Preliminary discussions at IWC69 highlight key debates on whaling and indigenous rights

The 69th meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC69) has begun in Lima, Peru, with early sessions focusing on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) ahead of tomorrow’s much-anticipated Plenary. These preliminary discussions have already surfaced important debates about the future of whaling quotas, indigenous rights, and the language used to define these practices. The stage is set for a week of complex negotiations.

Central to today’s discussions were the current ASW quotas, which allow indigenous communities to continue traditional whaling practices. While these quotas were largely endorsed, concerns over terminology and the representation of indigenous voices in decision-making sparked deeper conversations.

A cautious continuation of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling?

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-Committee, chaired by Bruno Mainini from Switzerland, reviewed scientific data that reaffirmed the sustainability of the current ASW quotas. The sub-committee supported the continuation of existing Strike/Catch Limits, agreeing that these practices would not harm whale populations, which was a relief for indigenous communities in the USA and Russia, where whaling plays a vital role in cultural identity and food security.

Nevertheless, the continuation of gray whale hunts prompted objections from Brazil and some environmental organisations, who expressed concerns about the recent population decline. They argued for a more cautious approach, fearing that even the limited subsistence whaling permitted under current quotas could further weaken the species. In response, most delegates supported the findings of the Scientific Committee, which stressed that existing management procedures, such as the Revised Management Procedure, provide sufficient safeguards for the sustainable use of whale populations.

The debate over the term ‘aboriginal’

One of the more contentious discussions today centred around the use of the term ‘aboriginal’. Several countries, including Antigua and Barbuda, questioned whether the term was still appropriate in today’s context, suggesting it could be outdated, insufficiently inclusive and may even contain racist undertones. Seconded by St Vincent & the Grenadines, they advocated for the adoption of more modern language that better reflects the diversity of the communities engaged in subsistence whaling.

This suggestion, however, was met with resistance from nations like Brazil and Argentina, who warned that removing the term could have unintended consequences. They argued that the term ‘aboriginal’ affords special recognition and protection to indigenous peoples under international law, and eliminating it could dilute the legal and cultural distinctions that these communities rely on. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) strongly advocated for retaining the term since this provides them with specific rights under US jurisdiction. The debate over terminology is likely to continue as the IWC navigates the evolving relationship between whaling practices and indigenous rights.

The silenced voices in the Indigenous Rights Survey

The discussions also touched on the findings of the Indigenous and Human Rights Instruments Survey, authored by Jessica Lefevre and Dr Nikolas Sellheim, which assessed how well the IWC aligns with international standards on indigenous rights and which of the instruments provide the legal basis to conduct ASW. While the survey aimed to provide insights into how the Commission’s policies affect indigenous communities, it became a point of contention when some participants noted that key indigenous perspectives had been removed from the final report.

Several countries, along with non-governmental organisations, criticised the report for not including the views of the whaling communities directly involved in these practices. They emphasised that any assessment of indigenous rights must involve the voices of those most affected by the policies. Others, however, criticised the report for not delving deeply enough into anthropological and domestic aspects of the terms ‘aboriginal’ or ‘indigenous’.

Dr Nikolas Sellheim, as one of the authors of the survey, expressed disappointment that the Commission had requested the removal of the hunters’ voices, citing a lack of substantial feedback during the consultation process. He lamented that the survey had been stripped of crucial indigenous perspectives, which would have enriched the final document. His intervention highlighted the ongoing struggle to ensure that indigenous voices are not marginalised in these important international discussions, accusing the Commission to merely pay lip service to indigenous interests.

The anticipated plenary

As today’s preliminary sessions wrap up, the focus now shifts to the Plenary, starting on 23 September. This full meeting of the IWC will address not only ASW but also the highly controversial South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary (SAWS). Originally proposed by Brazil, SAWS seeks to create a no-whaling zone, even if the moratorium is lifted, spanning the South Atlantic, and it has been debated for over 20 years. While proponents argue that the sanctuary is vital for whale conservation, opponents warn that it could interfere with national sovereignty and disrupt local fisheries, particularly in Latin America.

The discussions in the sub-committee today have set the tone for the Plenary, where member states will need to weigh the cultural, economic, and environmental consequences of the decisions they make. The question of balancing indigenous rights with global conservation efforts is expected to take centre stage, as both sides argue for solutions that reflect their priorities.