At the height of the whaling industry, thousands of whales were killed each year — mainly for their oil, a fuel used widely throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By the 1930s,

more people were becoming aware that whaling was unsustainable. In 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was signed, and the International Whaling

Commission (IWC) was established as the decision-making body to deal with the problem. It was the world’s first global convention designed to address a significant threat to wildlife. The

IWC will hold its 69th meeting in Lima in September. As the convention nears its 80th anniversary, we propose that the IWC hands over several pending issues to other conventions and national

a powerful example for the international environmental community. A BRIGHT BEGINNING The ICRW was originally established to deal with the “conservation of whale stocks and … the orderly

development of the whaling industry”. Conservation in this context meant ensuring that enough whales were protected so that some could be harvested sustainably. But as it became clear that

most species were in severe population decline1, the IWC decided in 1982 that commercial whaling for all species everywhere should cease from the 1985–86 season onwards2. The agreement was

groundbreaking in its ambition. It led to the near-total cessation of whaling activities, with a few notable exceptions (see ‘Where whaling still goes on’), and has contributed to the

resurgence of many whale species, including the largest animal on Earth, the blue whale, _Balaenoptera_ _musculus_ (see ‘Making a comeback’). WHERE WHALING STILL GOES ON A moratorium

implemented by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has stopped almost all commercial whaling since 1985. Some Indigenous populations, mainly in the Arctic, are permitted to harvest

whales2. And Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling — arguably a legal loophole that enables commercial whaling to persist — allows governments to “grant

to any of its nationals a special permit … to kill, take and treat whales for … scientific research”10,11. Japan’s use of provisions of this article1 (since 1991) prompted Australia to take

Japan to the International Court of Justice in 2013. But today, only three nations still have commercial whaling operations: Norway, Japan and Iceland. In the 1980s, Japan agreed to the

moratorium with the provision that it would be “kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice”, and that “by 1990 at the latest the Commission [would] undertake a comprehensive

assessment of [its] effects”2. In 2018, however, the nation announced that it would leave the IWC and become an observer state, meaning that its IWC representative would attend meetings but

not vote. And in 2019, Japan re-commenced whaling operations in its exclusive economic zone. Norway and Iceland, through legal reservation, do not abide by the moratorium. This is a huge

achievement. But in the years since, the convention has done little to help conserve the great whales (including the gray, humpback, right, sperm, bowhead and minke whale), or encourage the

sustainable harvesting of their populations. The number of ICRW member nations (many of which have never whaled) has ranged from around 30 in 1990 to nearly 90 today. After the moratorium on

whaling was established, many IWC government members were not prepared to revisit it; work on a ‘comprehensive assessment’ to evaluate the impacts of the moratorium has proceeded at a

snail’s pace; and two attempts to reform the convention and achieve further useful outcomes from it failed2. Meanwhile, despite decades of discussion, the IWC has had virtually no impact on

the whaling that has persisted since 1985. Indeed, none of the nations with limited whaling programmes — Norway, Iceland and Japan — engage in any meaningful way with the convention. Despite

the IWC having so little to show from the past four decades of operations, participants and observers continue to meet — once every two years since 2012, rather than annually. And the IWC

continues to absorb the time, energy and resources of its members and engaged civil-society organizations. A dispute that began at the IWC but ended up in the International Court of Justice

in 2013, for example, involving the Australian and Japanese governments, cost more than Aus$20 million (US$13 million) but had no discernible impact on whale conservation. EXIT WITH DIGNITY

Today, the IWC should celebrate its accomplishments, devolve its final responsibilities and send a powerful message about the importance of knowing when to stop. Indigenous Arctic

communities have continued to hunt whales for sustenance3, with quotas being set by the IWC since 1983 having no discernible effects on whale populations. Even so, in the coming decades,

subsistence whaling must be managed effectively, with quotas for each Indigenous group being allocated on the basis of scientific evidence. If the IWC no longer existed, each country could

manage their own subsistence whaling. Indeed, Target 5 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which 196 countries have agreed to meet by 2030, is to “ensure that the use,

harvesting and trade of wild species is sustainable, safe and legal … while respecting and protecting customary sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local communities”. Similarly, the

whaling currently undertaken by Japan, Norway and Iceland — in each nation’s exclusive economic zone, and of species whose populations are currently stable — does not need oversight from

almost 90 nations. Some people might argue that letting countries regulate and manage their own whaling in their own waters could result in a resurgence of large-scale commercial whaling. We

think that this is extremely unlikely, not least because of the lack of demand for whale products (oil and meat) and changing attitudes around wildlife. What’s more, several other

conventions can provide protection against such a scenario. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), for example, regulates international

trade of endangered wildlife4. All whale species regulated by the IWC are included in CITES Appendix I, a list of the most endangered species. Therefore, international trade of these species

is prohibited. All other whale species are included in CITES Appendix II, which means international trade of all cetacean products is regulated. Similarly, the Convention on the

Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), which already conserves small cetaceans in some regions, such as dolphins and porpoises, could also conserve whales. In fact, the

scientific body of the CMS (the Scientific Council) could function, in part, as a global whale observatory, and alert the world to negative trends in any species. Today, the biggest threats

to whales are ship strikes, pollution and climate change. ENJOYING OUR LATEST CONTENT? LOGIN OR CREATE AN ACCOUNT TO CONTINUE * Access the most recent journalism from Nature's

award-winning team * Explore the latest features & opinion covering groundbreaking research Access through your institution or Sign in or create an account Continue with Google Continue

with ORCiD