By Dr. James Fletcher - Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

There is great misunderstanding in St. Lucia over our country’s position on the issue of whaling.  The prevailing opinion, initiated, promoted and perpetuated by some soi-disant environmentalists, is that St. Lucia votes “pro-whaling” at meetings of the International Whaling Commission, in order to pay back Japan for the aid that it provides to St. Lucia.  I must confess that the authorities have not done a good enough job in explaining the basis for St. Lucia’s position on whaling.  It can be argued strongly, however, that even when we have tried to defend our position our target audience (the anti-whaling groups) does not listen, but that still does not absolve us of the responsibility to explain and defend our position repeatedly.  That is what accountability and transparency are all about.  And this is what, once again, I will seek to do.

The International Whaling Commission

First of all, what is the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that we hear so much about every year around this time?  The IWC is an international organization, headquartered in Cambridge, England, that was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which was signed in Washington D.C. on 2 December 1946.  The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thereby make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.  The IWC’s main duty, therefore, is to keep under review and revise, as necessary, the measures laid down in the Schedule to the Convention that govern the conduct of whaling throughout the world.  These measures, inter alia, provide for the complete protection of certain species, designate certain specified areas as whale sanctuaries, set limits on the numbers and sizes of whales that may be taken, prescribe open and closed seasons and areas for whaling, and prohibit the capture of suckling calves and female whales accompanied by calves.  The IWC, through its various sub-committees, also collects scientific data, funds whale research, and promotes studies in myriad whale related matters.  Membership of the IWC is open to any country that formally adheres to the 1946 Convention, and presently stands at 44 countries.  Each member country is represented by a Commissioner, who is assisted by experts and advisors.   Every year, usually in May or June, the Annual Meeting of Commissioners is held, either by invitation in any member country, or in the UK.  One of the main committees of the IWC is its scientific committee, which meets in the two weeks immediately preceding the meeting of Commissioners.  The information and empirical date that this sub-committee provides on the status of whale stocks informs the decisions that the IWC takes in developing regulations for the control of whaling.  These regulations require a three-quarters majority of the Commissioners voting in order to be enacted, and any changes become effective 90 days later, unless a member state has lodged an objection, in which case the regulation is not binding on that country.

Resource Management

There are thirteen (13) species of ‘great whales’, belonging to the Order Cetacea, and many of these have been depleted by over-exploitation.  Fortunately, however, the populations of some of these species have shown signs of recovery.  In 1975, a new management policy (NMP) for whales was adopted by the IWC.  This NMP was established to bring all stocks of whales to the levels that provided the greatest long-term harvests, by setting catch limits for individual stocks that were below their sustainable yields.  In 1982, however, as a result of uncertainties in the scientific analyses and the data on precise stock levels, the IWC imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling of all whale stocks from 1985/86.  This moratorium does not, however, affect aboriginal subsistence whaling, which is permitted from Denmark, Greenland (fin and minke whales), the Russian Federation (gray whales), St. Vincent and the Grenadines (humpback whales), and the USA (bowhead, and occasionally gray whales).

Following a comprehensive assessment of whale stocks by the IWC, a Revised Management Procedure (RMP) was developed, and the IWC accepted and endorsed this RMP in 1994.  However, it is yet to implement this procedure.  The RMP was intended to balance the conflicting needs to ensure that risks to individual stocks were not adversely increased, while allowing the highest continuing yield.  The RMP was designed to be the first step in the resumption of commercial whaling.  However, many IWC members, most notably the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia opposed any resumption of commercial whaling.  In 1991, the Australian Commissioner stated that there was no longer any need to hunt “such large and beautiful animals” for food, and while conceding that there were no scientific reasons to continue the commercial ban, the US Commissioner announced in 1991 that he would defend the U.S. position on ethical grounds.  The failure of the IWC to implement the RMP, after having accepted and endorsed it, prompted the Chairman of the Scientific Committee to resign, stating that he could no longer justify himself “being leader and spokesman for a Committee which is held in such disregard by the body to which it is responsible”. 

The most recent data available to the IWC, as compiled from the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks, puts the population of Southern Hemisphere Minke whales at 761,000, North Atlantic Minke whales at 149,000 and North West Pacific and Okhotsk Sea Minke whales at 25,000.  Southern Hemisphere Blue Whales number between 400 and 1,400, while North Atlantic Fin Whales, at the last count, stood at 47,300.  North Pacific Gray Whales numbered 26,300 in 1997/98, Bowhead Whales numbered 7,500, there were 5,500 Western North Atlantic Humpback Whales and 10,000 Southern Hemisphere Humpback whales.  Estimates of Pilot Whales, which are “small cetaceans”, and which include the “black fish” or “mashwen” caught by St. Lucian fishermen, currently stand at close to 1,000,000. 

It is obvious, therefore, that while there are whale species that are in need of continued protection, there are species, foremost among them being the Minke whales and the Pilot whales, with populations that can support a finite annual harvest.  And this is what the RMP, and its implementation plan, the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), are all about: a resumption of commercial whaling of species with numbers that can support a limited catch.  It must also be borne in mind that the volume of fish and seafood consumed by whales as food is estimated to be 3 to 5 times the amount that the world’s marine fisheries (in total) harvest for human consumption.  From a scientific standpoint, the implications that an unchecked whale population would have on the equilibrium of the marine food chain are obvious. 

Even under the 15-year moratorium, Japan is allowed to catch a certain number of whales for scientific research.  Additionally, as stated earlier, countries such as Greenland, the United States, the Russian Federation, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, are allowed a limited take of some Great Whale species to satisfy a subsistence/aboriginal fishery.  This year, Japan made a request for a small-type coastal whaling allocation of 50 minke whales, out of a stock of (761,000) whales that has been demonstrated by the IWC itself to be abundant and robust.  St. Lucia’s vote in favour of the RMS, which was devised by the IWC Scientific Committee (not by Japanese scientists), is consistent with its sustainable resource use policy, and it is the implementation of this RMS that would make it possible for a return to a limited, controlled and managed harvest of certain defined whale species.

The strong and so far undisputed scientific argument in favour of a limited and controlled re-opening of the whale fishery on the basis of an adequate recovery of population levels has been clouded by emotional sentiments opposing any harvest of whales or other cetaceans on moral and ethical grounds.  Part of the campaign to “Save the Whales” involved the portrayal of whales as human-like species, and this ‘humanisation’ of the whales through public service announcements, documentaries, and movies has resulted in a complete absence of reason and logic in the scientific debate concerning whales and a managed utilization of the resource.  While the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries does not object to persons or organizations opposing commercial whaling on ethical and moral grounds, we find it difficult to understand the rejection of sound scientific and empirical data by the groups that adopt anti-whaling positions.  It is either that we accept sustainable resource use as a principle or we reject it in its totality.  The campaign today is for Willy the Whale.  Tomorrow it may be for Sid the Squid and Webster the Spiny Lobster, and the day after for Mark the Shark and Chico the “bweego”.  When Willy, Sid, Webster, Mark and Chico are endangered we fully support and endorse the campaign.  However, when their numbers have increased to the extent where a controlled and managed harvest is possible, then we can find no scientific justification for a complete moratorium.

Japanese Aid

Much has been made of the aid provided by the Government of Japan to St. Lucia and other Caribbean countries, including accusations that this aid is offered as bribes for the votes of the Caribbean.  The fact is that Japan extends economic aid to over 150 countries, among these being very strong anti-whaling nations like Brazil and India.  It is an insult, therefore, to St. Lucia and other Caribbean territories, when accusations are made that suggest that our sovereignty is being prostituted for two or three fisheries complexes.  St. Lucia is neither pro-whaling nor pro-Japan; we are simply pro-sustainable use.

St. Lucia’s Image

Finally, there has been substantial debate on the impact that St. Lucia’s support of a managed and limited resumption of commercial whaling, as provided for in the RMS, will have on our image as a “green”, environmentally-friendly tourist destination.  The simple fact is that St. Lucia’s record on environmental protection can stand toe-to-toe against that of many of the countries currently speaking loudest in opposition to the RMS.  Unlike most of these countries, the hunting of wildlife is strictly prohibited in St. Lucia.  Unlike many of these countries, our industries do not destroy habitats and eco-systems to the extent that the future existence of species – human and non-human – is threatened.  And, unlike some of the pontificating countries, we do not pollute our environment with greenhouse gases that result in climate change and global warming, which in turn cause increases in sea levels that may one day completely obliterate low lying areas and island nations such as ours.

The ridiculous and ill-informed publication of articles and pictures that misrepresent St. Lucia as a nation of whale killers does infinitely more harm to our tourism industry than our support of sustainable resource use.  Isn’t it coincidental that every year we vote in favour of sustainable use at IWC and related meetings, yet it is only this year, with the publication of malicious inaccuracies by Sea Shepherd on its web site, and the reproduction of these inaccuracies in various fora, that we have seen cancellations of visitor bookings.  This is where the focus should be, and not on a Government exercising its sovereign right to pursue a policy that is based on sound scientific principles or on a handful of St. Lucian fishermen engaging in a centuries-old practice of subsistence fishing for “black fish” or “mashwen”, which is not prohibited by the IWC (and is allowed through exemptions under international protocol).

[Site Help]

© 2001 Government Information Service. All rights reserved.

Read our privacy guidelines.