The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is the intergovernmental

Transcription

1 624 The nternational Whaling Commission The nternational Whaling Commission G.P. DONOVAN The nternational Whaling Commission (WC) is the intergovernmental body established in 1946 to conserve whale stocks and regulate whaling. Membership is open to any sovereign state. There were 78 member nations ( Table ) in December Historical Background Whaling cannot be put forward as an example of the successful sustainable management of a renewable resource. From the start of TABLE List of Member Nations of the WC in December 2007, With Dates of Adherence. Some Nations Have Left and Rejoined. The Date of Adherence Refers to Their Most Recent Adherence. Thirty-eight Countries Have Joined Since 2000 Antigua and Barbuda 21/07/1982 Argentina 18/05/1960 Australia 10/11/1948 Austria 20/05/1994 Belgium 15/07/2004 Belize 17/06/2003 Benin 26/04/2002 Brazil 04/01/1974 Cambodia 01/06/2006 Cameroon 14/06/2005 Chile 06/07/1979 People s Republic of China 24/09/1980 Costa Rica 24/07/1981 Côte d voire 08/07/2004 Croatia 10/01/2007 Cyprus 26/02/2007 Czech Republic 26/01/2005 Denmark 23/05/1950 Dominica 18/06/1992 Ecuador 10/05/2007 Finland 23/02/1983 France 03/12/1948 Gabon 08/05/2002 The Gambia 17/05/2005 Germany 02/07/1982 Greece 16/05/2007 Grenada 07/04/1993 Guatemala 16/05/2006 Guinea-Bissau 29/05/2007 (continues) TABLE (Continued) Republic of Guinea 21/06/2000 Hungary 01/05/2004 celand 10/10/2002 ndia 09/03/1981 reland 02/01/1985 srael 07/06/2006 taly 06/02/1998 Japan 21/04/1951 Kenya 02/12/1981 Kiribati 28/12/2004 Laos 22/05/2007 Luxembourg 10/06/2005 Republic of Korea 29/12/1978 Mali 17/08/2004 Republic of the Marshall slands 01/06/2006 Mauritania 23/12/2003 Mexico 30/06/1949 Monaco 15/03/1982 Mongolia 16/05/2002 Morocco 12/02/2001 Nauru 15/06/2005 Netherlands 14/06/1977 New Zealand 15/06/1976 Nicaragua 05/06/2003 Norway 03/03/1948 Oman 15/07/1980 Republic of Palau 08/05/2002 Panama 12/06/2001 Peru 18/06/1979 Portugal 14/05/2002 Russian Federation 10/11/1948 San Marino 16/04/2002 St. Kitts and Nevis 24/06/1992 St. Lucia 29/06/1981 St. Vincent and The Grenadines 22/07/1981 Senegal 15/07/1982 Slovak Republic 22/03/2005 Slovenia 20/09/2006 Solomon slands 10/05/1993 South Africa 10/11/1948 Spain 06/07/1979 Suriname 15/07/2004 Sweden 15/06/1979 Switzerland 29/05/1980 Togo 15/06/2005 Tuvalu 30/06/2004 United Kingdom 10/11/1948 Uruguay 27/09/2007 United States 10/11/1948

2 The nternational Whaling Commission 625 the commercial exploitation of whales, the story was usually one of eventual overexploitation. Modern commercial whaling began with the invention of the explosive harpoon combined with the development of steam-powered catcher boats in the 1860s ( Tønnessen and Johnsen, 1982 ). This allowed whalers to take the faster-swimming rorquals (e.g., the blue, Balaenoptera musculus, and fin, B. physalus whales). The promise of large numbers of whales caused whalers to investigate the Antarctic, and the first whaling station was established on South Georgia in 1904 and took 195 whales. By 1913, there were 6 true land stations and 21 floating factories that had to be moored in suitable harbors; the total catch was 10,760 whales. The invention of the stern slipway in 1925 allowed vessels to operate in offshore waters and by 1930/31, 41 factory ships took over 37,000 whales. This overproduction led to a catastrophic decline in the price of whale oil. t was the fear of low prices rather than the fear of overexploiting whale stocks that was the driving force behind early moves to limit catching. Despite attempts under the auspices of the League of Nations to establish some international control, the production agreements negotiated amongst themselves by the whaling companies produced the first effective limitation of catches in the early 1930s. World War caused a world shortage in the supply of fats and several nations had their eyes on profits from pelagic whaling. t was in this light, and the experience gained in developing international agreements just before the war, that discussions were held in London in 1945 and in Washington in 1946 on the international regulation of whaling.. Establishment of the WC The nternational Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed at the 1946 Conference. t was a major step forward in the international regulation of natural resources as it was one of the first to place conservation at the forefront ( Gambell, 1977 ; Allen, 1980 ). The Convention was established to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. This was a laudable aim, but finding the difficult balance between conservation ( achieve the optimum level of whale stocks ) and the interests of the whaling industry (without causing widespread economic and nutritional distress ) has dominated the history of the WC. An important feature of the Convention was that it established a mechanism whereby regulatory measures included in the Schedule to the Convention (catch limits, seasons, size limits, inspections, etc.) could be amended when necessary by a three-quarters majority of members voting (excluding abstentions). The Convention also formally assigned importance to the need for scientific advice, requiring that amendments to the regulations shall be based on scientific findings. To this end, the Commission established a Scientific Committee comprising scientists nominated by member governments (and latterly invited experts when appropriate). Despite this, there are aspects of the Convention that have attracted criticism. For example, any government can object to any decision with which it does not agree within a certain time frame. This (along with the right of nations to unilaterally issue permits to catch whales for scientific purposes) has led to accusations that the WC is toothless. However, it should be recognized that without these provisions, the Convention would probably have never been signed. From a management perspective, a more serious flaw was that the WC could neither restrict operations by numbers or nationality nor allocate quotas per operation. Although it may be questioned whether the WC could have agreed to national quotas or numbers of vessels, certainly if such limitations had been reached this would have reduced the management problems associated with increasing numbers of vessels chasing limited quotas. The Convention formally established the WC. The WC comprises one Commissioner from each government who has one vote and may be accompanied by one or more experts and advisers.. The WC Before 1972 Perhaps the most serious problem of early management was the use of the Blue Whale Unit (BWU). n terms of oil yield, one blue whale was considered equal to 2 fin, 2.5 humpback ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), or 6 sei ( Balaenoptera borealis ) whales. n 1945, a catch limit of 16,000 BWU was set (suggested by three scientists as being a reassuring value in between their estimate of 15 20,000; in fact scientific information on stock status was poor). The flaw in the BWU system is apparent it allows catching of depleted species below levels at which catching that species alone would be economically unviable. This is apparent from the catch data up to the 1970s, which reveal that as blue whale catches declined, so fin whale catches (the next largest species) increased until they too were overexploited and sei whale catching began. The lack of national quotas resulted in an Olympic system, where it became a race to catch as many whales as possible before the total quota was reached leading to waste during processing and the use of increasing numbers of catcher boats (129 in 1946/47 and 263 in 1951/52). This neither made economic sense nor encouraged conservation. Despite the early optimism, as early as 1952 many recognized that the catch quota was too high. The difficulty was in getting all the whaling nations to agree to a reduction if one nation objected, then all objected. This was the start of a difficult period for the WC. A combination of short-term economics, greed, and a lack of incontrovertible scientific evidence led to a critical situation for whale stocks; the benefit of the doubt was always given to the industry. Even a single voice on the Scientific Committee (often the Dutch scientist, Slijper) negated its attempts to persuade governments of the desperate need for quota reductions. At one stage, both the Netherlands and Norway withdrew from the Commission and its survival seemed in doubt. The Commission even appointed a group of three, later four scientists experts in the relatively new science of population dynamics to produce independent advice ( Allen, 1980 ). After considerable argument and controversy, by 1971/72, the catch limit had been reduced to 2300BWU and certain species, including blue and humpback whales had been protected from commercial whaling. V. A Period of Change: 1972 to the Moratorium n 1972, the UN Conference on the Human Environment called for an increase in whale research, a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling and a strengthening of the WC. Although proposals for a 10-year moratorium were subsequently tabled at the WC, they failed to reach the required three-quarters majority, largely because the WC Scientific Committee believed that management on a stock-by-stock basis (Antarctic catches were first set by species in 1972) was the most sensible approach if required each stock could be independently protected. The UN resolution was, however, taken seriously by the WC. By 1976, a permanent Secretariat had been established in Cambridge, an nternational Decade of Cetacean Research had been declared,

3 626 The nternational Whaling Commission and a management procedure (the New Management Procedure or NMP ) had been adopted. The NMP was aimed at bringing all stocks of whales to an optimum level at which the largest number of whales can be taken consistently (the maximum sustainable yield or MSY) without depleting the stock. t also gave complete protection to stocks at 54% of their estimated pre-exploitation size, i.e., well before they became endangered. The NMP was regarded as a major step forward in the management of whaling. t appeared to take the issue of catch limits largely out of the hands of the politicians and into those of the Scientific Committee. n addition, from 1973, the long-awaited international observer scheme was in operation, aimed at ensuring that new catch limits were enforced. A major feature over this period was the increase in WC membership. n 1963, there were 18 member nations, of which only 4 were non-whaling countries; in 1978, there were 17 of which 8 were non-whaling and by 1982, membership was 39. Of the 13 whaling nations, 3 had only aboriginal/subsistence operations (Denmark, the United States, and St. Vincent and The Grenadines). The 1979 meeting was a turning point in the Commission s history. Doubts had been expressed by some over (1) the theoretical and practical application of the NMP and (2) the morality of whaling, irrespective of the status of the stocks. At that meeting, a proposal to end pelagic whaling for all species except minke whales was adopted and a Sanctuary was declared for the ndian Ocean outside the Antarctic. Whereas the onus in the past had been for positive evidence of a decline in stocks before a reduction in catch limits was agreed, positive evidence was now required if a catch limit was to be set. By 1982, a Schedule amendment was adopted that implemented a pause in commercial whaling (or to use popular terminology, a moratorium ) from Originally, four whaling nations, Japan, Norway, Peru, and the USSR, lodged objections to this decision; Peru and Japan subsequently withdrew theirs. n the year 2000, only Norway carried out commercial whaling. One obvious question to ask as the WC s moratorium came into effect was whether the Commission been a success. At one level the answer must be no indeed it could be argued that it had been a disaster. For example, in the Antarctic, the most important area to the WC initially, (a) blue and fin whales had been reduced to at best 5% and 20% of their original numbers, and possibly much less, respectively hardly a good example of conservation of whale resources, and (b) the 1983/84 catch was 6655 minke whales (mainly Antarctic minke whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis ), a species not considered worth catching in 1947/48 when the catch in BWU was 25 times greater hardly the orderly development of the whaling industry. So, had the WC achieved anything? First of all, while it is easy with current levels of knowledge to criticize the WC s performance, it has to be said that modern whaling had not resulted in the extinction of any species WC actions, while insufficient, were better than nothing. Since the 1970s, the trend has been very much toward conservative catch limits based on scientific advice, to a degree probably unparalleled in any fisheries commission. t has been argued by some that this trend reached unreasonable limits with the introduction of the moratorium. t is indicative of the inherent problems within the Commission that the same decision is hailed by some as its greatest success and others as its most abject failure. V. The Commission Today Since 1976, the WC has had a full-time Secretariat (of people) with headquarters in Cambridge, United Kingdom. Each year, the Annual Meeting of the Commission is held, either by invitation in any member country, or in the United Kingdom. The Scientific Committee (comprising up to 200 scientists) meets in the 2 weeks immediately before the main Commission meeting, and it may hold special meetings during the year. The information and advice it provides form the basis upon which the Commission develops the regulations for the control of whaling. A. Management ssues The primary function of the WC is the conservation of whale stocks and the management of whaling. n addition to commercial whaling, the WC has recognized the discrete nature of aboriginal subsistence whaling and allowed aboriginal catches from stocks that have been reduced to levels at which commercial whaling would be prohibited. 1. Commercial Whaling After the moratorium decision, the Scientific Committee recognized the need to develop management procedures that did not repeat past mistakes and the limitations of both the data it had and the data it was likely to obtain. n order to test the possible management strategies, it took the innovative and far-reaching approach of using computer simulations of whale populations over a long (100-year) period. The most important part of any development process is the determination of management objectives. These were set by the Commission and can be summarized as (1) catch limits should be as stable as possible, (2) catches should not be allowed on stocks below 54% of the estimated carrying capacity (as in the NMP), and (3) the highest possible continuing yield should be obtained from the stock. The highest priority was given to objective (2). After 8 years of intense work, the Committee developed a procedure for determining safe catch limits that required knowledge of only two essential parameters: (1) estimates of current abundance taken at regular intervals and (2) knowledge of past and present catches. ntensive testing of the procedure to numerous assumptions and problems had been undertaken and some of these are summarized in Table. The way in which catch limits are calculated from the required information is specified by the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA). This is a feedback procedure as more information accumulates from sighting surveys (and catches, if taken), then the estimates of necessary parameters are refined. n this way, the procedure constantly monitors itself. Catch limits are set for a period of 5 years. The CLA TABLE Some Examples of the Trials the Management Procedure Had to Be Able to Cope With Several different population models and associated assumptions Different starting population levels, ranging 5 99% of the initial population size Different MSY levels, ranging 40 80% Different MSY rates, ranging 1 7% (including changes over time) Various levels of uncertainty and biases in population size Changes in carrying capacity (including reduction by half) Errors in historic catch records (including underestimation by half) Catastrophes (irregular episodic events when the population is halved) Various frequencies of surveys

4 The nternational Whaling Commission 627 was initially tested on the assumption that it is applied to known biological stocks. To date, testing for specific species and areas has only been carried out for common minke whales ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ) in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, Antarctic minke whales, and Bryde s whales ( B. edeni ) in the western North Pacific. Unless such testing has occurred and the results indicate otherwise, catch limits under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) will be zero. t is clear that for very many populations, such as blue whales in the Southern Hemisphere, it will be a very long time before catches would be allowed under the RMP. The CLA plus the rules about, inter alia, stock boundaries, allocation of catches to small areas, what to do if many more of one or other sex are caught, form the Revised Management Procedure or RMP. The RMP sets a standard for the management of all marine and other living resources. t is very conservative and this is a reflection of the relative priorities assigned to the objectives, the level of uncertainty in the information on abundance, productivity and stock identity of whale stocks, and the fact that many years are required before the CLA refines its estimates of the required parameters. Although these scientific aspects were adopted by the WC in 1994, its actual implementation is a political decision. The WC will not set catch limits for commercial whaling until it has agreed and adopted a complete Revised Management Scheme (RMS). Any RMS will also include a number of nonscientific issues, including inspection and enforcement, and perhaps humaneness of killing techniques. The importance of an international inspection scheme was highlighted by the recent discovery of widespread falsification of catch data by Soviet whaling operations prior to There is at present a stalemate in discussions over an RMS. The only commercial whaling being undertaken in 2007/08 is that for common minke whales off Norway, who objected to the moratorium decision. 2. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Aboriginal subsistence whaling is permitted from Denmark (Greenland: bowhead Balaena mysticetus, fin and common minke whales), the Russian Federation (Siberia: gray Eschrichtius robustus and bowhead whales), St. Vincent and The Grenadines (Bequia: humpback whales), and the United States (Alaska: bowhead and gray whales). t is the responsibility of the Committee to provide scientific advice on safe catch limits for such stocks. With the completion of the RMP, the Scientific Committee began the process of developing a new procedure for the management of aboriginal subsistence whaling (AWMP) that takes into account the different objectives for the management of such whaling as compared to commercial whaling. Following the simulation approach used in the RMP development process, the Committee has developed Strike Limit Algorithms for bowhead and gray whales. t is focussing work now on the Greenlandic fisheries. The Commission will be establishing an Aboriginal Whaling Scheme that comprises the scientific and logistical (e.g., inspection/observation) aspects of the management of all aboriginal fisheries. The scientific component will comprise some general aspects common to all fisheries and an overall AWMP within which there will be common components and case-specific components. 3. Scientific Permit Whaling A major area of discussion since the moratorium has been the issuance of permits by national authorities for the killing of whales for scientific purposes. The right to issue them is enshrined in Article V of the Convention (that furthermore requires that the animals be utilized once the scientific data have been collected) and prior to 1982, over 100 permits had been issued by a number of governments, including Canada, United States, USSR, South Africa, and Japan. Since the moratorium, Japan, Norway, and celand, have issued scientific permits as part of their research programs. The discussion has centered on accusations that such permits have been issued merely as a way around the moratorium decision contrasted with claims that the catches are essential to obtain information necessary for rational management and other important research needs. All proposed permits have to be submitted for review by the Scientific Committee, but the ultimate responsibility for their issuance lies with the member nation. The Committee has been divided on the value of the programs reviewed to date. Only Japan has issued scientific permits for the year 2007/08 [850 10% Antarctic minke whales and 50 fin whales in the Antarctic; 150 minke, 50 Brydes, 50 sei, and 10 sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ) in the western North Pacific]. As in previous years, a majority of the Commission members urged Japan to refrain from issuing the permits. 4. Small Cetaceans t can be argued that no species of large whale is endangered by whaling today and will not be by any resumption of whaling under the RMS or AWMP. Threats to those species, such as the North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ) and the western gray whale, that remain severely reduced, do not include direct hunting. The most seriously threatened cetaceans (by direct hunting and incidental captures in fisheries) are a number of species and populations of the smaller cetaceans. At present, there is no single international body responsible for their conservation and management. There is considerable disagreement within the WC as to whether the present Convention is sufficient to allow the WC to assume such a role. Fortunately, there is general agreement that the WC Scientific Committee can consider the status of small cetaceans and provide advice to governments even though the WC cannot set management regulations it is to be hoped that governments individually and collectively respond. t remains a matter of some urgency that an international agreement or series of regional agreements be reached to ensure the conservation of small cetaceans. 5. Whalewatching The WC is involved (in a monitoring and advisory capacity) with aspects of the management of whalewatching as one type of sustainable use of cetacean resources. t has adopted a series of objectives and principles for managing whalewatching proposed by the Scientific Committee. B. Other Scientific issues The Commission funds and acts as a catalyst for a good deal of cetacean research (in the year 1999/2000 some $400,000 was allocated to scientific research in addition to the WC-related work undertaken by individual member governments. One major program is a series of Antarctic cruises to estimate abundance that has been carried out since These are now called SOWER circumpolar cruises (Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research) and include a component dedicated to blue whales. With increasing awareness that detrimental environmental changes may threaten whale stocks, the WC has recently accorded priority to research on the effects of such changes on cetaceans. Whilst the RMP adequately addresses such concerns, the Scientific Committee has agreed that the species most vulnerable to such threats would be those reduced to levels at which the RMP, even if applied, would result in zero catches. t has developed considerable effort into examining the effects of chemical pollutants on cetaceans, the effects of noise, including seismic surveys, and habitat degradation, including the effects of climate change and ozone depletion. t is also increasing collaboration and cooperation with governmental,

5 628 nuit and Marine Mammals regional and other international organizations working on related issues. The work in these areas carried out by the WC Scientific Committee is recognized worldwide. The Commission has increasingly published scientific reports and papers; this culminated in the launch of the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management in C. Politico-ethical ssues Of prime consideration from both a scientific and an ethical viewpoint is the possibility of extinction of any population due to whaling. No population of whales is currently under threat of extinction from whaling, and it is clear that any acceptable management procedure will ensure that this cannot happen. However, this presumes an acceptance that whales are a natural resource to be harvested. While this is certainly the stated position of many members of the WC, it is not universally accepted. A wide range of opinions have been expressed, ranging from the belief that whales are such a special group of animals that they should not be killed under any circumstances, through the view that they should not be commercially killed as whale products are not essential, to the view that whales are a natural resource to be used like any other. n this regard, the question of humane killing has once more arisen within the WC, with some nations stating that even if a safe management procedure is adopted, catch limits should not be set unless a satisfactorily humane killing method is available. This subject has been addressed several times during the history of the WC and the Commission has been active in promoting work on more humane killing techniques for both commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling. However, obtaining agreement on what comprises a satisfactorily humane technique will not be simple. n particular, in the case of aboriginal subsistence whaling, arguments of tradition and culture can clash with the adoption of modern technology. V. Conclusion Many of the earlier discussed politico-ethical issues are linked to questions of culture and freedom; they are complex and almost inevitably will not be resolved unanimously. There is clearly a divergence of opinion within the WC on such matters to an extent unparalleled in any similar organization. t is, for example, difficult to think of any fisheries organization where some of the members believe it is immoral to catch fish under any circumstances. This is not the place to enter into a philosophical debate over the rights of nations or groups of nations to impose their moral values on others, but merely to point out the necessity of such a debate and the need for a degree of compromise if the WC is not going to fragment, with potentially serious consequences for the world s whales and other cetaceans (Donovan, 1992 ). References Allen, K. R. (1980 ). Conservation and Management of Whales. University of Washington Press, Seattle and Butterworth & Co, London. Donovan, G. P. (1992 ). The nternational Whaling Commission: Given its past, does it have a future? n Symposium «Whales: Biology Threats Conservation ( J. J. Symoens, ed. ), pp Royal Academy of Overseas Sciences, Brussels, Belgium. Gambell, R. (1977 ). Whale conservation. Role of the nternational Whaling Commission. Mar. Policy, nternational Whaling Commission. ( ). Rep. nt. Whal. Commn nternational Whaling Commission. (1999a-present). J. Cetacean Res. Manage. nternational Whaling Commission. (1999b-present). Ann. Rep. nt. Whal. Commn. Tønnessen, J. N., and Johnsen, A. O. (1982 ). The History of Modern Whaling. C. Hurst & Co., London. nuit and Marine Mammals ANNE M. JENSEN, GLENN W. SHEEHAN, AND STEPHEN A. MACLEAN nuit is a northern Alaskan term meaning people that has come to include the native Eskimo peoples of Chukotka, northern Alaska, Canada, and Greenland ( Fig. 1 ). nuit represent one extreme of the hunter gatherer paradigm, relying almost exclusively on hunting to thrive in one of Earth s harshest environments, the Arctic. Most nuit hunting has focused on marine mammals, with the bowhead whale ( Balaena mysticetus ) making up a central part of the harvest, particularly in the Western and Eastern Arctic coastal areas. Whaling was important to nuit from Alaska to Greenland and underwrote the formation and survival of permanent sedentary villages on Alaska s arctic coast. When whaling was not feasible, nuit depended upon caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ) and other marine mammals. nuit have hunted marine mammals and caribou for thousands of years. The Birnirk culture ( ad ) was the first to successfully incorporate whale hunting into their subsistence regime. Whaling was completely integrated into the succeeding Thule culture starting around ad 900. Around ad 1200, Thule folk and their whaling culture spread out of Alaska and into Canada and Greenland. The ancestral nuit tool kit employed raw materials from hunted species plus worked stone and driftwood. Their technology depended heavily on compound (multipart) tools often incorporating several types of raw material. A harpoon might employ a driftwood shaft, a foreshaft made from caribou antler, a socket piece from walrus (Odobenus rosmarus ) bone, a finger rest made from walrus ivory, lashings made from caribou sinew, a head made from whale bone, a blade made from slate, a line made from walrus hide, and a sealskin float. The harpoon head toggled, or turned, 90 once it was thrust into the animal, preventing withdrawal. As the head toggled, the shaft fell away, leaving a hide cord running from the head back to the hunter or to a float. The float was a sealskin with all but one of its orifices sewn shut. The remaining orifice was used to inflate the float through an ivory inflation nozzle, which was then plugged with a piece of driftwood. The float marked the prey s location and slowed it down, tiring it as it attempted to swim or dive. The first commercial whalers to enter the northern sea near Greenland in the fourteenth century found nuit hunting bowhead whales from umiat (skin-covered driftwood framed boats), using compound harpoons with toggling heads. By the early seventeenth century, Greenlandic nuit were severely impacted by commercial whaling, which decimated the whale stocks, perhaps even eliminating the Svalbard stock upon which the east Greenlanders seem to have depended. n Canada, much commercial