well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands, both of which have autonomy within the
Kingdom of Denmark, but are not independent states. Since Greenland and the Faroe
Islands have the right to manage fisheries and other natural resources, they were able
to enter into the agreement. This is contrary to the IWC where Denmark represents
itself as well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands. After all, at the time of conclusion
of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946, Greenland’s
and the Faroe’s level of autonomy had not been established.
Be that as it may, the four countries came together to cooperate on the conservation, rational management and study of marine mammals. NAMMCO’s decisions
are all taken by consensus, top-down decisions, which would potentially lead to a
stall of the organisation, are being prevented. Additionally, NAMMCO members are
all engaged in the utilisation of marine mammals. To this end, NAMMCO has
become a spearhead organisation for the rational use of marine mammals based on
‘hard’ scientific facts. Indeed, science is one of the major outputs of the organisation,
resulting in a large number of scientific studies on marine mammals in the North
Atlantic. This includes population censuses, studies on by-catch, observation and
inspection issues, as well as hunting methods and humane killing. While the work of
NAMMCO is often species-focused, for instance the statuses and threats of individual species, it also deals with diseases such as seal worms. When NAMMCO was
established, some commentators feared that it would undermine the legitimacy of the
IWC. This, however, has not been the case: first of all, NAMMCO’s membership
amounts merely to four countries, while the IWC’s membership is currently 89 states.
Second, NAMMCO’s sphere of influence is limited to the North Atlantic. Third,
NAMMCO’s mandate includes all marine mammals species in the NAMMCO
area and not just whales. Therefore, instead of working against each other, both
the IWC and NAMMCO cooperate closely. An interesting feature of NAMMCO is
the close cooperation with marine mammal hunting communities and their right to
sustainable marine mammal utilisation. While, as we will see below, the IWC
provides for aboriginal exemptions, NAMMCO considers all marine mammal hunting communities legitimate.
The decisions taken by the NAMMCO Management Committee have direct
impact on marine mammal management in the NAMMCO area. While NAMMCO
itself is not the management body but proposes management recommendations to its
member states, these recommendations are taken seriously. We must highlight once
again that the decisions are all taken by consensus. Management of marine mammals
in the NAMMCO areas therefore does not lie in the hands of NAMMCO but in the
hands of the respective member state. However, NAMMCO’s influence on the
national management strategies regarding specific species and how they can be
used is significant.
But as we will see, species-specific management is not the only tool by which
marine mammals are protected: marine protected areas (MPAs) are a key strategy
which is being applied to place marine mammals and their ecosystems under special
protection—an issue which we will further explore in Sect. 4.4. A key regime for the
North Atlantic, for which MPAs play an important role, is the Convention for
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR
72
4 The Global Framework for the Environment and Marine Mammals
Kingdom of Denmark, but are not independent states. Since Greenland and the Faroe
Islands have the right to manage fisheries and other natural resources, they were able
to enter into the agreement. This is contrary to the IWC where Denmark represents
itself as well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands. After all, at the time of conclusion
of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946, Greenland’s
and the Faroe’s level of autonomy had not been established.
Be that as it may, the four countries came together to cooperate on the conservation, rational management and study of marine mammals. NAMMCO’s decisions
are all taken by consensus, top-down decisions, which would potentially lead to a
stall of the organisation, are being prevented. Additionally, NAMMCO members are
all engaged in the utilisation of marine mammals. To this end, NAMMCO has
become a spearhead organisation for the rational use of marine mammals based on
‘hard’ scientific facts. Indeed, science is one of the major outputs of the organisation,
resulting in a large number of scientific studies on marine mammals in the North
Atlantic. This includes population censuses, studies on by-catch, observation and
inspection issues, as well as hunting methods and humane killing. While the work of
NAMMCO is often species-focused, for instance the statuses and threats of individual species, it also deals with diseases such as seal worms. When NAMMCO was
established, some commentators feared that it would undermine the legitimacy of the
IWC. This, however, has not been the case: first of all, NAMMCO’s membership
amounts merely to four countries, while the IWC’s membership is currently 89 states.
Second, NAMMCO’s sphere of influence is limited to the North Atlantic. Third,
NAMMCO’s mandate includes all marine mammals species in the NAMMCO
area and not just whales. Therefore, instead of working against each other, both
the IWC and NAMMCO cooperate closely. An interesting feature of NAMMCO is
the close cooperation with marine mammal hunting communities and their right to
sustainable marine mammal utilisation. While, as we will see below, the IWC
provides for aboriginal exemptions, NAMMCO considers all marine mammal hunting communities legitimate.
The decisions taken by the NAMMCO Management Committee have direct
impact on marine mammal management in the NAMMCO area. While NAMMCO
itself is not the management body but proposes management recommendations to its
member states, these recommendations are taken seriously. We must highlight once
again that the decisions are all taken by consensus. Management of marine mammals
in the NAMMCO areas therefore does not lie in the hands of NAMMCO but in the
hands of the respective member state. However, NAMMCO’s influence on the
national management strategies regarding specific species and how they can be
used is significant.
But as we will see, species-specific management is not the only tool by which
marine mammals are protected: marine protected areas (MPAs) are a key strategy
which is being applied to place marine mammals and their ecosystems under special
protection—an issue which we will further explore in Sect. 4.4. A key regime for the
North Atlantic, for which MPAs play an important role, is the Convention for
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR
72
4 The Global Framework for the Environment and Marine Mammals