Commercial whaling
Commercial whaling likely began in the IX Century in the North Sea and
in the XII Century in the Gulf of Gascogne. When right whale populations
started to diminish over the course of the XVI Century in Europe, whalers
headed for North America. Over the centuries, a veritable industry
developed along the coasts of North America. Thousands of whales, right whales, rorqual whales, sperm whales, grey whales and several others, were
hunted every year. The hunt intensified with the invention of the
exploding harpoon and the advent of more powerful ships. From 1904 to
1985, over 2 million whales were taken in the Antarctic alone. This hunt
led to several species being depleted to the point of near extinction.
In 1946—after it became obvious that whale populations had been
overexploited—the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was created. Its
mandate was to ensure sufficient conservation of whale populations so that
sustainable harvesting could continue. In 1982, IWC member countries
imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling. This moratorium was supposed
to last form 1986 to 1990. It is still in place. However, according to
the convention signed in 1946, any member is free to oppose a
resolution—such as the one that led to the moratorium—and thus grant
themselves commercial quotas. Norway did just that in 1982. Before
actually resuming commercial whaling, this country pursued a scientific
whaling programme targeting minke whales. They killed 289 whales per year
from 1988 to 1995. In 1993 they began commercial whaling again; 700 minke
whales per year are killed in Norway’s territorial waters. The meat is
sold locally. Norway has been attempting to resume whale product
exports—particularly whale blubber, which Norwegians do not consume—despite
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Yet
their products have been rejected by Japan, their main potential client,
due to high contaminant levels, especially PCBs. Iceland is now also
planning to resume commercial whaling in 2006. Until then, it is
conducting scientific whaling.
Certain IWC member countries have long since given up on the hunt and
fiercely oppose any resumption of commercial whaling. The principal
arguments of these countries are practical in nature; several whale
populations that were rendered fragile by past whaling activities would not
be able to support commercial whaling. According to these countries,
regulating and monitoring this hunt, along with the trade that would ensue,
would be impossible. Several environmental groups share this position.
Some are opposed for moral reasons; whales are “special” creatures and
hunting them is cruel. Adding to arguments against whaling are several
threats that weigh on whales, such as pollution, climate change or
fisheries. Is it possible to accurately predict the effects of these
threats on whale populations and manage them accordingly?
Pro-whaling countries believe that the IWC is moving away from its
original mandate—the healthy management of whaling—by accepting countries
that are opposed to whaling on moral or ethical grounds. They consider
that whales can be hunted in the same way that any wild animal can be
hunted. Their pro-whaling position is based on cultural, social, economic
and political reasons. Present-day whaling, be it either commercial or
subsistence in nature, essentially supplies meat for human consumption.
According to pro-whaling countries and groups, it is well regulated and
carried out in such a way as to minimize animal suffering.
The coming years will be crucial for the future of whaling. Whatever
the conflicts, everyone agrees on the importance of not repeating past
errors. How will we face this challenge? It is most important that we
truly understand the debate and remain open-minded about cultural
differences.
Top of page
Scientific whaling
Intensive whaling furnished precious information concerning cetaceans.
However, it also brought several species to the brink of extinction.
Certain countries, like Japan, continue to hunt whales under the guise of
science. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) convention signed in
1946 does, in fact, allow each member country the option of granting itself
scientific whaling permits. Is this method still justifiable in the
present context? Does scientific whaling contribute to science or does it
mask commercial interests?
Japan and, as of 2003, Iceland are the only two countries with
scientific whaling programmes. Japan began scientific whaling as soon as
the 1986 moratorium came into force. It carries out two whaling
programmes. The oldest takes place in Antarctica where Japan kills over
400 minke whales on an annual basis. This programme is aimed at estimating
certain biological parameters—such as the natural death rate (sic)—and the
study of the role of minke whales in the Antarctic ecosystem. The second
programme, which began in 1994, involves the killing of 100 minke whales in
the North Pacific. This programme is aimed at better understanding the
feeding ecology of minke whales. In 2000, the Japanese also added Bryde’s
whales and sperm whales to their hunt. In 2002, they added the sei whale.
Whale products are sold on local markets as stipulated in the International
Whaling Convention. Defenders of this hunt contend that it supplies new
and useful information for the management of stocks of the whale species
hunted.
Yet, scientific whaling programmes carried out by Japan and now Iceland
are heavily criticized. For several years now during their annual meeting,
IWC members have adopted resolutions encouraging Japan to abandon its
programme. In 2002, Phil Clapham and his colleagues—all members of the IWC
Scientific Committee—published an article in the magazine BioScience. In
it they state that Japan’s programme does not include a hypothesis to be
tested, nor does it include other performance indicators. They also
maintain that the data collected are not necessary for the management of
whale populations, that these data have not been submitted to an
independent review process, that more useful information could be obtained
without killing animals and that the programme sacrifices more animals than
would be allowed under IWC quotas if a moratorium was not in place. They
also state that this scientific hunting is nothing more than a pretext to
maintain a demand for whale products and encourage a resumption of
commercial whaling.
If scientific whaling continues, should the IWC demand that this
activity meet rigorous scientific evaluation criteria? And if it is no
more than a smoke screen for commercial activities, should the IWC lift the
ban and “officially” manage harvesting? This sticky situation will likely
be resolved in upcoming meetings of the IWC.
Top of page
Subsistence whaling
As well as commercial and scientific whaling, certain countries also
partake in what is known as subsistence whaling. According to the
International Whaling Commission (IWC), subsistence whaling is hunting that
is carried out by native peoples that share strong community, family,
social and cultural bonds that connect them to a traditional dependence on
whaling and whale products. Also, the purpose of the hunt must be for
consumption by native peoples only and be aimed at meeting their cultural
and nutritional requirements.
However, this definition does not have a general consensus. Among other
things, there is some concern about the subjective nature of the definition
of the word native. If the true definition is someone who was born in the
country he or she inhabits, then are not Norwegians, Icelanders and
inhabitants of the Faroe Islands natives, and should they not also be
allowed to carry out subsistence whaling? There is also some controversy
surrounding the definition of “subsistence”. If this term
means ‘to meet the essential requirements’ of a native
community, how is it that the products of subsistence whaling in
Greenland—with the approval of the IWC—find their way onto the
local market? What is the difference between this hunt and the one carried
out by Norwegians, for example? And doesn’t commerce allow natives
to meet their essential requirements? Also, doesn’t stopping natives
from selling the products of their own resources limit their possibility of
developing their economy? These are a few of the arguments put forward by
those who question the concept of subsistence whaling.
Whatever the case may be, several countries carry out subsistence
whaling. Some of them, such as Denmark (Greenland), Russia, the United
States and the Caribbean islands of St. Vincent and the Grenadines hunt
whales under permits and subsistence quotas granted by the IWC. Other
countries—that are not members of the IWC—hunt according to
their own rules. This is the case for Canada, the Faroe Islands, the
islands of Dominica and St. Lucia in the Caribbean, Indonesia and the
Philippines.
Top of page
