Rethinking the future of sustainable whaling – Antigua & Barbuda’s tabled proposal

Rethinking the future of sustainable whaling – Antigua & Barbuda’s tabled proposal

A draft resolution submitted by Antigua & Barbuda at the plenary introduces a significant challenge to the longstanding commercial whaling moratorium established in 1982. Co-sponsored by St. Lucia, the resolution advocates for the development of a conservation and management programme aimed at lifting the moratorium and enabling the “orderly development” of the whaling industry, underscoring the need for this shift to be guided by scientific evidence and balanced considerations of whale stocks.

At the core of the resolution is the argument that the moratorium was always intended to be a temporary measure. When introduced, it was supposed to be reviewed after ten years. However, according to Antigua & Barbuda, this review process has been stalled, even as whale populations have recovered significantly due to IWC management efforts. The resolution makes the case that the time has come for the IWC to re-evaluate its stance, not with the aim of reversing conservation gains, but to bring more pragmatic and scientifically grounded approaches to managing whale populations.

The resolution recognises the substantial progress made by the IWC in understanding whale population dynamics, environmental impacts, and humane factors, and it calls for the reintroduction of a more active role for the Commission in managing sustainable whaling activities. This would include revisiting the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) – a scientific framework developed in 1994 to calculate quotas for whaling that take into account the risks to whale populations. However, despite the adoption of the RMP, full implementation has been blocked by the failure to agree on the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), which was meant to regulate inspection and observation mechanisms. This impasse remains a critical point of contention.

The resolution proposes several key actions to resolve these lingering issues. First, it calls for the establishment of a special task force, chaired by the IWC chairperson and composed of nominated members from contracting governments. The task force would be charged with reviewing the Commission’s past work on the RMP and RMS, evaluating the feasibility of resuming negotiations on these mechanisms, and recommending a path forward. Importantly, the task force would also work to develop a negotiating framework that could support future discussions on monitoring and control systems, ensuring that whaling activities, if resumed, would be subject to stringent oversight and scientific regulation.

The draft resolution also frames sustainable whaling as a vital contributor to livelihoods, food security, and poverty alleviation in many coastal and aboriginal communities. Antigua & Barbuda argue that the IWC, through its original mandate under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), was established not only for the conservation of whale stocks but also to allow for the development of the whaling industry. In this context, they emphasise that it is in the collective interest of all IWC members to consider a more balanced approach, one that takes into account the needs of these communities while continuing to safeguard whale populations.

Another notable aspect of the resolution is its critique of the IWC’s current role. Antigua & Barbuda contends that significant whaling activities are already taking place in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of member states, outside of the IWC’s oversight. The resolution argues that this situation reflects the diminishing authority of the IWC in managing the whaling industry, and that without a shift in its approach, the Commission risks becoming irrelevant. The proposal suggests that a more structured, science-based management system could bring these activities back under the IWC’s purview, ensuring that they are conducted sustainably.

However, the resolution has been met with considerable resistance. Australia, for example, expressed concern that, despite the title’s removal of direct references to the “lifting of the moratorium,” the resolution’s true objective remains to dismantle the moratorium. Australia and the UK, among others, expressed concern that, despite the title’s removal of direct references to the “lifting of the moratorium,” the resolution’s true objective remains to dismantle the moratorium. They also, questioned the financial feasibility of establishing a new task force, especially given the IWC’s already strained budget. Several countries, including India and New Zealand, echoed these concerns, reiterating their commitment to the moratorium and opposing any steps that might undermine it. Other members opposing the resolution were furthermore Hungary and all EU Member States parties to the ICRW, India, the United States, South Korea or Argentina.

From the supporting side, Antigua & Barbuda’s representatives emphasised that the resolution does not seek to abolish the moratorium recklessly, but rather to engage in a fact-based dialogue on the state of whale stocks and the future of whaling. They argue that the resolution encourages much-needed discourse and international cooperation, which is critical for any democratic decision-making process. By establishing a task force, Antigua & Barbuda hopes to foster collaborative discussions that could eventually lead to a more balanced, evidence-based approach to whale conservation and management. The resolution was supported by St Lucia (as co-sponsor), St Kitts & Nevis and Ghana,

The financial implications of the resolution are also noteworthy. The proposed task force would require £97,000 to fund two in-person meetings, with potentially additional long-term costs that remain to be determined. Some members, like Hungary, voiced concerns over the budgetary impact, particularly given the Commission’s limited resources and the fact that no IWC member has indicated an interest in resuming commercial whaling.

NGOs, including OceanCare and a coalition of 17 national and international organisations, strongly opposed the resolution, calling it a thinly veiled attempt to reintroduce commercial whaling. They argued that changing the title does not alter the essence of the proposal, which they see as undermining decades of progress in whale conservation. They also raised concerns about diverting resources away from pressing conservation challenges to revisit an issue they consider settled.

Global Guardian Trust (GGT) voiced strong support for the resolution, framing it as aligned with global commitments to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). GGT argued that the resolution is justified, particularly in light of the IWC’s original mandate under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which includes both conservation and the orderly development of the whaling industry. According to GGT, moving towards a more balanced management approach, as the resolution suggests, is not only consistent with international commitments but also essential for ensuring that no coastal communities reliant on sustainable whaling are left behind.

Opes Oceani Foundation also weighed in on the debate, pointing out what they saw as logical flaws in the arguments of those opposing whaling for moral reasons. They argued that the moratorium was never intended to be a blanket ban on whaling for moral purposes, but rather a temporary measure based on scientific necessity at the time. In their view, continuing to block discussions on sustainable whaling disregards the original intent of the moratorium and fails to acknowledge the significant recovery of many whale populations.

In conclusion, Antigua & Barbuda’s resolution has reopened the debate over the future of whaling. While it calls for a more balanced approach, bringing into consideration the needs of coastal communities and food security, its reception at IWC69 has been divisive. Supporters see it as an opportunity to address unresolved issues within the IWC’s management structure, while opponents view it as a threat to the moratorium that has protected whale populations for over 40 years. The establishment of a task force, if accepted, will be a significant step in determining the future direction of the IWC and its role in global whaling governance. Whether this leads to a new era of sustainable whaling or reaffirms the current moratorium will depend on the outcomes of the next IWC meeting.

If the Commission decides to vote on this resolution, which – in all likelihood – will not be adopted by consensus, the vote will occur at a later stage during the meeting. A drafting group for a revision of the resolution will present a final text to be discussed until then, unless, of course, the proponents decide to withdraw the draft.