methods. While these were all essentially scientific concerns, also a principal
opposition to whaling cannot be neglected, as mentioned above.
With the deepening discussions on whether or not a moratorium would be put in
place, also the rift between members of the IWC became more obvious. While issues
related to science, sovereignty and ethics are products of this discussion, the
proposal also has a normative meaning for the Commission. Of course,
disagreements over the whaling issue were and still are the driving point, but also
in other organisations disagreements exist which do not automatically lead to a
deadlock as in the IWC. This deadlock is more rooted in the overall role and function
of the Commission. Or in other words: is the role of the Commission to protect
whales or to protect and regulate the whaling industry? Of course, those favouring
whaling note that it is the latter while those that want to halt whaling support the
former view. This issue boils down to the text of the Convention itself, its objective
and how different states interpret this objective. Particularly Japan has argued that a
moratorium is in contravention of the Commission’s objective, which it sees as
“conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resource”, as per
article V (2) of the ICRW. This means, in Japan’s view, that both the conservation
and optimum utilisation (sustainable use) are the key roles of the Commission. At
the centre of this should stand scientific knowledge and advice. The Scientific
Committee concurred with this view. It is therefore not surprising that upon the
adoption of the moratorium, Japan filed an objection, meaning that the moratorium
did not become binding upon it. The same accounted for Norway, Peru and the
USSR. However, while Japan and Peru had withdrawn their objections by 1987,
Norway and the USSR (now Russian Federation) have up to this day not done
so. Therefore, Norway and Russia can still conduct commercial whaling in spite of
the zero catch quota. The withdrawal of Japan’s objection appears surprising.
However, this occurred due to economic pressure from the United States.
Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Approach
The RMP is fundamentally rooted in the integration of scientific uncertainty or
lack of data in the determination of catch limits. The algorithm that has
developed out of this work is referred to as the Catch Limit Algorithm
(CLA). In order to apply the CLA, two key pieces of information are to be
provided: first, abundance estimates at 6-year intervals, including statistical
uncertainty. Second, estimates of past catches as well as current catch levels.
With this information, the CLA can be determined.
As a general rule, the CLA as applied by the IWC aims to maintain a
minimum population of 54% of the pre-catch population while catch limits are
set in a way that the population stabilises at 72% of pre-exploitation levels.
The Commission opted for 72% levels as one of the options presented by the
Scientific Committee, providing for high conservation objectives and lower
catches. However, the Scientific Committee also presented other levels,
(continued)
96
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales
opposition to whaling cannot be neglected, as mentioned above.
With the deepening discussions on whether or not a moratorium would be put in
place, also the rift between members of the IWC became more obvious. While issues
related to science, sovereignty and ethics are products of this discussion, the
proposal also has a normative meaning for the Commission. Of course,
disagreements over the whaling issue were and still are the driving point, but also
in other organisations disagreements exist which do not automatically lead to a
deadlock as in the IWC. This deadlock is more rooted in the overall role and function
of the Commission. Or in other words: is the role of the Commission to protect
whales or to protect and regulate the whaling industry? Of course, those favouring
whaling note that it is the latter while those that want to halt whaling support the
former view. This issue boils down to the text of the Convention itself, its objective
and how different states interpret this objective. Particularly Japan has argued that a
moratorium is in contravention of the Commission’s objective, which it sees as
“conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resource”, as per
article V (2) of the ICRW. This means, in Japan’s view, that both the conservation
and optimum utilisation (sustainable use) are the key roles of the Commission. At
the centre of this should stand scientific knowledge and advice. The Scientific
Committee concurred with this view. It is therefore not surprising that upon the
adoption of the moratorium, Japan filed an objection, meaning that the moratorium
did not become binding upon it. The same accounted for Norway, Peru and the
USSR. However, while Japan and Peru had withdrawn their objections by 1987,
Norway and the USSR (now Russian Federation) have up to this day not done
so. Therefore, Norway and Russia can still conduct commercial whaling in spite of
the zero catch quota. The withdrawal of Japan’s objection appears surprising.
However, this occurred due to economic pressure from the United States.
Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Approach
The RMP is fundamentally rooted in the integration of scientific uncertainty or
lack of data in the determination of catch limits. The algorithm that has
developed out of this work is referred to as the Catch Limit Algorithm
(CLA). In order to apply the CLA, two key pieces of information are to be
provided: first, abundance estimates at 6-year intervals, including statistical
uncertainty. Second, estimates of past catches as well as current catch levels.
With this information, the CLA can be determined.
As a general rule, the CLA as applied by the IWC aims to maintain a
minimum population of 54% of the pre-catch population while catch limits are
set in a way that the population stabilises at 72% of pre-exploitation levels.
The Commission opted for 72% levels as one of the options presented by the
Scientific Committee, providing for high conservation objectives and lower
catches. However, the Scientific Committee also presented other levels,
(continued)
96
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales