ACCORDING to the International Whaling Commission, an important feature of its founding convention is 鈥渢he emphasis it places on scientific advice鈥�. It is a precept it now fails to follow. At the IWC鈥檚 annual conference in the Caribbean this week, diplomats dressed up their speeches in scientific language, but were really arguing over the moral, cultural and political acceptability of whaling.
Nations that find whaling morally deplorable ignore scientific advice that some populations could sustain limited catches. Pro-whaling nations also flout science by indulging in so-called 鈥渟cientific whaling鈥�, which has less to do with research than with keeping their whalers afloat. An unwillingness to compromise means that, apart from the odd surprise vote, the IWC continues to be paralysed (see 鈥淔uture looks bright for whale hunters鈥�).
Meanwhile, the whalers carry on, killing more animals each year. Under IWC rules, scientific whalers can set their own catch limits. This year, Norway will take more than 1000 minke whales. Japan will take minke, sei, Bryde鈥檚 and sperm whales. Most worrying is Japan鈥檚 decision to take fin whales, and next year to hunt humpbacks, species classed by the World Conservation Union as 鈥渧ulnerable鈥� on its Red List of endangered species.
Advertisement
Conservation-minded nations can no longer ignore this. Trying to stop scientific whaling would blow the IWC apart and lead to a free-for-all. The alternative is to set catch quotas through the system scientists created for the IWC, an imperfect but conservative move. However repugnant some find whaling, agreeing limited catches may ultimately be the best way to safeguard vulnerable species.
