.
No proof that Japan taking too many minke whales
By YOICHIRO SATO
Japan's research whaling has been criticised by Prime Minister Helen Clark and many Western and non-Western countries. In the heat of emotional debates, many important facts are lost, often deliberately. This leads only to misinformed policy.
The local media report on Japan's "illegal whaling," but the law Japan is violating is not clearly explained. Japan's research whaling of minke whales has continued, although the International Whaling Commission placed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986.
The research whaling is allowed to IWC signatories under section 3 of its convention, and Japan's research plan is submitted to the commission's science committee. The annual quota of 440 is lower than what Japan considers is necessary to ensure the statistical validity of its research, and far below the sustainable harvest level based on the consensus view of the science committee.
There is no proven indication that Japanese vessels catch more than this quota. Japan's law prohibits the import of whalemeat from non-IWC countries, and the only technically legal import - from Norway - has not been used since 1992.
The presence of extra-quota minke whalemeat in the Japanese market might suggest illegal trade through a third country, but there is no such indication. The idea portrayed by the media that Japan's research whaling is illegal because the meat is sold is simply false.
Competition in recruiting new members into the IWC has taken place between whaling countries, including Japan, and non-whaling countries. The whaling countries have blocked a total end to whaling, helped both by non- whaling countries, which nevertheless support scientific management of the whale resources, and the voting rules of the commission, which require a three-quarters majority for making decisions.
The IWC originally started as a resource management body made up of whaling countries, but it now includes more non-whaling countries than whaling nations. As a result, two conflicting cultures of utilitarian resource management and animal rights protection coexist within the organisation.
In international waters, including the Antarctic Sea, Japan catches only minke whales because minke are considered less (or even not at all) endangered than other large species of whales.
The general meeting of the IWC has approved creation of a sanctuary in the Antarctic Sea, and this is the basis of the anti-whaling camp's argument.
This sanctuary clause was appended to the original body of the treaty, but Japan disputes its validity by pointing out the contradiction between the sanctuary concept and the principle of scientific management in the main text.
The IWC regulations do not apply to smaller species, such as dolphins and killer whales. Within Japan's exclusive economic zones, 200 nautical miles of water around its coasts, traditional whaling of smaller species continues legally.
Some of the large non-minke whale- meat sold in the Japanese market invited suspicion, however. Auckland University research has found meat of banned species in the Tokyo's market and genetically traced them to waters outside Japan's exclusive fishing zones.
The report of dolphin and killer-whale- meats sold in Japan also caused outrage, but Japan's domestic law allows harvesting of these species under a licensed quota system. Selling these meats as whale might constitute false advertising, but the coastal whaling itself is legal.
Two most important problems associated with species management in international waters are enforcement difficulty and voluntary participation.
National governments are usually reluctant to commit their resources to patrolling international waters. Participation in regimes such as IWC is voluntary and uncompromising pressure on whaling countries could make them withdraw.
Norway, a long-time whaling country, has remained in the IWC. But it continues commercial whaling of large species within its own exclusive economic zones after objecting to the IWC moratorium.
Japan's business and cultural interests in whalemeat are not likely to change overnight, but public attitudes are slowly changing, as indicated by the rising tourism interest in whale-watching.
Imposition of an absolutist dogma through false and partial representation of facts will not only stiffen Japan's official attitude, but also turn the Japanese public back into the nationalist camp.
For now, enhancing enforcement of the existing regulations to control the black market is a better alternative than closing legal whaling and increasing the profit of black marketeers.
* Dr Yoichiro Sato is a lecturer in the department of political studies at the University of Auckland.
<i>Dialogue: </i> Yoichiro Sato
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.