Since the first few centuries A.D., Japan and Norway have been whaling. The Dutch, British and Americans started a few hundred years ago. In the beginning, small boats and hand-thrown harpoons were used, but as technology advanced to fast motorboats, factory ships (on which whales are hunted for months at a time, killing and processing them at sea) and exploding harpoons, killing ability increased and more whales died. So many more, in fact, that several species have been threatened almost to the point of extinction. The California Gray whale was hunted almost to extinction in the last 1800s, then recovered, was hunted almost to extinction again by factory ships in the 1930s and 1940s, and recovered once more (Bryant). The species has been removed from the endangered species list, but they will be hunted again.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) began regulating whaling in 1946. Regulation consisted of hunting quotas given to member nations, but the quotas were too high and whale populations declined. Many species have been reduced to "commercial extinction" (Doyle) in which they are too rare to be worth hunting, and many local populations have been eliminated. The Northern right whale's numbers are down to 325 in the North Atlantic and only 250 in the North Pacific, and the species is showing no signs of recovery (Bryant). Once blue whales were hunted so that only "about 450 remain [in the Antarctic]. . .two-tenths of one percent of the initial population size" (www.seaweb.org), the fin whale was targeted, then the sei whale, then the minke and humpback. All were hunted down to a fraction of the original populations.
In 1982, the IWC passed an indefinite moratorium on all whale hunting, putting an end to almost all commercial whaling, which, at its peak, meant the death of more than 50,000 whales a year. Some species have responded to this protection with increased numbers, and some have not. The moratorium allowed exceptions for scientific research, however, and Japan has taken advantage of this loophole by continuing to hunt hundreds of whales a year as "scientific samples" (Holt) and sell their meat to local wholesalers. Through DNA testing, it was found that much of the whale meat sold in Japan and South Korea are from "illegally butchered animals" (MacKenzie), protected by the IWC's treatise.
For years, Japan has sought to further relax the limitations set on its whaling practices. A plan was voted on at the IWC in 1990 to allow the hunting of 50 minke whales a year; only five of the thirty-four member nations voted yes. In 1997, however, that number increased to twelve, with most of the increase coming from nations who had abstained in the previous vote (Fineman). What changed their minds? Every year since 1992, cash-poor Caribbean islands such as Dominica, St. Lucia, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, known for their exceptional whale-watching eco-tourism draw, have sent representatives to the IWC to vote in favor of killing whales. That same year, the Japanese government began sending millions of dollars in development aid to the islands, and commissioners from the Caribbean states hire limousines and stay in lavish hotels during the IWC annual meetings. . .and Japan foots the bill, as well as pays the islands' IWC membership fees. Stuart Nanton, whaling commissioner from St. Vincent and the Grenadines, believes that "it is only logical that the nations would support their benefactor on diplomatic issues", but that the nearly $100 million in Japanese aid so far is not bribery but only political alliances. No one can say for sure, but if it's not bribery, it's at least inexcusably short-sighted and will cause irreparable damage.
Norway shares Japan's desire to loosen the international whaling bans. It also has shared Japan's practice of illegal whaling, claiming its higher takes are justified based on a "sound science" (Philips) population model of recovering minke goups. Norway's illegal activities in 1995 brought "threats of U.S. trade sanctions from President Bill Clinton" (Doyle), who, in 1992, made campaign promises to reduce whaling. At the June 1997 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES), Japan and Norway joined in a proposal to lift the IWC's moratorium, and it is up to other CITIES member countries to block its passage.
Resisting Norway and Japan's attempts, however, presents its own set of problems. On the surface, it seems obvious that a "failure to oppose the effort may result in the collapse of the IWC's commercial whaling ban" (Greenpeace). But participation in the IWC is voluntary, so the dissenting countries can just decide not to abide by it. Britain, for example, opposes all types of whaling on ethical grounds, and while the majority of IWC nations support their moral stance, it would be unwise to present a forceful united front that might drive Japan and Norway to leave the Commission completely, as Iceland did in 1992. This would mean a return to unrestrained hunting.
A compromise, therefore, is called for. Last October, Irish representatives at the IWC meeting proposed a plan that would allow "limited coastal whaling of abundant species but only for local consumption. . .and would ban whaling on the high seas" (Tierney). Scientific whaling would be phased out as well, and the elimination of international trade while still allowing for "aboriginal subsistence" (Holt) would lessen demand for whale meat. It sounds good, unless you're Norway or Japan, who want to continue to practice commercial whaling and feel that the "high seas" clause undermines the IWC's role as regulator of sustainable hunting. A formal proposal will be drafted for next year's meeting, but the countries have yet to agree on a common goal.
Over the past few decades, it has become obvious that the IWC's mission statement needs to be revised, and the purpose of the Commission must evolve from that of a whaling overseer to that of an environmentally aware, conservation-minded body of nations working together to save a very important life.
Bryant, Peter. "Whaling and Fishing." Biology 65: Biological Conservatism. UCI: Lecture 5.
Doyle, Alister. "Norway whalers catch bulk of 1994 quota." Norway whaling
update."
Http://whale.simmons.edu/archives/vmsvax/0032.html
Fineman, Mark. "Support of Whaling Is No Fluke." Los Angeles Times.
December 19,
1997: A1, A18.
-----. "Collapse of the whaling ban." Greenpeace. Spring 1997, v2 n1: 16-17.
Holt, Sidney. "Where does Japan's meat come from?" DNA and pirate whaling.
Http://whale.simmons.edu/archives/vmsvax/0009.html
MacKenzie, Debora. "Endangered of minke, sir?" New Scientist.
August 30, 1997,
v155 n2097: 14.
Philips, David. "A bad week for whalers." Earth Island Journal.
Summer 1995,
v10 n3: 6.
Tierney, Christine. "Ireland gauges support for compromise whaling plan."
Http://www.oceania.org.au/soundnet/oct97/irishplot.html
Http://www.seaweb.org/book/whaling.html