The Food Security Resolution and its controversial reception — again
A key resolution on food security was put forward by Ghana, supported by several co-sponsors as the latest attempt to have the role of whales in food security recognised. As at IWC68 in 2022, this resolution triggered a lively and at times polarising debate within the commission, also preceded by an open letter of a large number of Western African ‘conservationists’ opposing this resolution.1
The proposal: What’s at stake?
The resolution on food security, tabled by Ghana and co-sponsored by countries including Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, and Antigua & Barbuda, emphasises the importance of recognising whales as a vital resource for food security, especially for developing nations. Ghana argued that many small nations rely on whales for nutrition, livelihoods, and cultural identity. The resolution does not call for a resumption of commercial whaling but seeks to ensure that the IWC, in its decision-making processes, considers the various uses of whales, particularly in relation to food security.
The proponents of the resolution highlighted that the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the governing framework of the IWC, recognises whale stocks as natural resources. Ghana noted that responsible and sustainable use of these resources is crucial, particularly in a world facing increasing population pressures. By 2050, Earth will be home to an estimated 10 billion people, and proponents like Norway stressed that marine mammals, including whales, must be considered alongside other food resources, such as livestock, to meet future demands.
Mixed Reactions from Member States
While some countries backed the resolution, others were more sceptical about its appropriateness within the IWC’s mandate. Norway, one of the staunch supporters, underscored the importance of the resolution in the context of sustainable development and food security. Togo also voiced its support, emphasising the right of nations to secure food through sustainable use of marine resources, including whales.
However, several countries, including the United States, the Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom, raised concerns about the resolution. These nations argued that food security is a critical issue but one that is better addressed in other forums, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), rather than the IWC. Australia also acknowledged the importance of food security but expressed concerns about conflating Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) with commercial whaling, ultimately opposing the resolution in its current form.
The United Kingdom and New Zealand echoed this sentiment, recognising the importance of the blue economy but questioning whether the IWC was the appropriate forum for discussions about food security. The UK stated that it could not support the resolution but was open to working with proponents to revise the text.
Strong words from the Caribbean
Some of the most impassioned speeches in support of the resolution came from Caribbean nations, notably Antigua & Barbuda . Antigua & Barbuda voiced frustration with what it viewed as a paternalistic attitude from some member states, accusing them of taking a “colonial posture” by attempting to dictate what certain nations could or could not eat. “How dare you tell us what we can eat?” the representative from Antigua & Barbuda asked, pointing out that whales have long been a part of their culture and sustenance.
St Vincent and the Grenadines also weighed in, supporting the resolution and asserting that the management of whales is indeed a matter of food security for those who consume them. St Lucia, too, voiced its support, questioning the value of shifting discussions about whale-related food security to other fora and dismissing the idea that whale watching could provide equivalent food security.
Divergent views from NGOs
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were also divided on the issue. IWMC World Conservation Trust and Global Guardian Trust (GGT) expressed support for the resolution, stressing that it does not imply a resumption of commercial whaling but rather responds to rapidly changing environmental, political, and social conditions. These groups argued that the resolution recognises the evolving challenges of food security and the need for a pragmatic approach to marine resources, including whales.
However, opposition came from a group of 20 other organisations, including the Benin Parliamentary Society from West Africa, who voiced strong opposition to the resolution. These groups argued that the resolution could open the door to further exploitation of whale populations, potentially undermining conservation efforts that have been decades in the making.
The road ahead
Ghana, acknowledging the divergent views, expressed its willingness to work with other parties on revising the text during the session. However, the debate over this resolution has highlighted deep divisions within the IWC about the role of whales in food security and the broader mission of the commission itself.
The resolution’s future remains uncertain, with many member states signalling that they are open to further discussions but currently unable to support the text as it stands. The question now is whether a compromise can be reached that addresses the concerns of both conservationist and pro-sustainable use factions within the IWC.
The decision on the resolution will be made later on during the meeting, unless the proponents decide to withdraw the resolution.
sellheimenvironmental.org 