Q and A: Why IFAW is in favour of the whaling ban

Although some countries are in favour of whaling, some wildlife groups say it is cruel.

Here Clare Sterling from International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) spoke to Newsround to explain why Ifaw disagrees with whale hunting.

What would happen if the ban was lifted?

Ifaw oppose whaling because there is simply no humane way to kill a whale.

We recently saw footage of one whale killed by Japanese whalers which took 35 minutes to die.

If full-scale commercial whaling is allowed to resume we fear many more species could be killed in this way and some species could be driven to the point of extinction.

What is Ifaw's feeling towards scientific whaling?

At Ifaw we believe so-called scientific whaling is really a sham science and it's really commercial whaling in disguise.

We don't think any true scientific results are found from killing whales and really it's just a way of putting whale meat on sale in restaurants and supermarkets.

If the ban was lifted what would it mean for whales?

Unfortunately it would mean thousands more whales would be killed every year and many species would possibly be hunted to the brink of extinction.

What are you doing to make sure the ban stays in place?

At Ifaw we work very hard all year round talking to governments and trying to encourage countries - particularly the poor nations - that might be joining the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and voting with Japan to think carefully and try to protect their whales.

How endangered are whales?

Unfortunately many species are still trying to recover from the commercial whaling of the past which has severely reduced their numbers.

We've seen some species driven to the point of extinction because at the time it was considered they were abundant and any number could be killed.

We're worried that could happen again.

Do you think controlled whale hunting should be allowed?

No, we don't believe that any commercial whaling should be allowed because of the effects it would have on populations.

There's simply no need for it.