Doing the hard yards to end whaling

Total catches by Japanese whaling ships are hard to differentiate from commercial whaling. Approximately 7,900 minke whales, 243 Byrdes whales, 140 sei whales and 38 sperm whales have been taken in Antarctica and the Western North Pacific in the last 18 years. In contrast, the combined take of all other nations for scientific research since 1952 is approximately 2,100 whales. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has passed 33 resolutions over the past l6 years condemning Japanese scientific whaling.

Revenue from the commercial sale of whale meat in Japan is estimated to be around US$50 million annually. Subsidies of US$l0 million per year are paid out by the Japanese Government, these subsidies are invested in the maintenance and operation of the Japanese whaling fleet.

Although some legal experts believe that if trade sanctions were imposed, Japan would have a viable dispute claim in the WTO, the US$l0 million worth of subsidies given by the Japanese Government to the whaling industry may well be challenged. WTO challenges are mired in controversy and complexity: no one can predict the outcomes with any certainty.

With no powers of enforcement, the IWC is a toothless tiger relying on self-regulation and powerless to deal with abuses of the convention. According to international legal experts, Japan is violating the Law of the Sea, the Biodiversity Convention, the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the Madrid Protocol and the Antarctic Treaty.

These same experts detail strategies which anti-whaling governments could utilise to stop Japan. While challenges in the International Court of Justice of the Law of the Sea Tribunal carry some risk, other options have been laid out under the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).

The Antarctic Treaty System presents a variety of provisions which could be brought to bear against Japan. However, within the ATS, a gentlemen’s agreement ensures whales are never discussed in the context of Antarctic marine ecosystem. This exclusion is supported by the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand. No anti-whaling country will take action against Japan under the ATS and no anti-whaling government will produce the legal advices on which they rely to defend their position of non-action.

Similarly, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd fighting valiant battles in the icy Antarctic waters need to adopt strategies which see an end to their highly dangerous campaigns against Japanese whaling. Such strategies need to be based on solid legal grounds which automatically provide moral weight.

Lobbying efforts by anti-whaling governments would be better directed to the Bush Administration, focusing on its failure to uphold the IWC. Anti-whaling governments, who allow international conventions ratified by their parliaments to be weakened by delinquent nations, are as guilty as the whalers and deserve public protest and condemnation.

Finally, the real cost of globalisation in terms of the environment needs to be discussed and factored in to economic policies. What would a world without whales be worth?