the Baiji, or Yangtse river dolphin (Lipotes vexillifer) in China has been dramatically
reduced—to a degree that it was declared functionally extinct in 2007 since a survey
was not able to locate any individual. Another example is the Ganges river dolphin
(Platanista gangetica ssp. gangetica), whose range states India, Bangladesh and
Nepal have placed it under strict protection due to its decreasing conservation status.
In order to protect small cetaceans from further habitat loss, nation states have
either put in place species-specific conservation regimes or marine protected areas,
which include small cetaceans. In countries such as the Faroe Islands or Japan, where
different dolphin and pilot whale species are hunted for their meat or for sale to
aquariums, strict regulatory, science-based measures are in place that aim to ensure a
sustainably favourable conservation status of these species. In order to achieve this,
cooperation is necessary. This is especially the case since the conservation status of
many small cetacean species is data deficient, which means that international
authorities, such as the IUCN, do not have enough data available to determine
whether the population trends of specific species are increasing or decreasing. This
is particularly the case for the various beaked whale species (Ziphiidae), as Erich
Hoyt demonstrates.
23
Since the focus of this book is not to delve into national protection strategies, but
to consider the international legal environment, let us now turn to those international
instruments, which have specifically been designed to protect small cetaceans. A key
regime in this regard is the CMS, which was introduced in Chap. 4. Since the CMS is
a framework convention and therefore sets standards for other means of international
cooperation in the context of migratory species, it is particularly European countries
that have come together to adopt a regime for the protection of small cetaceans. This
regime, the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and
North Seas (ASCOBANS),
24 was concluded between several states surrounding the
Baltic and North Seas. In 2008, ASCOBANS’ name was changed to Agreement on
the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and
North Seas, thus extending its area significantly, now including the Atlantic waters
of Spain and Portugal, both of which, however, are not party to the Agreement (see
Fig. 5.3).
The history of ASCOBANS goes back to the mid-1980s when cetacean scientists
suggested the inclusion of small cetaceans onto Appendix II of the CMS since many
species in the Baltic and North Seas had declined dramatically due to habitat
deterioration, by-catch and other forms of disturbance. At the second Conference
of the Parties of the CMS in 1988, several small cetacean species were thus added to
Appendix II, which caused Norway to file an official objection to this listing.
Germany, on the other hand, proposed a global agreement for small cetaceans, but
the idea was not further pursued. After all, controversy over the whaling moratorium
in the IWC did not bode well for a global agreement on small cetaceans.
23 Hoyt (2011), p. 46.
24 Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas, 17 March 1992
(1772 UNTS 217).
114
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales
reduced—to a degree that it was declared functionally extinct in 2007 since a survey
was not able to locate any individual. Another example is the Ganges river dolphin
(Platanista gangetica ssp. gangetica), whose range states India, Bangladesh and
Nepal have placed it under strict protection due to its decreasing conservation status.
In order to protect small cetaceans from further habitat loss, nation states have
either put in place species-specific conservation regimes or marine protected areas,
which include small cetaceans. In countries such as the Faroe Islands or Japan, where
different dolphin and pilot whale species are hunted for their meat or for sale to
aquariums, strict regulatory, science-based measures are in place that aim to ensure a
sustainably favourable conservation status of these species. In order to achieve this,
cooperation is necessary. This is especially the case since the conservation status of
many small cetacean species is data deficient, which means that international
authorities, such as the IUCN, do not have enough data available to determine
whether the population trends of specific species are increasing or decreasing. This
is particularly the case for the various beaked whale species (Ziphiidae), as Erich
Hoyt demonstrates.
23
Since the focus of this book is not to delve into national protection strategies, but
to consider the international legal environment, let us now turn to those international
instruments, which have specifically been designed to protect small cetaceans. A key
regime in this regard is the CMS, which was introduced in Chap. 4. Since the CMS is
a framework convention and therefore sets standards for other means of international
cooperation in the context of migratory species, it is particularly European countries
that have come together to adopt a regime for the protection of small cetaceans. This
regime, the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and
North Seas (ASCOBANS),
24 was concluded between several states surrounding the
Baltic and North Seas. In 2008, ASCOBANS’ name was changed to Agreement on
the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and
North Seas, thus extending its area significantly, now including the Atlantic waters
of Spain and Portugal, both of which, however, are not party to the Agreement (see
Fig. 5.3).
The history of ASCOBANS goes back to the mid-1980s when cetacean scientists
suggested the inclusion of small cetaceans onto Appendix II of the CMS since many
species in the Baltic and North Seas had declined dramatically due to habitat
deterioration, by-catch and other forms of disturbance. At the second Conference
of the Parties of the CMS in 1988, several small cetacean species were thus added to
Appendix II, which caused Norway to file an official objection to this listing.
Germany, on the other hand, proposed a global agreement for small cetaceans, but
the idea was not further pursued. After all, controversy over the whaling moratorium
in the IWC did not bode well for a global agreement on small cetaceans.
23 Hoyt (2011), p. 46.
24 Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas, 17 March 1992
(1772 UNTS 217).
114
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales