Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWick, A.
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-22T16:09:45Z
dc.date.available2023-12-22T16:09:45Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citation

Wick, A. (2023) 'Evaluating to what extent the ‘scientific exemption clause’ acts as a loophole and influences international whaling', The Plymouth Student Scientist, 16(2), pp. 110-131.

en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/21844
dc.description.abstract

The purpose of the study was to identify if the scientific exemption clause of the international whaling ban is a loophole for commercial hunting to continue under disguise and to evaluate the level of public perception towards whaling exemptions and longevity of policy. The study used secondary data from the International Whaling Commission to calculate total catch data for commercial and scientific brackets. It also used primary data in the form of questionnaires to identify public knowledge and belief. From the results, it was identified that Japan had the most consistent scientific programme and Norway the most consistent commercial programme. With this, Japan recorded a peak of 1,188 individual whales compared to Norway’s peak of 376 for commercial practises. Iceland was difficult to evaluate due to a loss of data between 1990 and 2002, meaning catches could not be representatively calculated or compared. Japan’s scientific catches for minke whales consistently exceeded catch quotas, whilst Norway failed to reach its commercial quotas. 62% of the 58 respondents had not heard of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), with 60% also unaware of the international whaling ban. This lack of knowledge led 59% to believe that the IWC was, in some way, ineffective in informing the public. Split opinion existed towards exemptions, with 40% believing they should and 40% believing they should not exist. However, 42% believe that they would have longevity in conservation. The main conclusion was that the scientific exemption is, to some extent, a loophole for commercial practises to continue. This means countries can exploit international legislation and hunt vulnerable species, all within legal right. The comparison to peak catches supports this statement, with a difference of 452 in favour of science. Norway used the exemption as an additional practise, with primary focus on commercial whaling. The public are split on exemptions, but narrow margins suggest a belief that they will work in the long term. This may, in turn, alter viewpoints towards whaling practises as education and awareness from the IWC increases.

en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Plymouthen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectInternational Whaling Commissionen_US
dc.subjectWhalingen_US
dc.subjectmoratoriumen_US
dc.subjectscientific whalingen_US
dc.subjectJapanen_US
dc.subjectNorwayen_US
dc.subjectIcelanden_US
dc.subjectquestionnaireen_US
dc.titleEvaluating to what extent the ‘scientific exemption clause’ acts as a loophole and influences international whalingen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
plymouth.issue2
plymouth.volume16
plymouth.journalThe Plymouth Student Scientist


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 3.0 United States

All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV