaling in 2006. However, Icelandic officials have already submitted a proposal to begin hunting whales for "scientific research" by exploiting a loophole in the treaty, the same loophole that Japan has exploited for years.
To read an HSUS, WDCS, and ProWildlife report on Iceland:
Download the PDF, Part 1
Download the PDF, Part 2
 | Get Adobe Acrobat Reader |
The Berlin Initiative
Mexico submitted an initiative to strengthen the conservation agenda of the IWC. If adopted, this would make it clear that conservation of whales, without lethal exploitation, is the primary position and focus of the commission and its committees, and one favored by the majority of IWC members. This initiative reflects current international public beliefs and concerns regarding whale protection. If adopted, a special committee will be established to focus on IWC conservation issues, including small cetaceans, sanctuaries, incidental catch, and environmental threats.
To read the text of the Berlin Initiative, download the PDF.
| Get Adobe Acrobat Reader |
Sanctuaries
Sanctuaries are not new to the IWC—they have been part of the convention since its inception. What's more, nations can—and do—create regional sanctuaries, although these zones can generate controversy. For example, Japan believes that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS) violates the convention because it applies "irrespective of the status of stocks"; the island nation also believes that the SOS should not apply to minke whales.
The IWC Scientific Committee has agreed to review the SOS. Japan will use this opportunity to press for criteria that will force the committee to conclude that the SOS serves no function; Japan hopes that this, in turn, will make it difficult or impossible for all or part of the scientific committee to recommend that the SOS be continued.
Meanwhile, Australia and New Zealand are again proposing to establish a South Pacific Sanctuary, and Argentina and Brazil are proposing a South Atlantic Sanctuary. Establishing sanctuaries is the only way to truly protect whales by providing a safe haven where they can feed and reproduce.
Whale Watching
In today's economy, a living whale is more valuable than a dead one. Whale watching can be an educational and non-consumptive way for people to profit from whales. It is not just the tour operators, but also for the broader community of tourism service providers who benefit from whale watching. Commercial whaling does not have nearly the same direct financial rewards, or the indirect economic benefits. In spite of this, Japan and its allies consistently oppose any work done by the IWC to address whale watching.
Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues
The IWC requires that the killing of whales for commercial or aboriginal subsistence purposes be humane. A Humane Killing (a.k.a. Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Concerns) working group holds periodic workshops on whale killing methods. One such workshop is planned for this year's meeting.
The IWC has outlawed the use of the more inhumane methods, cold harpoon and the electric lance. Still, death—and perhaps more relevantly, insensibility—is often not instantaneous. This is the result of multiple factors, including the whales' large size, their physiology (including their specialized adaptations for diving), and weather conditions at sea. Indeed, given these factors, a "struck and landed" whale may suffer anywhere from a few minutes to several hours.
"That's the bottom line: No one knows the exact moment a whale dies or how much he suffers before death," says The HSUS's Forkan. "Because of this, we at The HSUS believe there is no way to humanely kill a whale. We strongly support the continued work of the Humane Killing working group."
To read an HSUS/WDCS report on Humane Killing, download the PDF.
| Get Adobe Acrobat Reader |
Cetacean-fisheries Interactions
One of Japan's excuses for killing whales is that whales are eating all the fish and leaving none for humans. However, common sense and credible scientific evidence contradict this propaganda. Fish populations around the world are being decimated by human over-fishing. Fish stock depletions cannot be blamed on several thousand hungry and endangered whales.
Heath Issues
The contamination of cetacean meat and blubber via toxic chemicals have raised serious human health concerns. These concerns are serious enough that scientists have ruled that Norway cannot sell whale blubber to Japan as planned because it contains dangerously high levels of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), which have been linked to birth defects. The Faroes government, another pro-whaling nation that planned to import whale products from Norway, issued an citizens advisory in 1998 about consumption of contaminated whale products.
Revised Management Scheme
Since 1994, the IWC has been discussing a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) to manage commercial whaling should the member nations agree to lift the current ban. To date, the RMS drafts have focused only on issues of supervision and not on issues of enforcement and compliance, thus omitting a crucial factor and falling out of step with developments in international law.
An effective RMS must incorporate binding procedures and systems for managing collected data as well as surveillance of whaling operations and markets, reporting, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of violations. The current compromised draft text does not contain any of these basic elements. Meanwhile, Japan claims that the conservation countries are unjustly holding up the procedures when, in fact, the delay is due to Japan's failure to agree to even the most basic enforcement mechanisms. In addition, Japan continues to undermine the agreement by engaging in so-called "scientific" whaling and or commercial whaling.
Socio-Economic Implications and Small-Type Whaling
This was originally proposed 16 years ago as an "emergency relief quota" and has been proposed at each of the last 16 IWC meetings. The "needs" of small towns, if any, have now been filled twice over—first, by the change in rules, which allows whales caught in nets to be marketed and processed on shore (which is providing a substantial catch of whales) and, second, by the assignment of 50 whales from the "scientific" take to be caught by small-type catcher boats (the same boats that were proposed to take the "emergency relief quota").
These towns are not in desperate need of food. In fact, they are thriving communities. This is not an aboriginal subsistence situation. At the special IWC intercessional meeting in October 2002, the U.S. voted in favor of this Japanese proposal. The HSUS is opposed to allowing a new category of whaling and is disappointed in the U.S. for caving into pressure from the Japanese.
To read The HSUS position statement on the IWC, download the PDF.
To read The HSUS position statement on specific issues for these meetings, download the PDF.
| Get Adobe Acrobat Reader |
