Liz Slooten: Bad deal lets whale exploitation slip through the net

Opinion

Some may argue that the "deal" being struck between whaling and non-whaling nations is a diplomatic and political victory. But so far it looks like a resounding defeat in terms of biology and conservation.

For one, the deal would fail to put an end to the ridiculous situation of whaling taking place within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary around Antarctica.

Nor is there any indication that international trade in whale products would be banned or properly controlled.

If commercial whaling were once again legal, it would be difficult - if not impossible - to control the sale of whales caught illegally or caught as "bycatch" in fishing operations.

International Whaling Commission meetings already include reports of whale meat from illegal hunting and bycatch being sold alongside meat from "scientific" whaling.

Soon after the moratorium on commercial whaling was agreed, Japan started "scientific" whaling. This practice has been criticised on numerous occasions at the scientific committee of the IWC for being far from scientific.

Criticism of scientific whaling has gradually become stronger and those opposed now include a sizeable proportion of the members of the scientific committee.

Instead of closing this loophole, the deal would legitimise scientific whaling and simply rename it commercial whaling.

The number of different whale species being hunted is likely to increase under the new deal. For example, sperm whales may once again be on the menu. Sperm whales are the mainstay of whale-watching in Kaikoura.

It's simply a really bad deal. The likely outcome is a reduction of whaling in the Southern Ocean on relatively large populations of whales that have not been heavily exploited in the past (mainly minke whales).

This would mean slightly less whaling in our backyard but more whaling in the northern hemisphere, on whale populations less able to sustain the impact.

The IWC seems set to throw all caution to the wind by allowing exploitation of populations for which insufficient information is available to set sustainable quotas using the Revised Management Procedure (RMP).

It has taken the scientific committee many years to develop a management procedure that uses the most available and reliable information (in particular, population size and past catches) to set sustainable catch levels.

The deal is not based on sound science. Quotas for several species would be based on recent or historic catch levels, ignoring the fact that whale catches have increased in recent years in apparent anticipation of these negotiations (just as fish catches increased before the Quota Management Scheme was introduced in New Zealand).

At least in the first instance, quotas would be set on the basis of political negotiations behind closed doors. These arbitrary quotas might then be adjusted if enough scientific information becomes available to apply the RMP.

This is basically the opposite of the precautionary principle. Instead of hunting only those whale populations for which good scientific information is available on their numbers and reproductive capacity, we would see whaling on vulnerable populations simply because they live in areas close to whaling countries.

There is no indication that whaling would be phased down or phased out. Unless the negotiations take a dramatic turn, the new deal is likely to result in a worse situation overall.

* Associate Professor Liz Slooten teaches ecology, marine mammal biology and statistics at the University of Otago. She has represented New Zealand at the scientific committee of the IWC off and on since 1992 and is a member of the Cetacean Specialist Group, an international committee of whale and dolphin scientists.