News & updates

IWMC World Conservation Trust Opening Statement


IWMC World Conservation Trust Opening Statement

IWMC World Conservation Trust wishes to express its gratitude to the Chair of the Commission and its appreciation to the Secretary and her Staff for the effectiveness in arranging this Special Meeting under difficult circumstances.

For centuries whaling has been an integral part of cultures all around the world: from the icy waters of the Arctic, via the rocky shores of Japan, to the tropical islands of Indonesia people and whales have interacted in one way or another. Yet with the adoption of the moratorium on commercial whaling this interaction has come under attack. And nowadays even small-scale coastal whaling, which is being carried out by indigenous and non-indigenous communities alike, which serves for food and sustenance is no longer considered necessary. Of course, those that scream the loudest against this legitimate form of livelihoods have never engaged with it or with the people that carry it out.

Only 20 years before the coming into effect of the moratorium, two fundamental human rights instruments were adopted: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These instruments constitute the basis for all contemporary human rights instruments and have been almost universally ratified. When considering whaling for sustenance, three distinct elements come to mind: the right to one’s own culture, the right to employment and the right to food. Already the Preamble of the ICESCR stipulates that “everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights” while the shared first article of both instruments reads that all peoples have the right to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

In light of the moratorium on commercial whaling and the creeping expansion of the IWC’s mandate to include also small cetaceans, states opposing even the smallest non-indigenous whale hunt that is legal under national law are in direct breach of the provisions of these instruments. Moreover, whaling is also a form of employment that has come under threat. Why? Because some countries do not ‘like’ it. Yet, it is also these countries that have ratified the Employment Policy Convention by the International Labor Organization of 1964. This convention grants the right to freedom of employment — a right, which can also be found in the ICESCR. Why are coastal communities denied this right?

Lastly, everyone has the right to food — a right that can be found in numerous human rights instruments. Especially in coastal communities, this right is becoming ever more important, given the way overfishing has affected coastal fisheries worldwide. To deny coastal communities to make use of the abundant whale stocks right next to their shores constitutes also a denial of their right to food. Therefore, it is imperative that they can make use of those food sources that are available to them.

In light of the above we conclude that maintaining the moratorium over emotional or moral concerns constitutes a breach of several fundamental human rights. Those rights have been turned into national law by almost all states in the world. By applying these rights to their own citizens, but not considering them relevant for the citizens of other countries does not fall short of being discrimination. 

IWMC wishes that the questions of Animal Rights and Sovereign Rights will be given the highest possible priority in all the Commission’s future decisions.

IWMC Switzerland
9 September 2021

Related content

Media Centre

European Colonialism is Back as ‘Animal Rights’

MP’s lead the House astray with sentimentality because elephants are large, visually striking animals that capture the public’s imagination and evoke strong emotional responses. You

IWMC Feature

Conservation Influencers

Conservation Influencers is a searchable directory of the animal activist, environmental and ecological lobby. It examines the history, mission, methodology and reputation of NGOs to assess their impact on the global conservation cause.

Franz Weber Foundation

From 1990 until 2015, Franz Weber Foundation (FFW) managed the Fazao-Malfakassa National Park in Togo, which was, according to an in-depth investigation by Duke University, ‘established by forcing the local communities off their land and without taking into consideration their point of view’. That same study cited convincing evidence from reports published in 1990, confirming that competition for land use was already ‘creating conflict between the local communities and park managers’. In 2015 Togo refused to renew FFW’s contract because, the report says, ‘local communities were still excluded from the management of the natural resources of their land’ and FFW had ‘failed to fulfil its contract’. Franz Weber Foundation plays a major role within CITES because it funds and manages from Switzerland the African Elephant Coalition (AEC), which represents 32 African range states, some of which have barely any elephants and others none at all. Contrary to the wishes of the range states in Southern Africa, which manage most of the world’s wild elephant populations, the AEC at CITES’ CoPs repeatedly tables proposals to put all of the world’s elephants in appendix I. And the AEC uses its voting power to keep in place prohibitions on ivory sales and all other trade in elephant-related derivatives, including skins and hair, which Southern African nations wish to legalise.