The convention governing the International Whaling Commission (IWC) states similarly that its "regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources ... shall be based on scientific findings".

Authors Avatar
SCIENCE-BASED SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION PROBLEMS

President Clinton, when announcing his decision last October to delay the implementation of sanctions on Norway following that country's recommencement of commercial whaling, stated the United States' strong commitment to science- based international solutions to global conservation problems.

The convention governing the International Whaling Commission (IWC) states similarly that its "regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources ... shall be based on scientific findings".

But the practice differs greatly from the principle. The IWC took a decision in 1982 to impose a global moratorium on all commercial whaling at a time of growing scientific evidence that the Antarctic minke whale population, at least, could certainly sustain a limited harvest. Whaling countries, angered by this decision which they considered to be without scientific justification, hit back later in the 80's by making use of a provision in the IWC Convention which allowed them to issue permits to their nationals to catch some whales for the purpose of scientific research - research is conducted as a part of these "scientific" whaling operations, but is that their primary purpose? Most recently there is the proposal for a whale sanctuary throughout the Southern Ocean - a transparent attempt to prevent the resumption of whaling on the 3/4 million strong Antarctic minke population for reasons which have nothing to do with science. This has been accompanied by the unedifying spectacle of Western nations and "conservation" (or, more accurately, "preservationist") groups desperately searching for some plausible surrogate scientific rationale with which to attempt to justify the proposal.

These other reasons are discussed elsewhere in this volume. My brief is to address aspects of President Clinton's expressed concern at "the absence of a credible, agreed management and monitoring regime that would ensure that commercial whaling is kept within a science-based limit".

SUSTAINABLE UTILISATION

Obviously such limits should be consistent with "sustainable utilisation" - but exactly what does that mean? The most ready analogy is that of a pensioner whose sole asset is a capital sum invested in a bank. Sustainable utilisation for him means living off the annual interest without dipping into the capital. In other words, harvesting only the natural annual growth of a population, without depleting it to a low level where this growth is greatly reduced.

THE IWC'S NEW MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE

In the 1970's, in response to mounting public criticism following the substantial depletion of many whale populations by whaling conducted under its aegis, the IWC introduced the so-called "New Management Procedure" (NMP). The underlying principles were fine - essentially to get whale populations to and keep them at reasonably high proportions of their size before exploitation started, by ensuring that catch limits set did not exceed sustainable levels.

But the NMP proved unworkable in practice. Why? Not because there was anything wrong with the concept, but because the NMP didn't go far enough. It failed to specify how the "annual interest" (i.e. the sustainable catch level from a whale stock) was to be calculated, what data needed to be collected to do this, and how to take account of uncertainties.
Join now!


CALCULATING SUSTAINABLE YIELD LEVELS

So how can sustainable yield levels be calculated? For the pensioner, the process is simple: to evaluate how much interest will become available annually, ask the bank teller how much capital is in his account and what the interest rate is, and then just multiply the two together.

So why isn't fisheries management equally easy? - because the teller is unco- operative. All he will tell you, and only once a year, is how much you have in your account, which he can get wrong by typically 20%. And he certainly ...

This is a preview of the whole essay