TL: JAPANESE ANTARCTIC WHALING SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: not dated Keywords: greenpeace reports whaling japan fareast antarctic history whales species endangered oceans gp markets economy / HISTORY OF JAPANESE ANTARCTIC WHALING: The early 1930s was one of the great peak periods of Antarctic whaling, which resulted in the decimation of humpback and blue whale populations, and an oversupply of whale oil. As a consequence of this oversupply, whaling companies agreed to limit production. However, this was the moment in history at which Japan decided to enter Antarctic whaling. Their entry was to have a profound effect on its subsequent history. In 1934 the Japanese whaling company Nihon Hogei purchased the Norwegian factory ship "Antarctic" and 5 catcher vessels. In 1934-5, its first Antarctic season, renamed "Tonan Maru", it took 213 whales, including 125 blues. A period of rapid expansion followed, and after 4 years Japan was producing 17% of the world's whale oil. In the 1937-38 season a then record 46,000 whales overall were taken in the Antarctic, and by the outbreak of WW2, Japan was one of the world's leading pelagic whaling nations. The pre-war industry was primarily concerned with the production of whale oil, not meat, which was usually discarded. Pelagic whaling ceased during the war, during which Japan lost nearly 95% of its whaling tonnage. Antarctic whaling resumed in 1946, and by the 1960-61 season, Japan was sending 7 fleets, and were allocated 33% of the Antarctic quota. This made them the largest Antarctic whaling nation, ahead of Norway, the USSR, Britain and the Netherlands. By 1964-5, Japan caught over 50% of whales taken in the Antarctic, and were largely instrumental in the savage depletion of fin and sei whales during this period. This was getting toward the end of the period of huge catches, as species such as blues and humpbacks were now severely depleted, and other species such as fins and seis were following suit. Attention then turned to minkes, the smallest and least profitable Antarctic rorqual, which Japan started whaling for in 1972. Catches and fleet sizes declined into the 1970s, and by 1976 Japan had only two fleets, and their only Antarctic competitor was the Soviet Union. Minkes were now the only Antarctic species still available in any numbers, and it was clear that whales were in trouble worldwide as a result of large- scale commercial whaling. THE MORATORIUM: The IWC was formed by the whaling nations "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry". Yet throughout its history it has failed in its charter to conserve whale stocks, because of the persuasive influence of the industry. For decades the IWC ignored its own Scientific Committee's advice to reduce catch levels, and persisted in the use of the Blue Whale Unit, a system of management which meant that species were decimated in order of descending commercial value. The next attempt at management was the so-called New Management Procedure in 1975. This was also a failure. In 1982 the IWC finally voted for a moratorium on commercial whaling, effective from the start of the 1985-6 Antarctic season. It was hoped that the moratorium would enable a comprehensive assessment of the world's whale stocks, to see what effect whaling had had on them. It was also hoped that the moratorium would enable the discontinuation of the whaling practices which had decimated whale stocks in the Antarctic and elsewhere. The IWC Convention has built-in loopholes for nations wishing to continue whaling despite various IWC regulations to the contrary. Most recently, whaling countries have taken advantage of these loopholes in order to continue whaling during the moratorium. Firstly, by simply lodging a formal objection to the moratorium, whaling could continue. The USSR, Japan, Norway and Peru did so. Peru withdrew its objection and has abided by the moratorium, and the USSR still holds an objection but has not engaged in commercial whaling since 1987. Under threat of U.S. economic sanctions for having "diminished the effectiveness of the IWC", Japan withdrew its objection to the moratorium but looked for another way to continue whaling. SCIENTIFIC WHALING: Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states that "any contracting government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill whales for the purposes of scientific research". In 1984 Japan began exploring the possibility of undertaking "scientific whaling", and a programme was begun in the 1987-88 Antarctic season - immediately after they called a halt to commercial whaling. Their proposal called for an annual kill of 825 minke and 50 sperm whales for 12 years, but was rejected by the IWC Scientific Committee, who found that its primary aim - to obtain improved estimates of the natural mortality of southern hemisphere minkes - was unworkable in theory or in practice, and in fact irrelevant to the IWC's research priorities. Over a million whales have died in the Antarctic this century, without providing a proper understanding of population dynamics. In contrast, most of the whale population studies of serious scientific interest over the last twenty years have involved the study of live whales. Japan's response to widespread criticism was to present a "feasibility study" to kill 300 minkes. This was also rejected by the IWC, but Japan went ahead and killed 273 minkes in the 1987-8 summer. A further "feasibility study" yielded 241 minkes in 1988-89. Since then Japan has pursued a modified version of their original proposal, taking 330 minkes in 1989-90, and 327 in 1990- 91, despite continuing criticisms by the IWC Scientific Committee. The IUCN General Assembly also passed resolutions calling on Japan to terminate the lethal aspects of its research, and to comply with IWC recommendations. In 1990 the European Parliament passed a resolution which, among other things, deplored the scientific whaling programmes being carried out during the moratorium. Within Japan, the Japan Union for Nature Conservation, an umbrella group for 117 non-government organisations, passed resolutions condemning "research" whaling. It is clear that the Japanese "scientific" whaling programme serves two purposes: it keeps key personnel and equipment in the industry in fighting trim, and it provides a supply of whale meat for a luxury market in Japan.This programme uses the last whaling factory ship still in commission, the ageing "Nisshin Maru No.3", and a handful of catchers. WHALE MEAT AND THE ECONOMICS OF WHALING: At the end of WW2, the American occupation forces in Japan encouraged the redevelopment of whaling as a source of protein. But although whale meat had been eaten in some areas of Japan since the 1600s, it had not been widely consumed by the Japanese people, except after the war when it was cheap and plentiful due to the large numbers of whales being killed. Whale meat is now an expensive delicacy in Japan, eaten by only a small proportion of the population. The best cut of a whale, called "onomi", sells for up to 38,000 Y, or 350 Australian dollars, a kilogram. The whalemeat obtained from the 273 minkes killed in the 1987-88 season was sold for 1.3 billion yen, or A $12 million. Yet the expedition itself cost 1.7 billion yen (A$16 million), and was thus subsidised by the Government to the tune of 350 million yen (A$2.8 million). Thus the meat was sold by the Institute of Cetacean Research for a price of about A$13/kg, a large discrepancy from the high price paid in restaurants. Clearly there is a lucrative market for the middlemen. POLITICS OF WHALING: In 1987 a resolution was passed in the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of both the Houses of the Japanese Diet, defending Japan's right to conduct scientific whaling. Fisheries receive special government protection in Japan, and whaling is the most prominent of many fisheries conflicts between Japan and the rest of the world. It is seen as symbolic of Japan's ability to stand up to foreign pressure, and to give way on the whaling issue would be seen as setting an undesirable precedent to losing other fishing rights. THE FUTURE: Results of recent sightings surveys have shown that minke whales in the Antarctic are relatively abundant - probably in excess of 700,000 - though twenty years of pelagic whaling have already reduced them in some areas. This abundance is now used as sole justification for the resumption of commercial whaling in the Antarctic, with Japan as the main proponent. There is also pressure from other whaling nations - Iceland and Norway - to resume commercial whaling in the North Atlantic as well. At this year's IWC meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, there was strong pressure to scrap the moratorium. Next year this pressure is expected to be even greater, as the IWC prepares to adopt a so- called Revised Management Procedure for the regulation of whaling. Past management procedures have proven ineffective for conserving whale stocks from overexploitation. The whalers'argument is simple: Antarctic minkes are abundant; interpretation of population biology theory suggests that a catch of as many as 5,000 minkes would be sustainable, and would not adversely affect the southern hemisphere stocks; and that these scientific facts are all that matters. The adoption of a Revised Management Procedure by the IWC does not mean that commercial whaling should resume; the moratorium is still in place, and the IWC has to vote it out by a three-quarters majority before it can be dropped. Environmentalists and nations opposed to whaling have engaged in the scientific debate in the IWC for the past decade or more, due to the uncertainty about whale stocks, but there are other arguments which form the basis of their opposition to whaling. These are: - Antarctic minkes are the last great population of baleen whales left on earth, and are a vital component of the Southern Ocean ecosystem, which has been grossly disturbed by past commercial whaling activities. Arguments that reducing minke numbers may benefit endangered species such as blues are unproven: other krill eaters such as seals and penguins are faster-reproducing, and are more likely to benefit. - given the lessons of history, there is no reason to believe that a commercial minke fishery will regulate itself responsibly. The pattern of the past is one of lack of control progressively driving species to the edge of extinction. The Canadian economist Colin Clark has pointed out that interest rates grow faster than whales, and that the optimum economic strategy is to exploit the maximum number in the minimum time, and then invest the money elsewhere. Of course this does not take account of an industry which LIKES whaling, and is determined to continue it at all costs. - whale products other than meat are all synthesised these days. Presently, whale meat is an expensive luxury, eaten by relatively few people. No doubt an abundant supply provided by commercial whaling would once again lower the price, but the fact remains that whalemeat is not a traditional food for the majority of the Japanese people, as is argued by the whaling industry. It is only during this century, since the introduction of Norwegian whaling techniques, that its consumption has spread outside the fishing communities who used to whale by truly traditional methods. Japan is actually a net exporter of protein. - whales are not legally the resource of one nation, and no one nation can claim a moral right to kill them. Their exploitation or protection should be determined on an international basis. - whales are not merely marine living resources. They are wild animals which are the dominant species in the marine environment, and possibly of a high order of intelligence. - whaling is inevitably a cruel and inhumane practice: animals may be severely stressed by the chase prior to harpooning, and take several minutes to die after harpooning. Killing of domestic livestock, in contrast, is swift and certain. ATTITUDES TO WHALING: Times are changing. At the end of the Second World War, people opposed to whaling probably constituted a small minority of the populations of most nations, including Australia. The great depredations of the whaling industry, particularly in the Antarctic, went largely unnoticed by the world at large, and it was only when it was almost too late for several species that attention was drawn to their plight. In many countries an overwhelming majority is now firmly opposed to whaling, but even in the whaling nations, a growing proportion of the population is questioning the need to kill whales. Within Japan, public opinion about whales is changing. A whale watching industry has recently sprung up in the Bonin Islands, Kochi, Okinawa and Hokkaido. Japanese people are starting to show an interest in whales as fascinating, LIVE animals. A recent public opinion poll in Japan showed that 80% of people surveyed thought that whales should not be eaten, and 63% thought that they should be protected. This contradicts the Japanese Government claim that they are expressing the will of the majority by supporting the whaling industry. There is a failure within Japan to see whaling as an environmental issue. Indeed there is a general lack of awareness of environmental issues. As an indication, Greenpeace Japan, in a nation of 140 million, has only 400-odd members; while Australia, with a much smaller population, has in excess on 80,000. The reverence for nature which is enshrined in the Shinto and Buddhist religions is not translated into respect for the global natural environment. With the whaling issue, a problem faced by western environmentalists is that a gulf of perception exists between them and the whalers, who perceive whales as virtually no different than fishes, to be exploited in the same way. Greenpeace respects Japanese cultural tradition, and accepts that whaling is historically part of that tradition. Yet in the days when coastal whaling from rowing boats was culturally important for some coastal centres, there was little understanding of the ecology of the oceans, and no real pressure on marine wildlife: small numbers of whales were taken, and the whales had a chance. Much is now made of the fact that many people will become unemployed if whaling ceases. This is true, but if people from the bison and dodo industries had been made redundant in time, the world would now be a more naturally diverse place. This dilemma was faced in Australia in 1978, when sperm whaling ceased at Albany. Albany has survived as a community. Japan's claims that its modern coastal whaling operations are "traditional" are now being strongly criticised from within the country, by such organisations as the Elsa Nature Conservancy. Attempts to stop whaling are often interpreted by Japanese people as culture-based, if not racist attacks. It is sometimes claimed that the Japanese are specially singled out for criticism of their whaling. It is true that many European nations, and the Americans, have a bloody history of contributing to major depletions of whale stocks. Contemporary European pro-whaling nations such as Iceland and Norway also receive their fair share of attention. But it must be remembered that Japan is, and has been for decades, the driving force behind the worldwide commercial whaling industry. They were major contributors to the decline of Antarctic blue, fin and sei stocks; they have repeatedly circumvented IWC controls by setting up pirate whaling operations in countries outside Japan; and they have been at the centre of the international trade in whale products. Japan still has formal reservations against the international ban on trade in products of six species of whales, such as minkes, sperm, sei and even fin whales, which Japan has recently traded from Iceland. Japan is presently under considerable international criticism for the way in which it exploits marine living resources generally. Technologies such as high seas driftnetting are remarkable for their lack of restraint or selectivity of prey. The ethic seems to be to exploit the resource as efficiently and as quickly as possible. This applies not only to driftnetting, but to exploitation of other marine life such as small cetaceans. Between 1986 and 1990, over 133,000 Dall's porpoises were killed in Japanese waters in the hand harpoon fishery, from an estimated population of about 300,000. This does not suggest a longterm view of the harvesting of marine mammals, just as driftnetting does not for pelagic fish stocks, or the other sea life it kills. Yet the Japanese whaling industry now ask us to believe that in spite of the past history of Antarctic whaling, and the present history of exploitation of marine life, they will responsibly manage an Antarctic whale fishery. They have a clear choice: they can learn from the past, and accept that whaling belongs to that past. However, human history is littered with evidence that we as a species do not learn; and so the international whaling industry, with Japan at their head, is pushing for a return to the good old days. If we can't learn from the obvious mistakes of the past, then what sort of future do we have?