The International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) annual meeting has now finished, with no agreement having been reached concerning the future of international whaling.

Controversial

While many conservation groups will no doubt be celebrating the fact that the countries have not adopted the controversial deal that would have legitimised whaling by Iceland, Japan and Norway but place their activity under official oversight from the IWC.

Impasse

Debates over the issue have often lead to angry disputes between pro and anti-whaling parties, both on the level of conservation groups protesting, but also at the high-level of government, where political wrangling has often degenerated into the two parties refusing to budge from their respective positions.

The apparent impasse was hoped to have been breached at this meeting as a result of a new proposal. The deal was intended to provide a compromise between the two groups. Because Iceland, Japan and Norway have used loopholes that allow them to continue whaling, the proposal was intended to make their activity legal once again, but with the proviso that they would face closer monitoring.

Unsatisfied

Unfortunately, rather than pleasing both sides, the proposal appear to have left both unsatisfied, and as a result, the ‘peace talks’ on international whaling have failed.

The countries hoping to have their whaling activity legitimised felt that the proposal would be transforming the IWC into a whale conservation organisation rather a resource management organisation, which they believe its role should be.

Behind the scenes, Japanese sources said the key stumbling block for them was the demand from the EU and the Buenos Aires group of Latin American countries that its Antarctic whaling programme must end within a set time-frame.

For Japan, agreeing to reduce its quota from 935 now to 200 in 10 years time represented a significant step forward, which they thought ought to have been acceptable to their opponents, with further discussions – possibly on a phase-out – taking place subsequently.

Pressure

Many of the anti-whaling countries were under pressure from conservation groups to reject the proposal as they believed it would undo the good work that had been done for whale conservation since the ban came into place. Even though groups accepted that giving the IWC greater capacity for monitoring whaling would be extremely beneficial, the general perception was that the IWC would not be capable of controlling the whaling activity.

Absence of Compromise

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, New Zealand’s former prime minister and current whaling commissioner, who has been intimately involved in the “peace talks”, said that “Japan did show real flexibility and a real willingness to compromise”.

“But we are in the situation now where the gaps cannot at this time be bridged; and the reason for this I think is obvious enough – there is an absence of a political will to bridge those gaps, an absence of political will to compromise.”

The path forwards now is unclear. Many delegates are asking whether there is any point in leaving the issue open for a further year; if agreement is impossible, they suggest it would be better to face up to the fact now.

Opting for more time would “raise the question of the commission’s credibility,” said Remi Parmentier, senior policy adviser to the Pew Environment Group, which has been one of the organisations backing the exploration of compromise.

But there may also be a reluctance to leave the more constructive tone of the previous two years behind, and risk a return to the acrimony that formerly characterised the IWC.

Conservation groups can celebrate for the moment that legal whaling will not be resuming any time soon. But Iceland, Japan and Norway will go on whaling regardless, and with the prospect of significant time passing before talks resume again, the whales could ultimately suffer more.