News of the North

Votes are supplied because of the friendly relations between nations, and their wish to support each other in international fora.

This is the reason that Israel recently joined the IWC (despite not even having a whaling policy - they joined because the USA asked them too - same with Germany in the past) and the same reason that 7 land-locked European nations are also members, and also vote with their European coastal friends.

If you care to look for some statements from the nations who support the principle of sustainable use at the IWC, you'll find that their positions are clearly enunciated.

So I think it's important to be balanced, and get both sides of the story, rather than just listen to what the critics of whaling are saying.

Also, Norway does not hunt whales for scientific purposes. It lodged an objection to the moratorium under IWC rules, and is quite entitled to do what it is doing. The alternative would be for Norway to quit the IWC, like Canada did, and hunt whales in the manner that it sees fit (this wouldn't be good for global conservation efforts).
Japan's research programmes have also been evaluated quite well by the IWC's Scientific Committee, which noted in 1997 that the JARPA programme had the potential to improve the IWC's management procedure, the RMP (http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#recent). The Scientific Committee is planning another review of the now completed JARPA programme in December this year.

If we are to consider the "threat" of commercial whaling, it is important to take into consideration the Revised Management Procedure, which is the method by which commercial catch limits would be set.

Here is what just a few scientists have said about it:

1) Judy Zeh talking to Australia’s ABC a few years ago when she was Chair of the IWC SC:
“it’s certainly true that if commercial whaling were resumed under the revised management procedure, it could be managed safely”
(http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s147657.htm)

2) Greg Donovan, Head of Science at the IWC, commenting just a few weeks ago:
“From a scientific perspective, the IWC Scientific Committee has developed probably the most rigorously tested way to estimate safe catch levels for any marine species.”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5103378.stm)

3) Doug Butterworth (fisheries management expert) on the SC’s revised management procedure:
“it is so risk averse that the only real scientific basis for questioning its immediate implementation is that it is so conservative that it will waste much of a potential harvest.”
(http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/NAMMCO/su-ut-of.htm)

When Japan actually has a surplus of unwanted whale meat:

http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/?p=872

and much of the hunting is done not to provide needed meat, but as a show of resentment against Western pressures:

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=18731

why are we concerned about "wasting a potential harvest" if there's no real need for these animals to be slaughtered?

In this case, it's not simply about sustainability of whaling - which is of course absolutely essential if whales ARE being killed - but the lack of a market in the first place. Whales are being killed as a symbolic move by Japan - not because the meat is a necessary part of their daily lives.

It is pleasing to see that we agree that whaling, if it occurs at all, must be at sustainable levels. As the scientists note, this is essentially guaranteed, so long as whaling is established under the IWC's Revised Management Procedure (I have a concern in terms of conservation that currently most whaling isn't regulated under the RMP due to the political problems at the IWC).

You raise the issue of whether there is any potential demand for whale meat in Japan or not. Much has been written in the western media about this.

I can give you my perspective from what I know through reading Japanese sources, and living here in Tokyo. It's a little different from what I read in the western media, and often makes me wonder whether we are talking about the same "Japan". Here's what I have seen:

There are people who believe that there is potential for new (re-established) markets for whale meat in Japan.

Whale consumption in Japan hit a high of 220,000 tonnes in a single year at it's peak, after the end of the war. Current supply is limited to around 5,000 - 6,000 tonnes annually, mainly through the marketing of by-products from the JARPA and JARPN research programmes.

Earlier this year with the return of the JARPA II research by-products, the stockpile peaked at around 6,000 tonnes. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of by-products marketed in a year through ongoing research programmes, suggesting that this relatively small stockpile is also a moving stockpile, not a stagnant one.

Talk of pet food has abounded since the WDCS found the http://www.hakudai.com site selling dog food made out of the small intestines of baird's beaked whales - a species not targeted by the research programmes, but by traditional coastal whaling communities. Small intenstines of whales are not marketed for human consumption. Processing them in to dog food seems to be quite innovative - better than throwing it out in the trash as would otherwise be the case.

As for myself, I have seen whale meat in various restaurants here in Tokyo. Last weekend I went to a restaurant in my neighbourhood that I had previously seen advertising whale bacon on it's menu. I tried to order some, but was told by the chef that they had run out of whale bacon. Someone must be eating it.

I'm lead to believe through these experiences and information that there may indeed by additional potential demand for whale meat here in Japan. I am skeptical about whether the western media is manipulated to try to give such a different impression to those people who don't live here to be able to check for themselves.

Of course - maybe I'm wrong, and the western media is right. It's possible. Does it matter? The silly business people who may in future invest in developing commercial whaling operations may lose all their money. Does it bother me? No.

What bothers me is that whaling is sustainable, and is conducted in accordance with the relevant international agreements - in this case the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. If people want to risk own money within these bounds, then I am certainly in no position to tell them what they can and can not do.