By Noemi Lemoine··Modified:
from right to left
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is a “zombie” and should shut itself down, former chairman Peter Bridgewater tells RTL News about the organisation that protects whales from hunting. Marine biologist Irene Kingma says it's not a bad idea. “Because it's nice not to be needed as conservationists.”
Stopping at your peak is a statement that international environmental commissions don’t like very much. Instead, they often continue to burn for a long time, even though the targets have already been met. “It’s a growing problem,” says scientist Peter Bridgewater.
There are now more than 3,000 international environmental agreements and organizations. And that costs money. That involves millions of dollars in secretariats and meetings each year, he and two other researchers write in the leading trade journal nature.
commercial whaling
This also applies to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which was founded nearly eighty years ago. The goal was to protect whales, initially until sustainable hunting was possible. But when it became known that whale numbers were in steep decline, the IWC banned commercial whaling worldwide starting in 1985 (with a few exceptions).
Since then, nearly all whale species have recovered, says marine biologist Erin Kingma. Humpback whale populations, for example, have increased dramatically, as have the giant blue whale. According to Bridgewater, the “groundbreaking” decision is the highlight of the commission. “The goal was achieved: to protect whales from hunting.”
“A stand of dignity”
But the IWC was also reluctant to stop at its peak. Forty years later, the committee still meets every two years in “bitter and unproductive” meetings. “It doesn’t make sense anymore,” Bridgewater explains. “Because the goal has already been achieved, and it’s a zombie organization that hardly makes any difference.”
According to the researcher, the IWC should announce its end at the next meeting in Peru next month. “Show dignity and set an example for other environmental organizations.”
Marine biologist Kingma thinks it's a good thing Bridgewater threw the ball. “That's one of the biggest questions in conservation: When do you cancel yourself out?”
She experienced it herself once. With the Shark Alliance, she campaigned for a European ban on shark finning. “After five years we succeeded and we dissolved ourselves.” Thus, according to Kingma, abolition is the goal in itself. “It’s really nice not to be needed as an environmentalist, because that means you’ve done your job.”
Protecting whales remains the main goal.
But the IWC, in response to the Nature article, claimed that it certainly had a lot of work to do, such as protecting whales from boat strikes and litter. “A predictable response,” Bridgewater said. “But that’s not what this commission is for, and so it doesn’t have the appropriate powers to take action.”
“So we can better transfer these tasks to other agreements,” Bridgewater explains. This is what the researcher calls CITES: an international agreement protecting plants and animals. “It has the right powers.”
The Bonn Convention could also save whales. The agreement already protects small cetaceans in some areas, such as dolphins and porpoises.
“By dissolving the IWC, we are not saying, ‘Stop protecting whales,’” Bridgewater concludes. “We just want to make clear that this organization is no longer necessary.”
Both Bridgewater and Kingma doubt whether the IWC will actually announce its exit next month. “But I hope at least one country dares to ask the question,” says Bridgewater. “If it leads to a discussion, they can use the next two years to distribute all the remaining tasks to other appropriate organizations.”
