2005 International Whaling Commission report

SUMMARY Overall, there were no shocking decisions at IWC 57. The majority of anti-whaling nations continues to shrink and pro-whaling nations might take the simple majority at next year's meeting. If that happens, we could see major changes in the agenda and procedure at next year's meeting. One of the biggest surprises at this meeting was Japan's expansion of their scientific whaling efforts: doubling the quota and adding two new species to the hunt. Many thanks to The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society for the invaluable information on their website: www.wdcs.org. -view resolutions table- "They're not saved yet!" And they've never needed us more! Here's what you can do to help: Vote pro-conservation on issues and candidates. Write letters to your elected representatives urging them to support measures to prevent the lifting of the moratorium on whaling. Speak for the whales. Talk to your friends, family, neighbors and colleagues. Inspire them to spread the word, write letters, etc. Share your love of whales, dolphins and porpoises. Support ACS and other conservation organizations. Learn more about the IWC at www.IWCoffice.org and CITES at www.CITIES.org

Following these introductions, the Chair stated that Japan (a leader of pro-whaling nations) proposed eliminating several items from the agenda, including whale killing methods (dealing with humane killing), whale watching, and conservation. A simple majority of voting members would pass changes to the agenda, but the proposal was declined with 28 votes in favor and 29 against. Japan also proposed to implement secret ballots, a proposal that they have made in many past IWC meetings. There was some debate over this issue, mostly dealing with maintaining the transparency of IWC decisions. The proposal only required a simple majority to pass, but it was rejected, with 27 votes in favor and 30 against. Both of Japan's proposals were rejected, but only by an alarmingly small margin.

The next order of business was a report from the Scientific Committee (SC) (the SC met prior to the main meeting of the IWC and it deals with evaluation of proposed quotas, population estimates, etc.). The SC reviewed population estimates for Antarctic whale populations. There was some debate over the estimate of Antarctic Minke whales and it was agreed that there is no accurate estimate available. In a review of the Antarctic humpback whale population, New Zealand pointed out that there was a big discrepancy between Japan's and other population estimates. Japan clearly thinks that there has been a huge recovery in Antarctic humpback whales. Australia will host a workshop in 2006 to review this species' population status.

Next was a report from the Whale Killing Methods working group, which met in the week prior to the main IWC meeting. There will be a workshop next year dealing with this issue, because there was some concern about the “Time to Death,” or the amount of time between when a whale is first harpooned and when it ultimately dies.

Once the Commissioners returned, there was a report from the Revised Management Scheme working group. The Revised Management Scheme (RMS) deals with management of commercial whaling, if the commercial whaling moratorium is eventually lifted. The Chair of the working group first made a presentation on the Revised Management Plan (RMP), which is the process that leads to development of catch quotas for baleen whale species. He emphasized that an RMP takes time, so if the moratorium is lifted and an RMS is passed, not all baleen whales will have a quota, and therefore will not be allowed to be hunted, immediately. In order to change the RMP, the Scientific Committee would made recommendations to the IWC, which would then vote. During the RMS working group, there was a discussion of Norway's “blue box,” a device used on whaling ships. The blue box is connected to several sensors on the vessel that would monitor its position and speed, as well as its activities. There was some concern that these blue boxes, though useful, would not take the place of human observers.

Japan stated its concern that the inter-sessional RMS working group meetings failed yet again to reach a consensus. Japan then presented its own RMS text, which would reopen commercial whaling (lift the moratorium), with very few controls. It did not include catch verification or compliance review schemes. It also eliminated the Southern Ocean and Indian Ocean Sanctuaries. Unrestrained scientific whaling would remain under this proposal. The United States, New Zealand, and others spoke out against Japan's proposal. New Zealand called the proposal “an insult,” and stated that Japan was making no effort towards a compromise. A vote was called on Japan's proposal and it was rejected with 23 votes in favor and 29 against.

Japan then gave a presentation on their new proposal for JARPA (Japanese research program in the Antarctic) II beginning in the 2005/2006 season. The goals of this program are to monitor the Antarctic ecosystem, model competition between species, determine the stock structure, and provide evidence to change the RMP for these species. The annual quota for JARPA II is 850 minke whales (over twice the present quota), 50 humpback whales, and 50 fin whales (both the fin and humpback whales are new species to be exploited under JARPA; they were hunted in the 1900's, almost to extinction).

Australia introduced a resolution that encouraged Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or revise it to include only non-lethal methods. The resolution was voted on and received 30 votes in favor and 27 against. The resolution was passed, but resolutions are not binding and Japan announced that it will continue with its plans for JARPA II.

The next order of business was a vote on the creation of a South Atlantic Sanctuary. A three-fourths majority is required to form a new sanctuary and, unfortunately, this proposal only received 30 votes for and 25 against. The proposal to create a South Atlantic Sanctuary was rejected.

The second proposal, developed by Ireland, Germany, and South Africa, called for a continuation of the process that is already underway. It would involve inter-sessional meetings, working group meetings a the next IWC meeting, and high level diplomatic meetings to resolve the outstanding issues. This resolution was passed with 25 votes in favor and 3 votes against.

2005 IWC MEASURES