irrespective of whether the moratorium is still in place or not. They therefore
function as independent management schemes under the convention.
Whale sanctuaries have entered the discourse on whales and whaling already in
the 1970s. In 1979, the first sanctuary was established in the Indian Ocean,
encompassing the area of the entire Indian Ocean down to 55
South latitude. The
second was the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (SOWS) in 1995. The SOWS
encompasses all waters surrounding the Antarctic continent up to 40
South latitude,
but in the Indian Ocean up to 55
South latitude, thus joining with the Indian Ocean
sanctuary. In these areas, all commercial whaling is prohibited. From the outset,
Japan has opposed the establishment of whale sanctuaries, arguing that the concept
would contravene the purpose of the whaling convention particularly since decisions
are to be based on scientific findings. According to Japan, whale sanctuaries do not
rely on science, otherwise they would not impose blanket protection for all whale
species in a given area. Others, however, argue that whale sanctuaries are necessary
bearing in mind the precautionary approach. Every 10 years, the IWC reviews the
status of the whale sanctuaries, thus including the possibility to lift them. Up to the
point of writing, however, this has not occurred. A third whale sanctuary for the
South Atlantic Ocean has been brought on the IWC’s agenda since the mid-1990s by
several South American, and more recently, additionally some Western African
states. The countries argue that potential whaling in the South Atlantic would
significantly impact the wellbeing of their coastal communities while a whale
sanctuary would have a beneficial effect, particularly with regard to whale watching
and other tourism activities. Up to the point of writing, the proposal has failed to
reach the necessary three-quarter majority within the IWC since this would mean a
changing of the Schedule. Also a proposal for the establishment of a South Pacific
Whale Sanctuary was rejected by the Commission in 2000. In this case, however, it
is noteworthy that more than half of the Pacific Islands region is de facto a whale
sanctuary since the EEZs of the countries with their countless smaller islands are so
large and are nationally declared whale sanctuaries.
What needs to be remembered however, is that the national and IWC-declared
whale sanctuaries are not considered MPAs in the sense of the IUCN. This is to say
that the boundaries of these are artificially set while focusing merely on one specific
group of animals. The IUCN approaches MPAs through an ecosystem-based lens,
meaning that in-depth knowledge of the ecosystem, including its cultural role, are to
be considered. National and IWC MPAs are therefore more of a political than of a
conservation nature.
29 In this sense, the Japanese claim of being unscientific does not
appear to be unreasonable. This is supported by the fact that the whale sanctuaries
only relate to the lethal take, that is the hunt, for whales. They aim to put a halt to
whaling. What they do not do is take into account other threats, such as food
shortage, pollution or habitat degradation. In order to further advance the idea of a
comprehensive conservation system, the parties to the Convention on Biological
29 Hoyt (2011), p. 24.
4.4 The Importance of Marine Protected Areas
77
function as independent management schemes under the convention.
Whale sanctuaries have entered the discourse on whales and whaling already in
the 1970s. In 1979, the first sanctuary was established in the Indian Ocean,
encompassing the area of the entire Indian Ocean down to 55
South latitude. The
second was the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (SOWS) in 1995. The SOWS
encompasses all waters surrounding the Antarctic continent up to 40
South latitude,
but in the Indian Ocean up to 55
South latitude, thus joining with the Indian Ocean
sanctuary. In these areas, all commercial whaling is prohibited. From the outset,
Japan has opposed the establishment of whale sanctuaries, arguing that the concept
would contravene the purpose of the whaling convention particularly since decisions
are to be based on scientific findings. According to Japan, whale sanctuaries do not
rely on science, otherwise they would not impose blanket protection for all whale
species in a given area. Others, however, argue that whale sanctuaries are necessary
bearing in mind the precautionary approach. Every 10 years, the IWC reviews the
status of the whale sanctuaries, thus including the possibility to lift them. Up to the
point of writing, however, this has not occurred. A third whale sanctuary for the
South Atlantic Ocean has been brought on the IWC’s agenda since the mid-1990s by
several South American, and more recently, additionally some Western African
states. The countries argue that potential whaling in the South Atlantic would
significantly impact the wellbeing of their coastal communities while a whale
sanctuary would have a beneficial effect, particularly with regard to whale watching
and other tourism activities. Up to the point of writing, the proposal has failed to
reach the necessary three-quarter majority within the IWC since this would mean a
changing of the Schedule. Also a proposal for the establishment of a South Pacific
Whale Sanctuary was rejected by the Commission in 2000. In this case, however, it
is noteworthy that more than half of the Pacific Islands region is de facto a whale
sanctuary since the EEZs of the countries with their countless smaller islands are so
large and are nationally declared whale sanctuaries.
What needs to be remembered however, is that the national and IWC-declared
whale sanctuaries are not considered MPAs in the sense of the IUCN. This is to say
that the boundaries of these are artificially set while focusing merely on one specific
group of animals. The IUCN approaches MPAs through an ecosystem-based lens,
meaning that in-depth knowledge of the ecosystem, including its cultural role, are to
be considered. National and IWC MPAs are therefore more of a political than of a
conservation nature.
29 In this sense, the Japanese claim of being unscientific does not
appear to be unreasonable. This is supported by the fact that the whale sanctuaries
only relate to the lethal take, that is the hunt, for whales. They aim to put a halt to
whaling. What they do not do is take into account other threats, such as food
shortage, pollution or habitat degradation. In order to further advance the idea of a
comprehensive conservation system, the parties to the Convention on Biological
29 Hoyt (2011), p. 24.
4.4 The Importance of Marine Protected Areas
77