KEY POINTS:
In 1982, without any scientific justification and recommendation by its scientific committee, the International Whaling Commission passed the global moratorium on commercial whaling.
Since then, the normal rules of debate and treaty interpretation that are the basis for good international governance have too often been ignored by some IWC members. Differing opinions have become entrenched as polarised institutional discourse and rhetoric. With a lack of good faith negotiations, this raises serious questions about the IWC's continued institutional legitimacy and whether it indeed has a future.
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), agreed to in 1946, is about the proper management of the whaling industry by regulating catch quotas at levels so that whale stocks will not be diminished. The Whaling Convention is not - nor has it ever been - about protecting all whales irrespective of how abundant they are.
The fact that New Zealand and Australia were whaling countries when they agreed to and signed the Whaling Convention but subsequently changed positions to anti-whaling in the 1970s does not change the Convention.
New Zealand has sacrificed the principles of science-based management and sustainable use that are the world standard as a political expediency to satisfy the interests of non-government organisations. New Zealand's intransigence and continued lobbying of other IWC members to resolutely oppose any return to sustainable commercial whaling (and to oppose research whaling) has contributed to bringing the IWC to the brink of collapse.
New Zealand's hypocritical behaviour has been one of the causes for Japan's desire to form an alternative whaling organisation through which appropriate management of whale resources could be pursued.
Suggestions that somehow Japan's whale research violates international law is totally without foundation. Article VIII of the Whaling Convention unequivocally provides the right to kill whales for research purposes and that "the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention."
Japan's research is of vital importance since regulations adopted by the IWC must, according to the Whaling Convention, "be based on scientific findings". New Zealand has no intention to resume commercial whaling so it has no need for the kind of scientific data needed for a sustainable management regime.
However, since this is the purpose of Japan's research there are some kinds of indispensable data that simply cannot be obtained by non-lethal means. As a result of Japan's research programme, we now know more about the status of whale stocks and whale biology than at any time in history and this knowledge increases each year. One of the conclusions of the IWC Scientific Committee workshop in December 2006 to review the data and results of Japan's research in the Antarctic was "the dataset provides a valuable resource to allow investigation of some aspects of the role of whales within the marine ecosystem.
With appropriate analyses, this has the potential to make an important contribution to the Scientific Committee's work in this regard, as well as the work of other relevant bodies such as CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources)".
Scientists from Australia, New Zealand and the US participated in this workshop. There are many countries in the world that continue to hunt or utilise marine mammals (whales, dolphins, seals and dugong) for food.
Whaling will continue around the world and Australia and New Zealand are now faced with a choice - participate in a calm and rational manner in discussions to manage whale resources within the IWC or be left out of a new organisation that will manage whaling in a sustainable, science-based manner.
Australia and New Zealand have an opportunity to contribute constructively to "the future of the IWC" at a meeting in March.
As Japan's Commissioner to the IWC, I am concerned that Australia's and New Zealand's continuous loud reiteration of their opposition to any form of commercial whaling and Australia's "stepped-up" measures to end Japan's research whaling, including threats of legal action, do not bode well for the initiative from IWC Chair Dr William Hogarth of the US. In his letter of October 26, 2007 to Commissioners and Contracting Governments, Dr Hogarth noted that the commission recognised that "doing nothing may lead to the demise of the organisation which would serve neither the interests of whale conservation or management". Is that what New Zealand wants?
It is time for some common sense to be brought into the debate. Many whale stocks in the world are abundant and commercial whaling can be managed on a sustainable basis.
To suggest that forests, fisheries and other natural living resources are able to be commercially managed but not whales makes no sense at all.
To suggest that there must be one (whale watching) to the exclusion of the other (whaling) is also a fallacy.
There are enough whales for both those that want to watch them and those who see whales as contributing to continued dietary traditions for their children and grandchildren.
I fully respect the right of New Zealanders and Australians to oppose whaling for some "cuddly" reasons, but this does not give them the right to coerce others to end a perfectly legal and culturally significant activity that poses no threat to the species concerned.
* Minoru Morimoto is also Director-General of the Institute of Cetacean Research, Tokyo which carries out Japan's research whaling in the Antarctic and western North Pacific.
