The annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting, which starts in Monaco on Monday, looks set to be one of the most heated in years. Pro-whaling nations are increasingly vocal after years of retreat. Environmentalists say the meeting could be the most crucial since the establishment of a Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 1994.
Nations strongly opposed to whaling, such as Australia and Ireland, will be pressing at the IWC for the present moratorium on commercial whaling to be replaced by a permanent ban.
Australia's sanctuary ends at territorial waters, while Ireland's stops at the economic exclusion zone some 200 miles offshore. Australia's back-up plan is to change the indefinite moratorium to a 50-year ban.
Irish moves to allow a limited resumption of whale-hunting have been criticised by environmental organisations.
Ireland became a member of the IWC in 1985 with a clear objective of promoting the conservation of whales, following a long period of over-exploitation.
Mr Canny said yesterday: "We have reached a stage where it is clear that some whale populations are recovering and a lot of progress has been made on developing the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) to control future whaling. Nevertheless, the IWC is at an impasse. Despite the moratorium, the IWC does not control all whaling in the world."
Legal whaling has increased from 383 whales in 1992 to 1,043 in 1997.
While the Irish people do not engage in whaling and have declared Irish waters a sanctuary for whales, "we recognise that it is part of other cultures to take and use whales," Mr Canny continued. "In that context, Ireland's role in the IWC is to ensure that any whaling which takes place does so in a manner which ensures that no population of whales will be endangered."
"We believe the practice of killing whales is unjustifiable," said the Australian Environment Minister, Mr Robert Hill. "It is time the international community stopped talking about a moratorium on commercial whaling and instead adopted a permanent international ban on commercial whaling." But Japan and Norway are likely to call for an end to the 11-year moratorium.
Many believe that with whale populations possibly on the rise again, the pro-whaling nations will arrive at the IWC with their strongest hand in years.
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has warned of a resurgence in support for the whaling nations.
"The high point [for the anti-whaling nations] was the creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary three years ago. That was the strongest support for no whaling," said the WWF Australia chief executive, Mr David Butcher.
The IWC chairman, Mr Peter Bridgewater, said Japan and Norway were expected to argue that whale stocks, such as minke, have been replenished to a level which would support commercial whaling.
In Harare in June, both countries used this argument to try and have the 138-member Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) lift its ban on the whale meat trade.
While the move won 50 per cent of the CITES votes, it fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority.
"The numbers were much stronger than they have ever been," Mr Bridgewater said in Canberra. "The interpretation that is being put on this by a number of countries is that the way is open for trading, and people are interested."
Opposition to whaling at the IWC meeting will be led by Australia, the United States, Britain and New Zealand.
A whaling report to the Australian government published in September rejected the argument that scientific evidence of a replenishment in whale stocks justified the lifting of the moratorium, arguing the evidence was "not entirely reliable".
It said there were inaccuracies in the estimates of whale stocks and whale catches and warned of the "lessons of history", which have seen the understating of whale catches by the former Soviet Union, and more recently Norway and Japan.
According to figures released last year, Soviet fleets killed 88,888 more whales between 1947 and 1972 than originally reported.
The fleets killed 48,000 humpback whales, one of the most endangered species, yet reported a catch of fewer than 3,000. They also reported killing 10 pygmy blue whales, but in fact killed 8,000.
In the case of Norway, the report cited a 1993 example of 3.5 tons of whale meat destined for Asia being "disguised and labelled as Norwegian prawns" and a 1996 consignment of six tons of minke whale meat exported illegally to Japan.
In Japan DNA testing of whale meat on sale in local fish markets has shown some of the meat is not from Japan's "scientific" catch, but from protected species.
The report said between 15,000 and 18,000 whales had been killed legally since the 1986 moratorium, but that the illegal catch "can never be known".
A report by Traffic, which monitors trade in endangered species, found some whale meat on sale in 13 Asian cities came from protected species, with a top price of $500 per kilogram.
But while Japan and Norway have doubled whale catches in the past four years to around 500 minke whales each, consumption of whale meat is now negligible, said the Australian report.
A Japanese submission to the Australian report showed a dramatic decline in whale meat consumption in recent times, falling from 180,215 tonnes in 1966 to 14,885 tonnes in 1985.
Environmentalists say the decline in whale meat consumption has continued.
"The task force has concluded that, apart from Aboriginal subsistence whaling, there is no need for whales to be killed to provide food for human consumption," said the Traffic report.
Two whale sanctuaries already exist in the Southern and Indian oceans, but Japan kills minke whales in the Southern Ocean as part of its annual "scientific" catch.
"I think the idea of a global sanctuary does have a degree of interest and sympathy, but again where do you put the boundary?" said Mr Bridgewater.
WWF supports the Australian global whale sanctuary but warns that both options raise the problem of nations trading their whaling rights to countries like Japan and Norway.