International Whaling Commission – Reflections on the Historic Meeting

This was a tough but well-run meeting. At the outset, we were concerned that it would run into trouble, like the previous one in 2022 where enough countries walked out to crash it, destroying its quorum and preventing the South Atlantic whale sanctuary from being put into place; a proposal that was again in play last week.

A very much alive and functioning wildlife protection convention

Additionally, in the approach to this particular meeting, articles had been published in the press and elsewhere suggesting that the IWC has become a redundant organisation and should be disbanded. The false logic behind this includes the gross oversimplification that the whales have all recovered and, hence, the IWC had nothing to do.

I have already commented elsewhere on this giving my view that the argument is nonsense, and – most importantly – it ignores the vast and important body of conservation work that the IWC now oversees. Interesting, some of the rhetoric from the pro-whaling side during IWC 69 mirrored this idea of a failing and dysfunctional IWC, providing more evidence that there is an ongoing strategic effort to topple it.

Indeed, as we now look back over this week of meetings, you can see that whilst there is clearly a division between those that favour a resumption of commercial whaling and those, including OceanCare, that believe commercial whaling belongs firmly in the history books, the IWC is fully functional and fit for purpose.

Two wins and a loss for whale conservation

Two vexatious resolutions from the pro-whaling side (one concerning starting a process aimed at lifting the moratorium and the other promoting the consumption of whales as a way to achieve ‘food security’) failed and were withdrawn. Sadly, the latest attempt at achieving a whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic – a proposal that has been in play for two decades and which requites ¾ to be in favour to pass – failed again. The margin was in the region of only one vote, making this doubly disappointing and especially for the valiant Latin Countries that again brought this proposal.

Is the tide turning in Iceland?

However, what was especially interesting at this meeting was that the pro-whaling block may have lost a prominent member. Iceland commented to the meeting that it has an ongoing review on whaling ongoing and then abstained on the sanctuary vote, something that it would have historically opposed.

EU member states’ reiterate importance of global moratorium

Also of significance was the resolution that was passed that criticised ongoing commercial whaling. The resolution was brought by the EU nations that are IWC members and e the language used was diplomatic, but the criticism was still clear. In its operative paragraphs this document ‘reminded’ all the relevant nations of their legal obligations under UNCLOS [United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea] to cooperate with the IWC on the conservation, management and study of cetaceans.

Additionally, it acknowledged ‘that the moratorium on commercial whaling continues to be necessary to enable whale populations to fully recover, and to support the proper functioning of marine ecosystems’; and the resolution concluded that ‘the continuation of the moratorium, not least as a precautionary response to the growing threats to cetaceans from direct and indirect human activities’ was supported. The vote on this was 37 yes, 12 no and 8 abstentions. It only required a simple majority and so passed.

The IWC is future-proofing itself

The battles around the resolutions and the Sanctuary proposal tend to draw the most attention, but we should actually celebrate that the IWC, despite its divisions, agreed some key operational matters – including its running budget and programmes of work that cover vital conservation issues like bycatch, chemical and noise pollution, marine debris and ship strikes. The IWC also oversees a number of conservation plans for imperilled populations of whales and dolphins, facilitating work between countries to better protect them and these days, the mandate of the IWC even the smallest cetacean species, including river dolphins and porpoises.

If the IWC were to topple, then the moratorium would go with it. Who would benefit from this? Those that continue to take whales for profit and who are embarrassed and undermined by a provision that is fully legal and remains necessary to help continue to ensure that whaling ambitions do not again expand around the world.