IWMC  World Conservation Trust

Dunedin, 28 January 1998

Mr. M. Canny  
IWC Commissioner for Ireland  
National Parks Wildlife Service  
Dept. of Arts, Culture the Gaeltacht  
51. St. Stephen’s Green  
Dublin 2, IRELAND

Dear Commissioner Canny,  

On behalf of the board of IWMC World Conservation Trust, I wish to extend our appreciation for your sincere attempt to find a solution to the apparent impasse in the discussions of the International Whaling Commission.  We, at IWMC World Conservation Trust, have been very concerned about the future of IWC due to the increasing polarization experienced by the parties.  Although we cannot offer a solution to this polarization, we understand it, and offer our comments for your consideration.  We also note that some non-governmental organizations, whose leaders have contacted you regarding your proposal, are adamantly opposed to it because it allows some whaling by coastal peoples.  

We recognize and share your humane concern for those whaling communities on the coasts whose traditions and economies are intricately bound to whaling for food and domestic trade.  Those people, whose governments have forbidden their normal whaling since the IWC moratorium, have suffered tremendously, and in our opinion, they should have been allowed to resume their sustainable use of the whale resource long before now.  Their governments have, however, had such regard for IWC that they apparently vowed to honor the decisions of the Plenary, however disrespectful of their culture those may have been.  

We, at IWMC World Conservation Trust, believe that the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, if followed in letter and spirit by its contracting parties, already provides a model for procedure which would guide the parties in their quest to at once conserve and safely use the whale resource.  We note that in general, concern expressed by the parties over the last fifty years has ranged from uncertainty over whale stock status, to a desire for humanness in killing, to expressions that, for reasons of cultural preference, whales not be utilized at all, nor even sacrificed for reasons of scientific research.  In addition, we note more recent concerns over alleged enforcement problems, and a general expression of non-faith in the desire of whaling nations’ governments to properly control and enforce quotas and import-export activity.  

We must now note with regret that your proposal, which in part calls for a cessation of “lethal” research, for a ban on international trade in whale products, and a ban on pelagic whaling, is itself a denial that the guidelines of the ICRW are appropriate to address legitimate conservation concerns expressed by the parties.   Perhaps it is now time to remind the parties of their treaty obligations to respect one another’s rights if they choose to remain a part of the IWC.   Regardless of the reasons why some nations are adamantly opposed to the resumption of any commercial whaling, on this fiftieth anniversary meeting of the parties it would be appropriate to reassess the conditions under which they annually convene, and the future of their association with one another, “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”.  

We, at IWMC World Conservation Trust, now respectfully suggest the following:  

1. That a private discussion among commissioners assess the future viability of the International Whaling Commission under those conditions of dissent which have resulted in the present impasse;  

2. That a call for adherence to the original wording, intent and spirit of the Convention be issued.  

3. That the implementation of parties’ rights to exercise their desire to resume limited, IWC regulated sustainable whaling according to the guidelines of the RMP, be augmented through agreement that oversight be accomplished in part through mutual use of an established DNA registry.  

4. That the parties agree that development of a constantly updated DNA data base of all those cetacean species under IWC jurisdiction is a critical need and  

5. That the parties agree all cetaceans which are allowed to be used for human consumption, including those inadvertently stranded or caught as by-catch through normal fishing activities, be identified as individuals and as to the stock from which they derive, through DNA registration procedures, and through additional protein or enzyme identification analysis when appropriate.   This latter addition of animals to the registry should eliminate confusion when meat and other products from such animals are found in market situations.  This should also add data to national record-keeping systems, which attempt to track and minimize such by-catch as a part of their overall cetacean conservation efforts.  

IWMC World Conservation Trust calls for the sincere and honest use of science as a basis for decision-making in the matter of any proposed sustainable use of natural resources.  We applaud you, Mr. Canny, in your attempt to convene the commissioners privately in order to sincerely address problems of IWC polarity and dissention, and we wish you all the greatest success in these efforts.  We sincerely hope that your meeting shall lead to a brighter future for all parties of the IWC as they put their faith in sound scientific methodology and use it in honest and fair directions toward the conservation and sustainable use of cetaceans.  

I shall look forward to meeting you as you address non-governmental delegates in Antigua and, should the resources of IWMC World Conservation Trust be of use there for research, distribution of materials, or any other support purpose, I will make our staff available to you immediately.  

Sincerely yours,

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