The Japanese Whaling Controversy – a Collision of Science, Commerce, and Culture

When it comes to topics such as resource management and wildlife conservation, science and culture are often unavoidably intertwined. And whilst scientific recommendations should not be influenced by emotions, once it comes to translating that science into policies, culture, traditions and strong public opinion can sometimes significantly shape the decision-making process.

Given the widespread criticism of the science^3,5 (or lack thereof, depending on your views) of Japan's whaling practices, it is difficult to decipher why Japan continue to support commercial whaling in the face of such fierce international opposition. Regardless of whether Japan's whaling practices are for science, commerce or both, one thing is for certain - they aren't showing any signs of stopping. So could it be that culture and emotions are also a key driving factor for their continued harvest?

I will discuss some views on this, but first, a very brief background on the IWC, the scientific whaling clause dispute (including a diagram which demonstrates just what a convoluted and controversial topic this is!):

The International Whaling Commission was established in 1946 under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry".

Amid concerns over the notable depletion of whale stocks (due to a history of over-harvesting in the whaling industry), as well as the scientific uncertainty surrounding estimates of stock abundance, a "precautionary principle" was adopted and the moratorium on commercial whaling was introduced in 1986.

Since the ban, the issue with whaling has grown from concerns over scientific certainty of population estimates and sustainable practice, to an international issue of scientific, political and ethical complexity. Nowadays the dispute is less about the sustainable management of whale stocks and more about whether whales should be exploited as a resource at all.

SCIENCE VS. COMMERCE

Japan has always been open about its intention to continue commercial whaling if/when deemed feasible (i.e sustainable). Launched in 1987, (following the moratorium) the stated purpose of the Japanese research program was to "resolve the scientific uncertainties and pave the way for the resumption of sustainable whaling".

The killing of whales for research is allowed under the 1946 ICRW which states that: "any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention." (Source)

However, the suspicion, as exemplified by the current court case, is that this is merely a front for continued commercial whaling, as whale meat obtained as a by-product of "scientific" whaling is sold on the Japanese market. There are also concerns that data is being gathered purely to justify the lifting of the moratorium by proving an abundance of stocks exists to support a return to commercial whaling.

This is where it gets tricky - the further reading list below is merely a snapshot of the vast range of journal articles, letters and news items which openly (and rather heatedly) debate the science of Japan's research program. As it's not the primary focus of this post to unpick the myriad voices for and (moreso) against Japanese whaling, I've attempted to give an impression of the scale and range of opinions in this mindmap below.

Unsurprisingly, a main cause of controversy is the use of lethal methods^3,5 - for example the use of explosive grenades to gather data (p.21). Japan's research proposal states that the study of parameters related to age and stomach content surveys can only be obtained using lethal methods (p.20). However, there are now a range of non-lethal alternatives for data collection. See the latest Saltwater Science blog for more informatio.

The majority of negative discourse regarding Japan's research program revolves around the criticism that it does not answer any meaningful questions in relation to the IWC's objectives, and that there is a "lack of testable hypotheses or performance measures".

This has lead to decades of dispute between opposing SC members as to the validity of Japan's research practices, the most recent being from the 2013 Scientific Committee report whereby those sceptical of the research objectives sought to "reiterate the view that the special permit programs conducted by the Government of Japan...have not provided results relevant to the IWC and are unnecessary for the conservation and management of whales." (Annex P3). But perhaps the more telling point was that made by other members in defence, highlighting the fact that "the political controversy surrounding the Special Permit programs has been making the scientific discussions at the IWC Scientific Committee unnecessarily difficult and confrontational" (Annex P4).

Culture and Emotions

Scientific disputes aside, it is clear that both culture and emotions play a key role in this debate (regardless of whether they should). There are also many political reasons regarding international relations, reputation and trading which influence Japan's decision to continue whaling under the ICRW clause rather than leaving the IWC altogether or whaling under objection as Norway does.

When defending their rights to whaling, Japan often cites their traditional whaling culture as a key policy driver. Masayuki Komatsu (Executive director of the government funded Marine Fisheries Research and Development Department) states that whaling has been conducted in Japan for "more than 400 years", although, arguably, it only became commonplace across Japan after World War II when whale meat was used to feed the impoverished population⁷. Before this, however, whaling has been a tradition for a number of small coastal communities and Japan therefore views its continued whaling as its "natural right" as a sovereign state (p.807). Japan have also requested on several occasions to be granted Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling - but the "commercial element" of their coastal whaling is seen to over-ride cultural arguments for these permits.

Food for thought

Beyond the sphere of the IWC there are forces at play between "pro" and "anti" whaling countries - nations that consider whales as consumptive resources, and those that do not - creating a "cultural gulf" between whaling and non-whaling countries.

This reveals yet another facet of the whaling controversy - the perceived "cultural imperialism" of the West, and the refusal of Japan to bow to western pressures as to what they should and should not eat⁸. Clearly this is an ethical issue of when (if ever) it is acceptable to impose restrictions on the diet and cultural practices of another nation. If sustainable harvest is achievable then Japan sees no reason to prohibit the use of whales as a food resource. But should guidelines for sustainable practices be agreed upon, one has to wonder - will "anti-whaling" countries ever really be comfortable with the concept of commercial whaling again?

Anti-anti-whaling?

As a counter-argument to the purported cultural value of Japan's whaling practices, many cite whaling as a "minor industry" and there are even claims that a lot of the whale meat from scientific whaling remains unsold, stockpiled in cold stores⁴.

This seeming lack of demand for whalemeat from the Japanese populace, combined with the strong influence of pro-whaling rhetoric from the Government of Japan (GOJ), has lead to the theory that, rather than the majority of the Japanese public being "pro-whaling", they are instead "anti anti-whaling"*^{1, 11}, with the main push for commercial whaling being driven, in truth, by a small, vocal pro-whaling minority⁸.

The Future of Whaling in the Antarctic

A return to legal commercial whaling (via the lifting of the moratorium) seems highly unlikely within the foreseeable future. Some even argue that the current practice in Japan - obtaining whale products through scientific whaling - is actually the best scenario for them^11,12. This may soon be set to change, however, as both Australia and Japan have agreed to abide by whatever decision is reached by the ICJ.

The conclusion of this case will have a huge impact on the future direction and practices of the IWC, as well as on international perceptions and acceptance of whaling. Whilst it is the science which is under scrutiny at the ICJ, the conclusion of this case will have numerous political, cultural and ethical impacts. With so much else hinging on a debate around sound scientific practice, this case highlights the importance of ensuring the effective communication of science to inform the policy-making process.

Updates from The Hague: You can follow media releases from the court case here with written materials relating to the various hearings being released as they are covered in court. It runs until the 16^th July but a final judgement is not expected for several months after this.

References:

Photo Credits:

Protest photo: by Takver on Flickr
Minke whale: by Len2040 on Flickr

* In the words of Junko Sakurai, a former Greenpeace Japan campaigner, the Japanese citizens who are said to be ‘‘pro-whaling''are largely ‘‘anti anti-whaling'' in reality.J.Sakurai,e-mail communication with A.Ishii 31 July 2006. Cited in Ishii, A. & Okubo, A. An alternative explanation of Japan's whaling diplomacy in the post moratorium era. J. Int. Wild. Law Policy 10, 55-87 (2007)

[Edited 2013-07-03 to amend reference list]