IWMC  World Conservation Trust

Subject: Editorial 3 January 2006
From: Eugene Lapointe 
To: The Press, New Zealand (editorial@press.co.nz)

Sir/ Madam,

Your suggestion (editorial 3 January 2006) to rename the International Whaling Commission (IWC) the “Anti-Whaling Commission” symbolizes the hope of the New Zealand government. However, the IWC was established by an international convention and its purpose cannot be transmuted in the way you suggest without the agreement of all member states. Clearly, those nations that support – and in some cases rely – on the sustainable use of resources (fish, whales, etc.) would never become signatories to an anti-whaling convention. Countries opposed to whaling would, presumably, be the only signatories and the organization would serve no useful purpose because it would regulate nothing.

The IWC will again be a relevant player in whale conservation only once it establishes a management system that sets quotas and regulations. It is an irony to some that whaling nations support such a system while anti-whaling nations – New Zealand included – strongly oppose it. It would seem more logical if these positions were reversed.

It should be obvious by now that an uncompromising approach against all whaling, particularly of ultra-abundant species like the minke whale, actually achieves nothing for whale conservation. All it does is make politicians and commentators appear tough in the media.

Yours truly, 

Eugene Lapointe
IWMC President
Former Secretary General of CITES (1982-1990)

Promoting the Sustainable Use of Wild Resources
- Whether Terrestrial or Aquatic
- as a Conservation Mechanism