The Use of Science as a Negotiating Aid

The January issue of Science Magazine contains an article ostensibly about the relevance of present whale sanctuaries to the issue of global whale conservation. The authors, Leah R. Gerber, K. David Hyrenbach, and Mark A. Zacharias, are all US scientists who were appointed by the IWC Scientific Committee "to review the SOS (Southern Ocean Sanctuary) and to evaluate how approaches in marine protected areas might be integrated into the IWC sanctuary program." The authors rather immediately conclude that "the SOS in particular, and the IWC sanctuary program in general, are currently not scientifically justified."

Of course, the sustainable use community has said this for years, recognizing that the Indian Ocean and the SOS were created merely to prevent traditional harvesting within those arbitrary boundaries. The SOS was created as a safeguard as soon as the RMP was adopted, in 1994. It was a redundant move because all whale stocks would be appropriately protected under the RMP, and it was a futile one, because Japan took a reservation to the SOS regarding Antarctic minke whales.

The authors discuss why current sanctuaries are inappropriate to conservation and further note that final passage of the RMP/RMS package would be preferable to the current situation, in which there is an impasse caused by extreme political polarity, in the midst of which, the Japanese scientific research programs are being conducted (under the ICRW Article VIII) as "unregulated scientific permit whaling". They advocate "the elimination of unregulated scientific permit whaling and the application of the RMP/RMS, alongside a system of IWC sanctuaries designed to protect populations of whales during certain time periods....or throughout their entire ranges". They believe that "the adherence to a quota system would enhance whale conservation by restricting the times and areas of whale harvesting, and by restricting the total catch."

In the place of "unregulated" scientific research as it is now conducted legally under Article VIII, they advocate IWC controlled research within the newly designated IWC sanctuary areas, so as to "reinstate the research value of IWC sanctuaries, by facilitating the monitoring and comparative study of harvested and unharvested stocks."

IWMC notes that "correction" of the rules of the ICRW to accommodate these suggestions by US scientists would entail two significant changes. The first would be to eliminate Article VIII of the Convention, even though such research must now be reported annually to the Scientific Committee for its review. The point that the US scientists object to, is that Article VIII calls for this to go on, without a prior approval from the IWC. Such approval would never be given in the present political climate, because the high quality of research that has been conducted by Norway, Japan and Iceland, has consistently demonstrated that certain stocks can sustain a harvest under the conditions of the RMP. Science is the enemy of whale preservationists, whose only strength in recent years, has been their strength in numbers.

Once the door to changing the Convention was opened by the precedent of elimination of the Article VIII, then also, possibly, there would be an effort to remove the right of member nations to take reservations to Schedule amendments.

IWMC feels that the editors of the prestigious Science Magazine have been duped into publishing an article that has real, not pseudoscientific, advice on the integration of better science into the IWC sanctuary system, while at the same time, opening the door for a politically biased lobbying environment that would work to change the Convention itself through the above amendments. We believe that this may be the actual intent of this Science Magazine article.

It may be that anti-whaling Parties to the ICRW have realized that the game they initiated, (vote recruitment through encouragement of new members) has come to the final inning; the pro-whaling, pro-sustainable use, pro-ecosystem research and management faction of the IWC may very soon have the required ¾ majority with which to amend the Schedule to adopt an acceptable RMP/RMS package that shall mean the quota for at least minke whales shall be greater than zero. The like minded faction can not face this reality, and this is the reason why there may be a move to once again, move the goal posts. The adoption of the RMP/RMS would open the door to greater than zero quotas for other stocks, as well, and this is something that the like minded faction simply can not accept. IWMC strongly advocates the continuation of dedicated scientific research into the marine ecosystem and into the lives and health of large cetaceans. This process must be driven by scientists for the sake of science, not directed by politically motivated cultural biases. WE must keep the ICRW intact as it was originally written, because we believe that it is an appropriate safeguard for the welfare and health of cetacean stocks and of those societies whose people wish to sustainably use this resource, now and in generations to come.