The AWI team prepared for September’s 69th meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC69) in Lima, Peru, with a sense of trepidation. IWC68, in 2022, ended in recriminations and uncertainty after several developing countries, heavily influenced by the financial support they receive from former IWC member Japan, staged a walkout—taking advantage of ambiguous procedural rules to intentionally break quorum and prevent a vote on a proposed South Atlantic whale sanctuary.
Compounding this destabilizing event, the IWC was facing a serious budget shortfall due to the failure of many members to pay their annual fees, forcing painful cuts to the Scientific Committee’s budget and the secretariat staff’s benefits. And yet, despite this recent turmoil and Japan’s continued pervasive influence at the IWC, we left Lima with a feeling of accomplishment and optimism.
AWI and our NGO colleagues learned important lessons from the 2022 meeting—not least of which was the need to have all hands on deck. At IWC68, the unexpected absence of several conservation-oriented governments prevented the IWC from maintaining a quorum in the face of the Japan-orchestrated walkout. At IWC69, therefore, we needed to ensure that all like-minded member governments were represented, with fees paid so they could vote.
Despite a few disappointing no-shows, our intersessional outreach efforts paid off. As some late arrivals took their seats immediately ahead of the session in which the vote on the sanctuary proposal would be taken, the pro-whaling nations realized that they could not break quorum. If they absented themselves from the meeting room as they had in 2022, the vote would go on and the proposal might easily pass.
Sadly, however, thanks to one 11th-hour payment of fees in arrears and some last-minute submissions of repayment plans, as well as an ad hoc ruling by the chair allowing participation by a few countries that had small debts or had provided evidence that payment was forthcoming, several pro-whaling nations unexpectedly gained the right to vote. In the end, the aspirations of the strongly pro-conservation bloc of Latin American governments and NGOs were dashed, as the proposal fell two votes shy of the three-quarters majority required for adoption. With more lessons learned, however, we look forward to the sanctuary being approved at IWC70 in 2026 in Australia.
Refuting negative narrative
The IWC’s very existence was aggressively challenged ahead of the meeting in an opinion piece published in Nature by a former IWC chair and others, including a representative of a pro-whaling NGO that receives substantial funding from the government of Japan (including more than $100,000 for whaling-related work in both 2023 and 2024). Describing the IWC as a “zombie organization,” they asserted that it was no longer relevant or effective and that it should be terminated, with its mandate transferred to other intergovernmental organizations.
Led by AWI, the international NGO community mounted a strong defense of the IWC and its important management and conservation mandate. We were concerned that the doomsday narrative would pervade IWC69 and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thankfully, it did not, and the chair proclaimed at the close of the meeting that “the IWC has never been more relevant.”
During the meeting, quotas for Indigenous subsistence hunters were rolled over, and by an overwhelming majority, the IWC adopted a resolution proposed by the European Union reaffirming the importance of the moratorium on commercial whaling that has been in place since 1986. They also agreed, by consensus, to two other EU-led resolutions that affirmed the value of the IWC’s collaboration with other biodiversity-focused organizations, including collaborations on research and conservation in Antarctica—the critical feeding ground for southern hemisphere whales.
Two resolutions proposed by Japan’s allies failed to find support. The first—from Antigua and Barbuda, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines—advocated lifting the moratorium. The other—from Cambodia, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Republic of the Congo, Senegal, and Saint Kits and Nevis—promoted the killing of whales to meet food security needs. The proponents ultimately withdrew both, although they may choose to resubmit them at IWC70.
More scrutiny of Japan’s influence
Another positive development at IWC69, evident from an unprecedented number of media reports, was long-overdue scrutiny of the small island and other developing states whose representatives have supported Japan’s agenda at the IWC for decades. After the meeting, for example, the commissioner from Antigua and Barbuda came under pressure at home for his pro-whaling stance. He acknowledged to his domestic press that his country’s position at the IWC was influenced by more than $200 million in Japanese development aid over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, in West Africa, there has been extensive media coverage of an open letter signed by more than 110 government officials, scientists, and marine policy experts from the region, condemning their countries’ pro-whaling position at the IWC and calling on them to withdraw the resolution they had proposed.
To ensure that Japan’s insidious and costly influence at the IWC remains in the spotlight, AWI is urging a review of the pitifully small fee Japan pays to attend meetings. Despite being a nonmember government, Japan’s killing of IWC-protected whales still generates significant work for the secretariat and Scientific Committee. For example, in order to respond to Japan’s recent resumption of North Pacific fin whale hunting, the Scientific Committee will need to deprioritize other work and schedule workshops to assess the structure and status of the target population and provide advice (that Japan will likely ignore) on whether the population can withstand hunting.
Japan paid less than $8,000 for its six representatives to participate at IWC69. In contrast, it paid more than $160,000 a year as an IWC member government before it withdrew in 2019. The IWC could help address its budget challenges by applying the same factors to calculate the charge for nonmember governments that it uses to set member governments’ annual membership fees, including their gross domestic product and whaling activities. AWI participates in subcommittees and working groups that will consider financial and operational issues ahead of IWC70, and we will urge IWC members to make this a priority.
AWI’s continued commitment to the IWC
AWI began its involvement with the IWC in the early 1970s under the leadership of our founder, Christine Stevens, who was instrumental in launching the “Save the Whales” movement that led to the moratorium. Five decades later, we continue to be deeply involved in the work of this vital organization, including as active participants in its Scientific and Conservation Committees, subcommittees, and working groups. Our involvement includes providing financial support for the IWC’s conservation and animal welfare work, hosting virtual and in-person strategy sessions for the NGO community ahead of IWC meetings, preparing briefing documents on pertinent topics to inform delegates’ decision-making, and facilitating the participation at meetings of several like-minded NGOs that otherwise would not be able to attend.
The IWC continues to face budget challenges, and more cuts may be needed. But at IWC69, the commissioners reached consensus on a new budget, including a fee increase to keep pace with inflation, and its fundraising efforts are increasing. Notwithstanding the narrow defeat of the South Atlantic whale sanctuary proposal, the 2024 IWC meeting surpassed expectations, and AWI feels optimistic for the organization’s future and committed to our ongoing efforts to secure a safer world for whales through our work within the IWC.