At the peak of the whaling industry, thousands of whales were hunted each year for their oil, which was a primary fuel source in the 18th and 19th centuries. By the 1930s, the unsustainable nature of whaling was becoming apparent. In response, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was signed in 1946, leading to the establishment of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). This marked the creation of the world’s first global effort aimed at tackling a major threat to wildlife.
As the IWC prepares for its 69th meeting in Lima this September, it is worth considering whether it might be time for this historic institution to wind down. Approaching its 80th anniversary, the IWC could pass on its responsibilities to other entities and national governments, concluding its mission with dignity.
A Historic Milestone
The ICRW was originally established to oversee the conservation of whale stocks and the orderly development of the whaling industry. Conservation, in this context, meant ensuring that whale populations were managed in a way that allowed for sustainable harvesting. However, as it became increasingly clear that many whale species were in significant decline, the IWC made a groundbreaking decision in 1982. From the 1985–86 season onward, commercial whaling was banned globally.
This ambitious agreement led to a dramatic reduction in whaling activities, with a few exceptions, and contributed to the recovery of several whale species, including the majestic blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). This achievement is monumental. Yet, since then, the IWC has made limited progress in furthering the conservation of great whales or promoting sustainable practices.
Challenges and Stagnation
Over the years, the number of ICRW member nations has increased significantly, from around 30 in 1990 to nearly 90 today. Despite the moratorium on whaling, the IWC has struggled to address ongoing issues. Many member countries are either not engaged in whaling or are not prepared to reconsider the moratorium. Efforts to reform the convention and achieve meaningful results have stalled, and the IWC’s impact on whaling that continues today has been minimal. Countries like Norway, Iceland, and Japan, which engage in limited whaling, do so largely outside the IWC’s influence.
Despite this, the IWC continues to hold biennial meetings, consuming substantial resources without yielding significant conservation outcomes. For instance, a dispute involving Australia and Japan, which escalated to the International Court of Justice in 2013, cost over $20 million without any discernible impact on whale conservation.
A New Direction
The IWC has accomplished much, and its role in the past was crucial. However, as it moves towards its 80th year, it is time for a shift. Indigenous Arctic communities, who have hunted whales for sustenance, have seen quotas set by the IWC since 1983, with minimal effect on whale populations. Moving forward, subsistence whaling should be managed by individual countries based on scientific evidence.
If the IWC were to cease operations, countries could take on the management of their own subsistence whaling activities. This approach aligns with Target 5 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which emphasizes sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local communities.
Similarly, the whaling conducted by Japan, Norway, and Iceland within their exclusive economic zones does not necessarily require oversight from nearly 90 nations. Concerns about large-scale commercial whaling reemerging are unlikely, given the current demand for whale products and evolving attitudes towards wildlife. Other conventions, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), can provide additional protection and oversight. CITES regulates international trade of endangered species, including whales, while CMS could enhance conservation efforts for cetaceans.
Streamlining Efforts
Today, over 3,000 international environmental agreements and organizations exist. Some, like the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, have achieved their goals or are nearing completion. Others have struggled to make an impact. Many institutions, with limited effectiveness, consume substantial resources. Streamlining these efforts could lead to greater efficiency and impact. For instance, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change could absorb the remaining tasks of the Montreal Protocol, while the Convention on Biological Diversity could take on goals of older agreements like the Convention on Wetlands.
This consolidation would enhance effectiveness and efficiency. As we approach the upcoming UN Summit of the Future in New York City, discussing such streamlining should be a priority.
In 2018, political scientist Julia Gray described ineffective international institutions as “zombie organizations.” These entities give the illusion of addressing problems while failing to make real progress. Celebrating the achievements of past conventions is important, but allowing them to persist as ineffective “zombies” serves no one. The future of wildlife protection depends on adapting to new realities and focusing resources where they can make the most impact.
