KEY POINTS:
Despite the recent International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting, not much has changed and whales still need saving.
Japan sought dispensation for some of its coastal communities to hunt whales on cultural grounds. The commission rightly voted, however, that whaling for profit is not subsistence whaling.
Unlike Inuit tribes who depend on whales for survival, Japan doesn't. Nor does it have a long history of eating whalemeat, with most consumption beginning during post-World War II food shortages.
Japan has threatened to quit the IWC if it doesn't get its way, but staying is likely in its best interests. The commission's origins as a whaling organisation provide lax rules for conservation, and no enforcement capability.
Japan can exploit a loophole to hunt endangered species under the guise of scientific research, with meat still sold in Japanese restaurants and fish markets. "Scientific whaling" is not science. It uses flawed methodology and is biased towards catching more whales.
The hunt's expanding scale reveals it as a cynical attempt to return to commercial whaling by deception. With a single dead Minke whale worth over US$100,000 ($137,000), the motivation is obvious.
Lethal research is not required to study whales. DNA analysis and photo-identification can tell far more about populations than a dead whale. Despite 20 years and over 10,000 dead whales, Japanese researchers have discovered little, with few published findings in reputable science journals.
Japan maintains the controversy is about cultural imperialism and the West imposing its food culture on them. However, this ignores the fact that cows and sheep are in no danger of extinction, and that humane standards are required in any Western abattoir - standards non-existent when harpooned whales routinely suffer for up to an hour before dying.
Japan claims sustainable whaling is possible, yet the theory is extremely difficult to get right. It requires accurate knowledge of whale stocks, and biological knowledge of lifespan, growth and reproduction. Much of this remains unknown, since whales are difficult to study in their environment, making it extremely reckless to continue killing them without knowing the long-term effects.
An increase of humpbacks around New Zealand and Australia is no justification to restart the slaughter. Virtually all large whale species are still considered depleted to some extent and the lack of recovery evident after 40 years of protection implies some species, like blue whales, may never recover.
Whaling cannot be managed like a regular fishery. Even relatively common Minke whales could be within five years of decline if threats increase - and whaling is just one of many. As long-lived mammals, whales reproduce too slowly to withstand any significant hunting pressure. The results of past whaling offer clear evidence it wasn't sustainable, with species after species driven to commercial extinction.
The Antarctic whales are Southern Hemisphere populations with no connection to Japan. Claiming a right to hunt these whales ignores the rights of local countries to conduct whale-watching, where a live whale continually generates income throughout its life.
Marine mammal tourism is worth more than $120 million annually to our economy, and is the mainstay of small tourist towns like Kaikoura. It is also a significant earner for Australia and many developing nations in the Pacific.
With promises of foreign aid, Japan has bought voting support from many Third World nations in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Many have no history of whaling, and some, such as Laos and Mongolia, don't even have a coastline.
Overturning the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling would require a 75% majority - however, with a simple majority last year Japan managed to win a symbolic vote labelling the moratorium unnecessary.
This year 40 countries passed a resolution condemning Japan's scientific whaling, providing the strongest criticism yet and a clear indication of world opinion on whaling.
Japan is likely to ignore it, just as it has ignored numerous IWC resolutions, diplomatic protests, and criticism from international scientists over two decades.
What can be done? A legal challenge is risky. Defeat is likely since the Southern Ocean is considered International Waters, offering Japan a virtually iron-clad mandate to continue.
Similarly fraught is Australia's plan to send warships to monitor whalers. Japan refuses to acknowledge New Zealand and Australia's Antarctic territories, leaving Navy vessels open to allegations of piracy or worse if attempting to inspect a whaling ship.
Our Government's willingness to negotiate for the lives of the 50 humpbacks Japan plans to kill this summer could also backfire. Focusing on one particular species plays right into whalers' arguments we treat them as special animals.
Furthermore, it leaves no room to move when negotiating for other species such as the 50 endangered fin whales or nearly 1000 Minkes also targeted. In making a deal to safeguard only humpbacks our Government would fail to achieve anything concrete.
The same number of whales will likely still be killed this summer as in the past, except we would owe Japan for their apparent goodwill gesture in making a special concession for us. Those familiar with Japan's history at the IWC cannot help wondering if that was their aim all along when announcing plans to kill humpbacks.
The message is simple. The Government must stand firm in its resolution to end all whaling. If the door is re-opened there will be no closing it again.
* C. George Muller is a New Zealand marine biologist and author of Echoes in the Blue a factual eco-thriller about whaling.
