Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on Community action in relation to whaling
Date: 2007-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, hunting regulations, international cooperation, marine mammal, protected species, protection of animals

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 19.12.2007 
COM(2007) 823 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL 

on Community action in relation to whaling 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL 

on Community action in relation to whaling 

Introduction 

Extensive  exploitation  of  whales  and  environmental  degradation  have  severely  depleted  the 
populations  of  many  whales.  The  international  work  to  conserve  and  manage  whale  stocks 
carried out by the International Whaling Commission ('IWC') –is weakened as a result of the 
endless discussions between 'pro-whaling' and 'anti-whaling' States. The European Union has 
not yet been able to use its political weight in the IWC context mainly because of the lack of a 
coordinated and agreed Community position. 

With this Communication, the Commission, taking stock of the current situation in relation to 
the protection of whales within the EU and internationally, intends to underline the need for 
the  EU  to  act  as  a  united  major  player  in  international  whaling  policy.  The  EU  should  be 
guided  by  the  objective  of  ensuring  that  an  effective  international  regulatory  framework  for 
the protection of whales is in place and is properly enforced.  

1. 

THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 

1.1. 

Background 

1. 

2. 

Whales as well as dolphins and porpoises belong to the order of Cetacea. There are 
13 species of 'great whales' such as blue, fin, humpback, bowhead, sperm and minke 
whales etc. and a further 68 species of smaller whales and dolphins. Whale species, 
mainly  the  great  whales,  have  been  hunted  since  the  middle  ages  in  Europe,  the 
northern  oceans  and  subsequently  in  the  Americas  and  other  regions  in  the  world, 
including the Antarctic region. While the meat of whales was used for food in several 
areas  of  the  world,  further  important  products  of  whales  were  the  baleens  and  in 
particular oil and grease which were used as fuel and to oil machines. The catch of 
whales peaked in the 50's and 60's of the 20th century, with yearly catches of tens of 
thousands of whales. Due to this extensive exploitation of whales many populations 
became  severely  depleted  by  the  middle  of last  century.  In  addition,  environmental 
degradation,  including  climate  change,  and  by-catches  in  fisheries  cause  further 
threats to whales. 

The  International  Whaling  Commission  (IWC)  is  the  international  organisation 
competent for the conservation and management of whale stocks. It was set up by the 
International  Convention  for  the  Regulation  of  Whaling  ('the  Convention'),  which 
was  signed  in  Washington  D.C.,  on  2  December  1946.  With  an  increasing  and 
developing  whaling  industry  at  that  time,  the  purpose  of  the  Convention  was  "to 
provide  for  the  proper  conservation  of  whale  stocks  and  thus  make  possible  the 
orderly development of the whaling industry".  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

1 

2 

3 

Membership of the IWC is only open to governments that adhere to the Convention. 
In  recent  years  the  number  of  Parties  to  the  Convention  has  increased  rapidly  to 
reach  77,  out  of  which  201  EU  Member  States.  The  European  Commission  has 
continuously  encouraged  those  Member  States  that  are  not  yet  Parties  to  join  the 
Convention.  

The European Community has observer status. The Commission adopted a proposal 
in 1992 to negotiate the accession of the Community to the Convention2. However, 
the Council has not yet taken any action further to this proposal.  

IWC is to keep under review and revise as necessary the measures laid down in the 
Schedule  to  the  Convention  which  governs  the  conduct  of  whaling  throughout  the 
world. While the Schedule is annexed to the Convention, it is defined as an integral 
part  of  it  and  is  therefore  binding  on  Parties.  In  practice,  while  the  Convention 
provides  the  general  regulatory  framework,  it  is  the  Schedule  which  provides 
detailed whaling regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale 
resources.  The  measures  of  the  Schedule  provide,  among  other  things,  for  the 
complete  protection  of  certain  whale  species,  designate  specified  areas  as  whale 
sanctuaries,  set  limits  on  the  numbers  and  size  of  whales  which  may  be  taken, 
specify the hunting seasons, coordinate scientific research (including environmental 
issues) and the collection of data. Amendments to the Schedule necessitate a majority 
of  three-quarters  of  the  Parties  and  become  effective  within  90  days  for  all  Parties 
that  do  not  object  to  them.  On  this  basis,  the  Schedule  was  amended  in  the  1982 
meeting  of  the  IWC  by  adding  a  new  paragraph  to  introduce  the  moratorium  on 
commercial whaling.  

The IWC meets once a year. The 2006 and 2007 meetings were held in St. Kitts and 
Nevis and Anchorage, Alaska, respectively.  

Further  to  a  request  from  the  1972  UN  Stockholm  Conference  on  the  Human 
Environment, the IWC adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982, which 
is  in  force  since  1985.  In  adopting  this  measure  the  IWC  took  into  account  the 
uncertainties  in  the  scientific  information  on  whale  stocks  and  the  difficulty  in 
obtaining the required data3. 

One  of  the  main  underlining  issues  at  IWC  meetings  over  the  past  years  has  been 
whether whale stocks have recovered enough to lift the moratorium on commercial 
whaling in a controlled fashion. 

The need to develop new management objectives and procedures was recognised at 
the  outset  of  IWC  discussions  on  future  management  of  commercial  whaling, 
following the entry into force of the moratorium. Accordingly, work was undertaken 
to  develop  a  Revised  Management  Procedure  (RMP).  The  RMP  would  establish 
catch limits based on scientific data on whale populations. While the procedure was 

Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK. 
Communication from the Commission to the Council concerning the conservation of whales within the framework 
of the IWC (COM (92)316). The Annex thereto includes a draft Decision authorizing the Commission to negotiate, 
on behalf of the Community, a protocol amending the Convention to allow EC participation. 
The text of the Schedule reads as follows: Para. 10(e) "Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch 
limits  for  the  killing  for  commercial  purposes  of  whales  from  all  stocks  for  the  1986  coastal  and  the  1985/86 
pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific 
advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this 
decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits". 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
adopted  in  1994,  it  has  not  been  applied  yet  pending  further  work  on  the  Revised 
Management Scheme (RMS). The RMS would seek to ensure that the regulations of 
the IWC are complied with. It would include a wide range of control measures in this 
context. Issues like international observers on vessels, verifications to combat illegal 
unreported whaling, compliance measures, distribution of costs for control measures, 
options  for  lifting  the  moratorium  under  certain  conditions  (e.g.  limiting  catches  to 
the  Exclusive  Economic  Zones  only),  animal  welfare  considerations  and 
international  control  of  scientific  whaling  have  been  raised.  However,  substantial 
work on the RMS has been difficult and controversial and no concrete results have 
been achieved so far. The 2006 IWC plenary recognised for the first time a definitive 
deadlock on RMS negotiations. In the long term, the future of the IWC depends to a 
large extent on finding a solution to the issues discussed in the context of the RMS. 

The exceptions to the moratorium 

The moratorium on commercial whaling does not affect aboriginal whaling, which, 
under  the  current  IWC  regime,  is  permitted  for  Denmark  (Greenland  only,  fin  and 
minke  whales),  the  Russian  Federation  (Siberia  only,  gray  whales),  St  Vincent  and 
The  Grenadines  (humpback  whales),  and  the  USA  (Alaska  only,  bowhead;  and 
occasionally Washington, gray whales). Since its inception, the IWC recognised that 
aboriginal  subsistence  whaling  (ASW)  is  of  a  different  nature  from  commercial 
whaling. It is the responsibility of national governments to provide the International 
Whaling  Commission  with  evidence  of  the  cultural  and  subsistence  needs  of  their 
people. The International Whaling Commission sets catch limits for stocks subject to 
aboriginal subsistence whaling for a five year period, based on scientific advice. 
The Convention allows Parties to lodge objections4 against binding decisions such as 
the moratorium. Norway and Iceland are not bound by the moratorium as they have 
lodged an objection/reservation and continue to hunt whales at their own discretion. 

The Convention also allows Parties to conduct whaling without specific approval by 
the IWC under special permits granted by national authorities for so-called 'scientific 
research  purposes'.  The  right  to  issue  these  special  permits  is  enshrined  in  Article 
VIII  of  the  1946  Convention5.  Whilst  Parties  must  submit  proposals  for  review,  in 
accordance with the Convention, it is each Party that ultimately decides whether or 
not to issue a special permit. This right overrides any other Commission regulations 
including  the  moratorium  and  sanctuaries.  There  have  been  indications  that  not  all 
the killed whales are used only for scientific purposes in certain countries. It appears 

The  objection  procedure  (Convention  Article  V  paragraph  3)  has  been  strongly  criticised  as  rendering  the  IWC 
'toothless', but without it the Convention would probably have never been signed. In addition, without such a right a 
government would still have been able to withdraw from the Convention and thus not to be bound by any of the 
regulations. 
Article  VIII,  Paragraphs  1-3:1.  "Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  this  Convention  any  Contracting 
Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales 
for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as 
the  Contracting  Government  thinks  fit,  and  the  killing,  taking,  and  treating  of  whales  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  this  Article  shall  be  exempt  from  the  operation  of  this  Convention.  Each  Contracting  Government 
shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government 
may  at  any  time  revoke  any  such  special  permit  which  it  has  granted.  2.  Any  whales  taken  under  these  special 
permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions 
issued by the Government by which the permit was granted. 3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such 
body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, 
scientific  information  available  to  that  Government  with  respect  to  whales  and  whaling,  including  the  results  of 
research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV". 

1.2. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

4 

5 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

13. 

14. 

that Japan (and to some extent Iceland) carry out 'scientific' programmes, mostly in 
Antarctica, and then puts the whale meat in national markets. 

Due to the large scope of all these exceptions, the moratorium has had virtually no 
effect on the whaling policy of Japan, Norway and Iceland. 

Recent developments – Commercial whaling 

In spite of the moratorium on 'commercial whaling', substantial whaling continues on 
the  basis  of  the  exceptions  described  above.  Since  the  moratorium  on  commercial 
whaling took effect in the 1985/86 season, more than 29000 whales have been killed 
under the various exceptions and the yearly takes have increased. The total catches 
for the four countries under the aboriginal subsistence whaling exemption are lower6. 
In  the  period  between  1985  and  2005  the  total  catches  under  this  exemption  were 
about 6788 according to information made available by the IWC.  

It is estimated that Norway has caught 639 minke whales in the 2005/6 season and it 
is  now  considering  to  greatly  increasing  the  catches  over  the  next  years.  Japan  has 
issued  scientific  permits  every  year  since  1987.  In  2007,  permits  concerned  about 
850 Antarctic minke whales, 10 fin whales, 220 common minke whales, 50 Bryde's 
whales, 100 sei and 10 sperm whales. Iceland has resumed scientific whaling in 2003 
and commercial whaling in 20067. A total of 161 common minke whales have been 
caught since the start of the Icelandic research program in 2003. Moreover, in 2006 
Iceland announced that it would take 9 fin whales8 and 30 common minke whales for 
commercial purposes.  

The dual mandate of the IWC of both managing whaling and conserving whales has 
led to extremely polarised positions over the years between leading pro-whaling and 
anti-whaling  States.  This  deadlock  is  jeopardizing  international  cooperation  and 
hindering progress towards the effective protection of all whale species. Pro-whaling 
States  have  actively  sought  the  accession  of  supportive  countries  to  reach  the 
necessary  majority  to  lift  the  moratorium  on  commercial  whaling.  At  the  2006 
Annual  meeting  at  St.  Kitts  and  Nevis,  these  countries  achieved  a  thin  majority 
which  led  to  the  adoption  of  a  declaratory  resolution  in  support  of  the  "sustainable 
use of whales", a term largely used for consumptive use or commercial whaling. This 
declaration  was  of  serious  concern  and  prompted  the  Commission  to  bring  this 
matter  to  the  Council  for  discussion9,  as  well  as  to  call  upon  all  Member  States  to 
accede to the IWC.  

6 
7 

8 
9 

For 2008-12 quotas, see Chair's Report of the 59th IWC meeting:http://www.iwcoffice.org 
Iceland left the IWC in 1992 stating that the moratorium was no longer needed, only to rejoin the IWC in 2002 with 
a  reservation  on  the  moratorium.  In  their  instrument  of  adherence  to  the  IWC  Iceland  stated  that  it  would  not 
resume commercial whaling until 2006. 
Fin whales have been classified as 'endangered' on the IUCN red list of threatened species. 
Discussion at Environment Council of 20 February 2007, and at Coreper of 28 March and 2 May 2007. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
15. 

2. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

In addition, Japan has proposed for several years decisions to allow small-type costal 
whaling of certain species10. Such proposals, aimed to amend the binding Schedule, 
have  not  gathered  so  far  the  support  required11.  Such  an  amendment  would  be 
tantamount  to  a  partial  resumption  of  commercial  whaling12  and  would  open  up 
again quota negotiations.  

PROTECTION OF WHALES UNDER COMMUNITY LEGISLATION 

According to Article 174(1) of the EC Treaty, one of the objectives of Community 
environment policy is the promotion of measures at international level to deal with 
regional  or  worldwide  environmental  problems.  This  includes  the  conservation  of 
species, such as whales, at global level. 

Therefore,  the  European  Community  is  committed  to  the  protection  of  whales  and 
other cetaceans and has put in place legislation that ensures a high level of protection 
primarily in the framework of Community environment policy. 
The Habitats Directive13 lists all cetacean species in its Annex IV. All whale species 
are  strictly  protected  from  deliberate  disturbance,  capture  or  killing  within 
Community  waters.  The  Directive  also  prohibits  the  keeping,  transport  and  sale  or 
exchange,  of  specimens  taken  from  the  wild.  This  legislation  does  not  allow  the 
resumption  of  commercial  whaling  on  any  stock  totally  or  partially  occurring  in 
Community  waters.  Due  to  the  migratory  character  of  whale  stocks,  it  is  clear  that 
the objectives of the Habitats Directive can only be achieved in full if a comparable 
international regulatory framework is in place. 

The Regulation implementing the Convention on International Trade on Endangered 
Species (CITES) in the European Community bans the introduction of cetaceans into 
the Community for primarily commercial purposes14. This high level of protection is 
further  reinforced  by  the  EC  Marine  Strategy15  and  the  proposed  Marine  Strategy 
Directive16,  which  is  expected  to  strengthen  the  protection  of  whales  in  the 
Community  by  fostering  the  overall  objective  of  good  environmental  status  of  our 
oceans and seas.  

Therefore, the ultimate objective of Community environmental policy in relation to 
whales  is  to  seek  their  strictest  protection.  The  above  mentioned  environmental 
legislation  ensures  the  highest  level  of  protection  through  exhaustive  rule 
harmonisation.  

10 
11 

12 

13 
14 

15 

16 

See for instance IWC Summary records of 2006, 2007. 
Amendments  to  the  Schedule  need  the  support  of  three-fourths  of  the  Parties  (Article  III  paragraph  2  of  the 
Convention). 
As  often  highlighted  by  other  Parties,  such  as  Australia  (Summary  Report  2006)  and  UK  (oral  intervention  in 
2007). 
Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7. 
Regulation  338/97/EC  on  the  protection  of  species  of  wild  fauna  and  flora  by  regulating  trade  therein,  OJ  L  61 
3.3.1997,  p.  1.  In  addition,  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  348/81  on  common  rules  for  imports  of  whales  and  other 
cetacean products only allows imports of listed products if they are not used for commercial purposes. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament:  Thematic  strategy  on  the 
protection and conservation of the Marine Environment COM(2005) 504 final. 
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community 
Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy COM(2005) 505 final. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Furthermore,  under  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP),  the  Community  has 
exclusive  competence  for  the  conservation  of  biological  resources  of  the  sea17.  As 
'live  animals',  cetaceans  fall  within  the  scope  of  Annex  I  to  the  EC  Treaty  and  are 
subject  to  Articles  33  to  38  thereof18.  Moreover,  the  Council  Regulation  on  the 
conservation  and  sustainable  exploitation  of  fisheries  resources  under  the  Common 
Fisheries  Policy19  states  that  the  scope  of  the  CFP  extends  to  conservation, 
management  and  exploitation  of  living  aquatic  resources.  On  this  basis,  the 
Community  has  concluded  fisheries  agreements dealing,  partly or exclusively,  with 
marine  mammals20.  Similarly,  cetaceans  are  addressed  by  secondary  legislation 
adopted under the CFP aimed to implement international commitments undertaken in 
the  context  of  fisheries  agreements  and  to  address  the  protection  of  whales  in  the 
high seas21.  

By  virtue  of  Article  6  of  the  EC  Treaty,  environmental  requirements  are  integrated 
into the definition and implementation of the CFP. A good example of this approach 
is  Regulation  1967/2006  concerning  management  measures  for  the  sustainable 
exploitation  of  fishery  resources  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  For  cetaceans,  this 
Regulation  extends  to  the  Mediterranean  high  sea  the  strict  protection  already 
afforded by the Habitats Directive within Community waters22.  

The  legislative  measures  adopted  by  the  European  Community  aim  at  ensuring  the 
highest  level  of  protection  of  whales.  They  will  not  be  successful  if  they  are  not 
supported  by  coherent  international  action  by  the  Community  aimed  to  ensure  also 
an effective international regulatory framework for the protection of whales.  

At  present,  in  the  absence  of  a  strategic  approach  or  even  of  a  common  view  on 
whaling,  the  EU  needs  to  use  its  political  and  economic  weight  to  counter  the 
influence  of  leading  whaling  nations  on  whaling  and  fisheries  policies  of  other 
countries, notably in the African, Caribbean and Pacific region (ACP). A Community 
position would for instance allow the question of whaling to be put on the agenda of 
regular  meetings  held  at  multilateral  level  (e.g.  Generalised  System  of  Preferences 
(GSP), Cotonou Agreement context) or at bilateral level (e.g. through Commission's 
delegations).  

Similarly, the EU could co-operate more with Norway and Iceland, two neighbouring 
States  which  continue  to  whale  close  to  Community  waters23,  in  order  to  try  to 
influence their policy on whales. This situation, if not modified, is likely to affect the 
state  of  the  whale  stocks  protected  by  the  Habitats  Directive.  Community  action 
could also contribute to put the protection of the Atlantic whale stocks more at the 
centre  of  the  IWC  debate.  This  would  complement  the  long-lasting  and  crucial 

See for instance Cases C-141/78 [1979] ECR 2923, paragraph . 6, and C-804/79, [1981] ECR 1045, paragraph 17. 
See Art. 32, paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty 
Council Regulation 2371/2002/EC , OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p.59. 
See e.g. Council Decision 2005/938/EC on the approval on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement 
on the International Dolphin Conservation Programme, OJ L 348, 30.12.2005, p. 26. 
See  Council  Regulation  (EC)  973/2001  laying  down  certain  technical  measures  for  the  conservation  of  certain 
stocks of highly migratory species, OJ L 137, 19.5.2001, p. 1; and Council Regulation (EC)1936/2001 laying down 
control measures applicable to fishing for certain stocks of highly migratory fish, OJ L 263, 3.10.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 36, 8.2.2007, p. 6. See recital 9 and Article 3(1) on protected species, in connection with Article 1(1) on scope 
(which extends to the Mediterranean high sea, beyond the scope of the Habitats Directive). 
Norway  and  Iceland  created  a  regional  management  organisation  for  mammals  (North  Atlantic  Marine  Mammal 
Commission). The Habitats directive is not included in the environmental annex to the European Economic Area 
Agreement. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

22 

23 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
24. 

25. 

26. 

3. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

24 
25 

26 

discussions  on  the  Southern  Hemisphere  (Japanese  research  programme  in  the 
Antarctic, proposed South Atlantic Sanctuary, etc.).  

To  be  able  to  address  these  issues  in  the  most  effective  way,  an  EU  position  is 
needed.  Its  lack  in  an  important  environmental  forum  dealing  with  matters  within 
Community competence like the IWC is an anomaly that needs to be addressed.  
The recently adopted maritime policy for the Union24 acknowledges  that integrated 
approach  to  European  maritime  affairs  must  be  reflected  in  EU  contacts  with 
international  bodies.  Therefore,  to  be  able  to  address  maritime  issues,  including 
whales, in the most effective way the Commission will work towards the promotion 
of  coordination  of  European  interests  and  coherence  of  EU  position  in  key 
international fora. 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  the  unity  in  the  external  representation  of  the 
Community, it is essential that Member States prepare the next meetings of the IWC 
by agreeing an EU position in the framework of discussions in the Council. Due to 
the limitations intrinsic to the observer status of the Community and in keeping with 
the  principle  of  loyal  cooperation  reflected  in  Article  10  of  the  EC  Treaty,  such 
position shall be expressed by the Member States acting jointly in the interest of the 
Community within the IWC25. It is also essential that the remaining 7 Member States 
that are not yet Parties to the IWC accelerate their accession procedure. This would 
consolidate the thin anti-whaling majority recovered at the IWC meeting of 2007.  

CONCLUSION 

The  IWC  ban  on  commercial  whaling  to  ensure  the  recovery  of  whale  stocks  is  in 
line  with  the  objectives  of  Community  policies.  However,  whereas  protection  is 
comprehensive within the Community system, this is not the case at the international 
level. 

The  lack  of  effective  application  of  the  ban  due  to  reservations  and  objections  and 
the lack of appropriate regulation of scientific whaling, which is carried out outside 
any  adequate  international  management  regulatory  framework,  undermine  the 
purpose of the moratorium on commercial whaling26.  

Any long-term solution for a better regulation of whaling should in principle address 
comprehensively all whaling activities currently carried out under the different legal 
headings of the Convention, be they commercial whaling, scientific whaling, whaling 
conducted  under  an  objection  (Norway)  or  a  reservation  (Iceland),  as  well  as 
aboriginal  subsistence  whaling.  Issues  such  as  a  stringent  compliance  regime, 
monitoring and reporting, etc. would also need to be addressed. 

COM (2007) 575 
Joined cases 3,4 and 6/76 Kramer, paragraphs 42 and 45, Opinion of 19 March 1993 of the Court of 
Justice, 2/91, paragraph 37, case C-266/03, Commission v Luxembourg, paragraphs 57 and 58, and case 
C-433/03, Commission v Germany, paragraphs 63 and 64. 
As  highlighted  by  several  Parties,  the  link  proposed  by  Japan  at  the  2007  IWC  meeting  by  which  it  would 
proportionally reduce its current taking of whales for 'scientific purposes' if its proposed amendment on small-type 
coastal  whaling  would  be  adopted,  confirms  the  relation  between  all  whaling  activities.  As  far  as  real  scientific 
research is concerned, other countries insist on applying non-lethal methods. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
30. 

31. 

Thus, the overarching long-term objective of the Community should be to ensure an 
effective  international  regulatory  framework  for  the  comprehensive  protection  of 
whales. In this respect, the Community should support strengthening cooperation in 
and enhancing the effectiveness of the IWC. It should assess, relying, inter alia, on 
the invaluable expertise in the Member States, the work carried out so far on the draft 
RMP  and  RMS,  as  well  as  past  proposals  to  bridge  the  gaps  among  Parties  to  the 
Convention with a view to play a positive role to unblock the deadlock in the IWC.  

Only  acting  together  and  developing  a  Community  position  the  EU  Member  States 
would stand a chance to ensure the development and enforcement of an adequate and 
strict  international  regulatory  framework  for  the  protection  of  whales.  To  this  end, 
the Commission is proposing an appropriate decision to the Council. 

EN 

9 

   EN