In June 2006, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) took a step towards ending a 20-year moratorium on commercial whaling.¹ In 1946, fifteen countries signed the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) because they realized that over-fishing of whales could lead to extinction if protective measures were not instituted. The IWC was created in the same year, under the auspices of the convention, in order to regulate the global whaling industry.² In the early days of the IWC, members were allowed to hunt whales for commercial purposes. However, the initial regulations enacted with some limitations to help protect the whales proved ineffective. As a result, by the 1970's, it became clear that whale populations were reaching dangerously low numbers and drastic measures were required.

In response to this emerging threat, an environmental movement was born under the banner Save the Whales. The Save the Whales campaign brought the whale issue to the forefront of the public imagination through a series of television images of protestors in rubber boats confronting harpoon-wielding whalers.³ As a result of the campaign, the IWC agreed to place a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. Andy Ottoway, director of Campaign Whale, believed that the Save the Whales campaign was the "great-grandaddy" of the nascent environmental movement. According to him, "It spawned many NGOs…struck a chord with the average man in the street and became a topic of conversation."⁴

The movement to safeguard the world's whale population was dealt a blow on June 19th, 2006, when pro-whaling countries, led by Japan, Iceland, and Norway, narrowly won a vote of parties to the ICRW, by a tally of 33 to 32, calling for the end of the moratorium on commercial whaling.⁵ An excerpt from the statement reads, "The moratorium, which was clearly intended as a temporary measure, is no longer necessary." ⁶ The resolution itself serves a primarily symbolic function since a two-thirds majority of the IWC's seventy members is needed to overturn the moratorium.⁷ Nonetheless, nations in favor of ending the ban considered the vote a victory and hope this will be the first step in the expansion of their national whaling industries.

Despite the moratorium, whales are still hunted today by signatory nations under a loophole in the agreement. Even though commercial whaling no longer occurs under the moratorium--except in Norway,

The movement to safeguard the world's whale population was dealt a blow on June 19th, 2006, when pro-whaling countries, led by Japan, Iceland, and Norway, narrowly won a vote of parties to the ICRW, by a tally of 33 to 32, calling for the end of the moratorium on commercial whaling.

which protested the ban on whaling when it was originally agreed upon--Article VIII of the ICRW still allows governments to issue special permits to kill whales for the purposes of "scientific research."⁸ In undertaking lethal scientific whaling, a nation like Japan, issues permits to kill whales. After a whale is killed the creature‘s DNA will be sampled, some physical measurements will be taken, and the contents of the stomach will be examined in order to find out what whales eat. Yet scientists are able to study a whale's diet by examining its feces; alternatively, "knicking" a living whale's skin is all that is needed to get its DNA.⁹

The head of the United States' IWC delegation in 2005, Rolland A. Schmitten, criticized lethal scientific whaling and said that he did not believe it was "…needed for [the] conservation or management of whales."¹⁰ Environmentalists and anti-whaling nations, led by New Zealand and most European nations, accuse Japan and other pro-whaling nations of using scientific research as an excuse to circumvent the spirit of the convention. Many critics point out that the majority of whales killed for "scientific purposes" often end up in fish markets.¹¹ In Japan's Tsukiji Central Wholesale Market, the world's largest fish market, it is easy to find signs advertising "delicious whale."¹²

Japan, Iceland, and Norway still hunt whales as a source of food, but most other nations no longer seem interested in whaling. European nations, Australia, and the United States used to have large whaling fleets and hunted whales for their blubber, which was used as fuel and lubricant up until the very early 20th century. As technology advanced and oil became a more common resource in manufacturing, the need for blubber diminished until the industry finally died out in those countries.¹³ Today, attitudes in many countries, like the United States and New Zealand, have changed, and whales are looked upon as majestic, intelligent creatures—a natural resource to be preserved, not exploited. This has motivated a number of animal welfare groups to join the anti-whaling campaign. They object to harpooning, the traditional method of killing whales, which they argue is cruel and forces whales to suffer slow, painful deaths. Anti-whaling advocates also worry that there is not enough information available on current whale stocks to permit a return to commercial whaling. They believe commercial whaling should be banned because there is no method available to estimate how many whales it is safe to kill without endangering the species.¹⁴

On the other hand, pro-whaling nations accuse anti-whaling nations of disregarding science and having a view that whales are somehow different than any other marine resource.¹⁵ The Senior Fisheries Officer for St. Kitts-Nevis believes that whales are just another marine resource and do not deserve special treatment.¹⁶His position is that "decisions [made about commercial whaling] must be scientific and (marine resources) must be utilized in a sustainable way."¹⁷ If other marine resources, such as lobsters and fish, can be managed why not whales? In recent years, evidence shows that certain species of whale have made a comeback. Some species, like the minke whale, have seen their numbers increase significantly and are no longer on the endangered species list. Based on these facts, pro-whaling nations insist that commercial whaling of these species should be allowed.¹⁸

Environmentalists and anti-whaling nations, led by New Zealand and most European nations, accuse Japan and other pro-whaling nations of using scientific research as an excuse to circumvent the spirit of the convention . . . In Japan's Tsukiji Central Wholesale Market, the world's largest fish market, it is easy to find signs advertising "delicious whale."

In seeking to overturn the moratorium on whaling, Japan has been the most vociferous and active country. Jeff Kingston, a reporter for the Japan Times, reports that Japan is building support for its position at the IWC by offering aid packages to signatory nations in the South Pacific and Caribbean regions.¹⁹ In 2005, the government of Japan gave $8.7 million to St. Kitts-Nevis, about $17 million to Nicaragua, and $8.1 million the small Pacific island nation of Palau--all three countries voted with Japan in the IWC.²⁰ When Shokichi Kina, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan charged the government with "vote buying," the government declined to refute the charge.²¹

Japan's efforts to reverse the ban stem from a number of factors.²² First, Japan feels hunting and eating whales is part of Japanese culture. Whale meat is a traditional Japanese food, and many Japanese feel that outsiders do not have the right to tell them what they can and cannot eat.²³ Next, there is a feeling among some Japanese politicians that Japan has been betrayed by anti-whaling nations. When Japanese representatives originally agreed to the moratorium they thought they were agreeing to a temporary ban, not a permanent one.²⁴ Consequently, believing that the mission of the IWC has become unreasonable, Japan's focus has shifted to reforming the convention. According to Japan's Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, Shoichi Nakagawa, "Japan will continue to do its best to achieve the normalization of the IWC as an organization that manages whale resources and the resumption of scientifically based, sustainable whaling."²⁵

The Future of Whaling

Japan's victory, although largely symbolic, suggests the possibility of further contention in the IWC in the future. The Government of Japan believes that the balance of power in the IWC has shifted from anti-whaling nations to pro-whaling nations.²⁶ But in response to the IWC's evolving dynamics, conservationists have promised to redouble their efforts, and many anti-whaling European members of the IWC are encouraging other European countries who share their views to join the IWC before the next meeting in Anchorage, Alaska in 2007.²⁷

As the diplomatic battle heats up, it seems possible that market economics might take care of the whaling controversy on its own. Demand for whale meat has been on the decline in major whaling countries, including Japan, where fewer and fewer Japanese buy the government subsidized whale meat.²⁸ Furthermore, in Norway, the government was forced to temporarily stop the whaling season because there was a surplus of whale meat in storage.²⁹ If the demand drops enough in the coming years, the whaling industry may simply disappear from a lack of customers. ¹ To view the full report, please visit: "Japan gains key whaling victory." BBC News. 20 Jun 2006. .

² Ibid.

³ To view the full report, please visit: "Save the whale, save the planet." BBC News. 12 Jun 2000.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ To view the full report, please visit: "Japan, Allies Move Closer to Whale Hunts." ABC News. 20 Jun 2006.

⁸ To view the full report, please visit: International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. International Whaling Commission. 2 Dec 1946.

⁹ To view the full report, please visit: "The Truth behind ‘scientific whaling.'" Greenpeace. 31 Jul 2006.

¹⁰ To view the full report, please visit: "Japan vows to double scientific whaling." MSNBC. 21 Jun 2005.

¹¹ "World's biggest market features an ocean of fresh catch." The Kansas City Star. 12 Jul 2006.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹³ To view the full report, please visit: "Overview of American Whaling." New Bedford Whaling Museum. 18 Jul 2006.

¹⁴ To view the full report, please visit: Black, Richard. "Can the whales ‘be saved' - again?" BBC News. 21 Jun 2006.

¹⁵ To view the full report, please visit: Christie, Michael. "Japan Defeated on Whaling, Green Groups Relieved." Tiscali.news. 17 Jun 2006.

¹⁶ To view the full report, please visit: "Science, not emotion, must influence whaling issue, says St Kitts official." Caribbean Net News. 28 Apr 2006.

¹⁷ Ibid .

¹⁸ To view the full report, please visit: The Position of the Japanese Government on Research Whaling. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. 21 Jun 2006. .

¹⁹ To view the full report, please visit: Kingston, Jeff. "Japan heat up whaling wars." A Glimpse of the World. 24 Jun 2006 .

²⁰ To view the full report, please visit: McNeill, David. "Japan vs Japan: Opposition party exposes whaling bribes." CDNN. 24 Jun.

²¹ Ibid.

²² To view the full report, please visit: Cuthbertson, Charlotte. "Japan a Step Closer to Commercial Whaling." The Epoch Times. 29 Jun.

²³ Kingston.

²⁴ Kingston.

²⁵ To view the full report, please visit: "Japan vows to push for return to commercial whaling." IrelandOn-Line. 19 Jun 2006.

²⁶ To view the full report, please visit: "US won't cut deals with Japan over whaling." Stuff. 21 Jun 2006.

²⁷ To view the full report, please visit: Black, "Can the whales ‘be saved' - again?".

²⁸ Kingston.

²⁹ To view the full report, please visit: Black, Richard. "Norway's whale catch fall short." BBC News. 13 Jul 2006.



Return to top










Reprinted with permission from Globalization101.

To read another Global Envision article about controversy over natural resources, see Report Urges Rethink of Forest Resources .