At the core of the scientific discussions surrounding a moratorium stood the
so-called New Management Procedure (NMP). This procedure was developed by
the Scientific Committee and aimed at increasing whale stocks until they reach their
maximum sustainable yield (MSY), determining the maximum numbers of whales
that can be killed without compromising a whale stock. But from the very beginning,
states questioned the reliability of the NMP and preferred not to kill whales at all in
order for them to recover instead of running the risk of faulty science. Also other
considerations, that went hand in hand with the changing discourse on whales,
naturally fed into the deliberations at the IWC. We must remember that towards
the end of the 1970s the environmental and animal rights movement had gained
significant support and had grown steadily—to a degree that allowed them to be
present at IWC meetings and to conduct effective lobbying. ‘The whale’ served an
important function as a poster species, the protection of which was a core demand
from supporters of anti-whaling campaigns in the West. Moreover, environmental
and humane organisations developed expertise that they were able to demonstrate at
IWC meetings, either by providing delegations with scientific data or with proposals
that delegates would then present in the plenary for discussion. Over the course of
time, representatives of environmental organisations would furthermore become
parts of delegations—a practice that persists to this day. The same is also true for
delegations in favour of whaling where industry representatives are part of the
country delegations of Japan or Iceland, for instance. Again, this practice is not
from the past, but is still prominent in ongoing meetings. Moreover, it is a common
sight for the observer of the IWC to see country delegates and NGO/industry
representatives either dining together or holding closed meetings.
But be that as it may, upon the early years of the 1980s, a moratorium on all
commercial whaling moved closer to become a reality. The first step was taken in
1979 when a zero-catch quota was agreed upon for factory ships, except for those
hunting minke whales. The motivation behind this move was that all in all factoryship whaling was considered more detrimental than land station whaling. But since it
was not clear when this factory-ship moratorium would come into effect, particularly
Soviet whaling fleets continued hunting several hundred sperm whales during the
1979/80 season in the North Pacific. In combination with doubts over the NMP, the
calls for a complete moratorium on commercial whaling grew stronger and more
concrete in 1981. By that time, Canada was the first country to leave the IWC due to
the organisation’s stance on commercial whaling. Canada feared that the IWC would
infringe upon state sovereignty on the high seas, which was to be manifested in the
1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the newly established
200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Moreover, Canada was concerned that
the IWC would take control over its Arctic narwhal, beluga and right whale hunts,
conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities. The United States, the United
Kingdom, the Seychelles and France, along with Australia, New Zealand, Sweden
and others, on the other hand, were vocally in favour of a blanket moratorium. At the
core of their arguments stood three main concerns: the past failure of the IWC to
effectively protect whale stocks; uncertainties about stock assessment methods and
the determination of MSYs; and concerns over the appropriateness of whale killing
5.3 The International Whaling Commission, Whaling and Whales
95
so-called New Management Procedure (NMP). This procedure was developed by
the Scientific Committee and aimed at increasing whale stocks until they reach their
maximum sustainable yield (MSY), determining the maximum numbers of whales
that can be killed without compromising a whale stock. But from the very beginning,
states questioned the reliability of the NMP and preferred not to kill whales at all in
order for them to recover instead of running the risk of faulty science. Also other
considerations, that went hand in hand with the changing discourse on whales,
naturally fed into the deliberations at the IWC. We must remember that towards
the end of the 1970s the environmental and animal rights movement had gained
significant support and had grown steadily—to a degree that allowed them to be
present at IWC meetings and to conduct effective lobbying. ‘The whale’ served an
important function as a poster species, the protection of which was a core demand
from supporters of anti-whaling campaigns in the West. Moreover, environmental
and humane organisations developed expertise that they were able to demonstrate at
IWC meetings, either by providing delegations with scientific data or with proposals
that delegates would then present in the plenary for discussion. Over the course of
time, representatives of environmental organisations would furthermore become
parts of delegations—a practice that persists to this day. The same is also true for
delegations in favour of whaling where industry representatives are part of the
country delegations of Japan or Iceland, for instance. Again, this practice is not
from the past, but is still prominent in ongoing meetings. Moreover, it is a common
sight for the observer of the IWC to see country delegates and NGO/industry
representatives either dining together or holding closed meetings.
But be that as it may, upon the early years of the 1980s, a moratorium on all
commercial whaling moved closer to become a reality. The first step was taken in
1979 when a zero-catch quota was agreed upon for factory ships, except for those
hunting minke whales. The motivation behind this move was that all in all factoryship whaling was considered more detrimental than land station whaling. But since it
was not clear when this factory-ship moratorium would come into effect, particularly
Soviet whaling fleets continued hunting several hundred sperm whales during the
1979/80 season in the North Pacific. In combination with doubts over the NMP, the
calls for a complete moratorium on commercial whaling grew stronger and more
concrete in 1981. By that time, Canada was the first country to leave the IWC due to
the organisation’s stance on commercial whaling. Canada feared that the IWC would
infringe upon state sovereignty on the high seas, which was to be manifested in the
1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the newly established
200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Moreover, Canada was concerned that
the IWC would take control over its Arctic narwhal, beluga and right whale hunts,
conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities. The United States, the United
Kingdom, the Seychelles and France, along with Australia, New Zealand, Sweden
and others, on the other hand, were vocally in favour of a blanket moratorium. At the
core of their arguments stood three main concerns: the past failure of the IWC to
effectively protect whale stocks; uncertainties about stock assessment methods and
the determination of MSYs; and concerns over the appropriateness of whale killing
5.3 The International Whaling Commission, Whaling and Whales
95