The welfare of animals is a major factor affecting the acceptability of human activities, and hence their sustainability, and whales are the subject of much concern because they are considered to be sentient animals. The scientific study of animal welfare has developed rapidly and now allows evaluation of the effects on whale welfare of disturbance by boats, harpoon entry, pulling whales to a boat, capture procedures, the point of unconsciousness and consequences for animals that escape. Useful data are now being collected on some aspects but recent evidence shows that, on average, during the capture and killing of whales, there is a high magnitude of poor welfare and the procedure is not humane.

At present, there is no binding requirement within the International Whaling Commission (IWC) for presentation of animal welfare data and, in recent years, the whaling nations have stopped supplying data regarding the welfare implications of whaling for commercial purposes. In the past, although analyses of data were provided, the raw data were not publicly accessible. In 2006, an analysis was conducted of video footage of Japan's ‘scientific whaling’ in the Southern Ocean during the 2005/06 season. The results of the analysis suggested some severe animal welfare issues associated with the hunt based on a limited sample size. The case is made for the provision of such data to the IWC to be made compulsory. This would be achieved through an amendment to the IWC Schedule requiring specified animal welfare data. Such a schedule amendment should be drafted to include all forms of commercial whaling (including ‘scientific whaling’ and whaling under objection) and should build upon earlier proposals that were presented to the IWC between 2000 and 2003.

Animal ethics is concerned with an examination of the beliefs that are held about the moral status of non-human animals. It is concerned, therefore, not with describing how animals are treated but with how they ought to be treated. This paper focuses upon two particular ethical approaches chosen because they enable us to understand more clearly the debate about the moral status of animals in general, and whales in particular, as well as offering a way of maximising consensus in the debate. The first, which describes the dominant discourse within the International Whaling Commission (IWC), is based on the argument that our duties to non-human animals are indirect, such that their protection is dependent upon the degree to which it is in our interests to do so. This is the logic behind the discourse of anthropocentric conservation. The second approach is the ethic of animal welfare. Unlike anthropocentric conservationism, the animal welfare ethic is not based upon denying, or ignoring, the moral standing of non-human animals, and is consistent with the widespread acceptance, in theory and practice, that we do have direct duties to animals, that they do have moral standing.

Although the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states it is:

its Article VIII allows any Contracting Government to:

The number of laws and standards regulating and protecting the welfare of animals is expanding around the world. The growing demand from policy-makers for expertise and advice on animal welfare in order to create these new regulations has been inspired by developments in both science and ethics, which are increasing our understanding of animals’ abilities and capacities.

Intergovernmental organisations, formal arrangements between governments of states, nations or countries, have a key role in global affairs, including animal disease control and animal welfare standard setting. They have advantages over countries that act by themselves, for instance their standards can be recognised under international treaties and apply across or outside of normal country boundaries and they can consider impacts at a broader or global scale rather than having to focus only on those occurring in one country.

The gulf between ethical propositions of animal welfare and the scientific basis of wildlife conservation has, at times, impeded a practical working relationship between the two (Harrop 2003). Indeed, quite often the two disciplines are capable of looking in different directions. The conservationist fixes on the species and its population status whilst the welfarist focuses on any animal, regardless of its conservation status, that is phylogenetically sophisticated enough to be capable of suffering. In consequence, welfare components are rare in international wildlife management law and are restricted to being subordinate to conservation objects (Harrop 1997, 2010). Nevertheless, the two disciplines are moving closer in many ways with the development of scientific indicators of welfare and also the need to refine the principal drivers of conservation strategies which must ultimately derive from an ethical objective. In this connection, the recent review of the CBD's strategy at Nagoya founded its new targets on a vision of ‘Living in Harmony With Nature’ (Harrop 2011c). Such an achievement would probably be a first for humanity and an utterly impractical aspiration. However, I would like to construe this vision, with the freedom of poetic licence, as conceiving both a materially and ethically harmonious future for humans and animals.