Sorrento, Italy, 19 July 2004: As over 50 nations gather in Sorrento for the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), IWMC today urged member states to eliminate the series of loopholes that have allowed the whaling convention to be subverted for the last twenty years.

In its Opening Statement to the meeting, IWMC highlights nine loopholes in the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) that have been exploited by nations that oppose hunting whales. The exploitation of these loopholes has created an international organization that does exactly the opposite of that originally intended by its founders.

Eugene Lapointe, President of IWMC, said: "It is remarkable that in modern times we are still experiencing the complete subversion of an international organization with the full support and backing of many of the most developed countries in the world."

The ICRW was established "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry".

The nine loopholes being exploited are:

1. The IWC can do the opposite of what was intended by the Convention
2. Amendments are made to the Schedule in contravention of the original convention
3. A simple majority can authenticate almost any decision
4. A moratorium is still in place despite the non-completion of the required stock assessment, due in 1990 
5. Countries with no commercial interest in whaling belong to the IWC 
6. The convention does not forbid ethnic discrimination 
7. By discriminating between whalers, the IWC allows endangered whales to be hunted in numbers exceeding the agreed catch quota for abundant species 
8. NGOs can attend meetings and influence outcomes 
9. The IWC considers issues beyond its remit

Opponents of whaling allege that Japan, Iceland and Norway exploit loopholes that allow them to hunt whales. However, the programs of each of these countries are explicitly permitted under the ICRW. Scientific research whaling is permitted by Article VIII, while Norway's commercial program is undertaken under an official objection to the moratorium, as allowed under Article V.

Mr. Lapointe said: "By definition, it is impossible for a convention established to bring about the 'orderly development of the whaling industry' to have a loophole that allows whaling. All it can have are loopholes that prevent it. And that is precisely what has been exploited over the last twenty years. If the IWC continues to pursue an agenda that runs counter to its mandated purpose, there are bound to be consequences. If it disallows the organization of carefully managed harvests, the IWC will implode and ultimately will have no international oversight for whaling at all."

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The nine whale loopholes are explained below:

Loophole Number 1 - The IWC can do the opposite of what was intended

In 1946, the drafters of an international convention for the "orderly development" of the whaling industry would have expected its signatories to act only in a way consistent with this objective. In the 1980s, a slew of countries that didn't share this objective joined and effectively reversed it. While the text of the original treaty cannot be changed, the Schedule that contains the detailed arrangements for its implementation - and that may regularly be modified - is regarded as part of the Convention. No limit was specifically placed on this characteristic, creating a loophole that has allowed the IWC to become opposed to its original purpose.

Loophole Number 2 - Amendments are made to the Schedule in contravention of the original Convention

Article V of the original Convention requires that amendments to the Schedule relate to "the conservation and utilization of whale resources". By definition, this disallows amendments that do not involve the utilization of whale resources, such as continuous zero catch limits. Article V also specifies that amendments "shall be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide for the conservation, development and optimum utilization of whale resources". By gaining the specified number of votes for a moratorium, this article was by-passed (as were the requirements for amendments to be based on scientific findings and to take into account the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry), a loophole not foreseen by the original Convention. The same loophole was exploited to establish ocean sanctuaries.

Loophole Number 3 - A simple majority can authenticate almost any decision

The IWC relies on a majority voting process to make all decisions other than changes to the Schedule. This loophole enables a small majority of nations to commit the IWC to condemning all whale hunting not classified as "subsistence whaling" and to set up a Conservation Committee opposed to harvesting whales. It means that the majority can do almost anything it wants.

Loophole Number 4 - A moratorium is still in place despite the non-completion of the required stock assessment due in 1990

The zero catch limits established in the mid-1980s for commercial whaling were to be kept under scientific review and the Commission was obliged to undertake a "comprehensive assessment" of their effects on whale stocks and consider new catch limits "by 1990 at the latest". The moratorium continues to exist through a loophole that has allowed the comprehensive assessment never to be undertaken. It is, of course, perverse that the Schedule in 2004 still contains a requirement to undertake a key activity "by 1990 at the latest".

Loophole Number 5 - Countries with no commercial interest in whaling belong to the IWC

The original Convention applies to "factory ships, land stations, and whale catchers under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Governments". The clear implication is that nations without factory ships, land stations or whale catchers are not expected to be signatories. A loophole allows countries that have no commercial interests in whaling to belong to the IWC. Together with loophole numbers 1 and 2, it has even allowed them to effectively reverse the purpose of the IWC.

Loophole Number 6 - The Convention does not forbid ethnic discrimination

The drafters of the original Convention did not anticipate that the Schedule would be manipulated to suit some ethnicities and discriminate against others. "Subsistence whaling", which the IWC has never defined, is a vehicle for giving special hunting privileges to some ethnic groups while denying those rights to others. Domestic laws in the United States recompense Native Americans for reasons unique to American culture. However, this national characteristic has been transcended into the IWC in a way that discriminates against communities in other countries that have, like Native Americans, traditionally hunted whales. This exploits the loophole that such prejudice was not explicitly forbidden in 1946.

Loophole Number 7 - By discriminating between whalers, the IWC allows endangered whales to be hunted in numbers exceeding the agreed catch quota for abundant species

The IWC's quota for "subsistence whaling" allows specific ethnic groups to hunt whales, including endangered bowheads, in quantities larger than that established by the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) - a loophole not foreseen by the original Convention.

Loophole Number 8 - NGOs can attend meetings and influence outcomes

NGOs are not recognized in the original Convention or the Schedule. The fact that limits are not placed on their activities (presumably because they were not a socio-political feature until the 1980s) has allowed them to dictate the direction of the IWC - by recruiting and paying the subscriptions of new members to join and vote for the moratorium in the 1980s and by collaborating closely and openly with certain anti-whaling delegations.

Loophole Number 9 - The IWC considers issues beyond its remit

While the IWC has no authority over small cetaceans, it has used the loophole that this is not expressly forbidden to set up a working group on these species.

For further information, contact Eugène Lapointe
Florida: +1(727) 734-4949 or email: iwmc@iwmc.org