Japan’s whaling plan under scrutiny

Eighteen years after initiating scientific whaling in Antarctic waters, Japan presented a new and more ambitious program to the International Whaling Commission (IWC); the proposal was made in early June during the IWC’s annual meeting in Ulsan, Korea. Japan now wishes to more than double its annual catch of Antarctic minke whales (from about 440 to 935), and to expand lethal sampling to include an additional yearly take of 50 humpback and 50 fin whales. Unlike catches for commercial whaling, scientific catches are unregulated. Since 1987, Japan has taken some 6,800 minke whales from Antarctic waters, despite ongoing criticism of the relevance and direction of Japan’s research. The IWC was set up to regulate commercial whaling and to conserve whale populations, under the authority of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Following a well-documented failure of management that led to the collapse of most global whale populations, the IWC set a zero quota for commercial whaling (the moratorium). This was made effective from 1986. Norway, the former Soviet Union and Japan initially objected to the moratorium, but Japan withdrew its objection and ceased commercial whaling in 1988.

Whaling error

You published recently (Nature 374, 587; 1995) a report headed "Error re-opens 'scientific' whaling debate". The error in question, however, relates to commercial whaling, not to scientific whaling. Although Norway cites science as a basis for the way in which it sets its own quota. scientific whaling means something quite different. namely killing whales for research purposes. Any member of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has the right to conduct a research catch under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. 1946. The IWC has reviewed new research or scientific whaling programs for Japan and Norway since the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling began in 1986. In every case, the IWC advised Japan and Norway to reconsider the lethal aspects of their research programs. Last year, however, Norway started a commercial hunt in combination with its scientific catch, despite the IWC moratorium.

The whaling issue: Conservation, confusion, and casuistry

Morishita’s “multiple analysis”of the whaling issue [Morishita J. Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix. Marine Policy 2006;30:802–8] is essentially a restatement of the Government of Japan’s whaling policy, which confuses the issue through selective use of data, unsubstantiated facts, and the vilification of opposing perspectives. Here, we deconstruct the major problems with Morishita’s article and provide an alternative view of the whaling dispute. For many people in this debate, the issue is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations. This suspicion has its origin in Japan’s poor use of science, its often implausible stock assessments, its insistence that culling is an appropriate way to manage marine mammal populations, and its relatively recent falsification of whaling and fisheries catch data combined with a refusal to accept true transparency in catch and market monitoring. Japanese policy on whaling cannot be viewed in isolation, but is part of a larger framework involving a perceived right to secure unlimited access to global marine resources. Whaling is inextricably tied to the international fisheries agreements on which Japan is strongly dependent; thus, concessions made at the IWC would have potentially serious ramifications in other fora.