|
|
| |
| |
Date Published: 26/10/2001
Author: Stephi Roth ‘Whales have been part of our diet for thousands of years, and we do not subscribe to the paradigm created by the anti-whaling lobby that enshrines the whale as a sacrosanct creature that should not be taken as food.’
Joji Morishita ‘
Japan’s argument that fishing
stocks are being ‘seriously damaged’ by increasing whale populations is simplistic,
dangerous and lacks credible
scientific information. Most scientists today recognise that human
over-fishing is responsible.’
Fred O’Regan
|
 |
Dear Fred
I appreciate the opportunity provided by The Ecologist to present our position on whaling. I hope readers will look objectively at our case and respect our views.
From a Japanese perspective, whales are a valued marine resource that should continue to be used as a source of food, providing that stocks are robust enough to support sustainable whaling. Japan, with limited grazing land and adherence to Buddhist teachings that prohibited eating of land mammals, has long resorted to the oceans to supply its animal protein. This is why we consider our food culture a ‘seafood culture’ in contrast to the European and US ‘cattle culture’.
Japan’s degree of food self-sufficiency ranks as the lowest among the major developed nations. In terms of calories, food self-sufficiency in Japan is only 41 per cent, compared with 152 per cent in Canada, 139 per cent in France, 132 per cent in the US, 97 per cent in Germany, and 77 per cent in the UK and Italy. Japan made a remarkable economic recovery after its defeat in World War II, at the price of minimising its own food production. With regard to animal protein supplies, Japan currently imports almost 75 per cent of its daily requirements. Our government seeks to address this unsatisfactory situation in the 21st century, by increasing food self-sufficiency in environmentally-friendly ways. Destroying our terrestrial biodiversity as so many nations have had to do to raise cattle, is not an option we wish to pursue.
This is the background for our principle that food resources from the oceans must be managed properly to ensure long-term food security. Certain whale stocks, which credible scientific authorities have determined are abundant enough to meet our needs, should be utilised as an important part of our food-security strategy. With such a heavy dependence on marine living resources, we are very aware of the need to follow a precautionary and an ecosystem approach in fisheries management. We cannot adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward management of whale stocks; our fisheries are being seriously damaged as increasing whale populations feed on many economically-important fish species.
We fully recognise that some whale stocks must continue to be protected. Indeed, blue, fin, right, sei, and humpback whales were protected long before the adoption of current moratorium by the IWC. What we are speaking about is the new sustainable whaling regime, in which only those stocks that can sustain a regulated fishery would be fished under a conservative catch quota system that has been unanimously approved by the IWC Scientific Committee.
Modern sustainable whaling is a far cry from the ruthless over-harvesting of the past, during the so-called ‘whaling olympics’ era. In those days there was intense international competition to supply the global demand for whale oil. With only rudimentary scientific knowledge about whale populations, the international whaling regime was incapable of regulating the various nations’ whaling fleets racing to hunt the large whales in a competitive international market. All this has now changed. Today there is no international market for whale oil, the science is rigorous, and thanks to the advanced use of computers utilising data obtained through non-lethal methods, the IWC Scientific Committee can determine appropriate catch quotas on a stock by stock basis, so that catches will not harm the health of the whale populations.
The whale is a renewable resource, and many
populations are increasing. The Eastern Pacific Grey whale is a well-known example; after several decades of regulated hunting, this population has recovered from a very low level to a population now considered to be larger than its pre-exploitation size. This population recovery has occurred despite Russian whalers taking around 180 whales annually. This as an exemplary demonstration of sustainable whaling.
Some claim that for moral reasons, whales, even if very abundant, should not be killed. We recognise that there are diverse food cultures in the world, and that some people only accept the eating of pigs, cattle, or poultry as appropriate, while others regard eating wild animals as normal. Whales have been on our diet for thousands of years, and we do not subscribe to the recent paradigm created by the anti-whaling lobby that enshrines the whale as a sacrosanct creature that should not be taken as food.
We are committed to work within the framework of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the objectives of which are clearly stated: ‘Recognising that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increase if whaling is properly regulated, and that increase in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources.’ It concludes that the signatories to this treaty (which governs IWC activities) have acceded to the treaty ‘to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.’
The ICRW allows the regulated taking of non-endangered whales. Japan is committed to upholding the rule of law with regard to this rational and
environmentally-friendly food-producing activity.
Joji Morishita
Dear Joji
We thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the views of the Japanese government on whaling. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) welcomes this open exchange of opinion
and information.
We certainly appreciate the cultural differences that make our shared world such an interesting place, and recognise that many Japanese people view Japan’s food culture as a ‘seafood culture,’ as you stated in your letter. At the same time, we believe that the debate over whaling cannot be generalised as a simple difference between European and US versus Japanese culture, which is the view his letter seems to promote. As you know, many of the nations opposing Japanese and Norwegian whaling are neither American nor European and include Brazil, Mexico, and India, to name but a few.
Japanese public opinion seems to reinforce our view. In 1999, the first comprehensive non-governmental poll on Japanese public attitudes toward whaling was conducted by the well-known MORI polling firm. Contrary to the Japanese government claims of overwhelming public support for whaling and for eating whale meat, the poll revealed that 61 per cent of those questioned had not eaten whale meat since childhood. Only one per cent said they ate whale meat once a month, and none questioned claimed they ate whale meat more often than this. When asked their views on whaling, only two per cent strongly supported the industry, with eight per cent tending to support Japanese whaling.
Under these circumstances, we find your charge that there is a ‘recent paradigm created by the
anti-whaling lobby that enshrines the whale as a sacrosanct creature’ to be completely false. We believe we have far more in common with the Japanese people than Japanese government claims would indicate, and this debate should focus on its scientific and animal welfare merits – not on generalised claims of vast cultural differences.
We totally agree with the concerns stated in your letter about credible science, the rule of law, and conserving biodiversity. However, Japan’s argument that fishing stocks are being ‘seriously damaged’ by increasing whale populations is simplistic and dangerous, and lacks credible scientific information. Most scientists today recognise that human over-fishing is responsible for the sad state of many of our commercial fisheries; in fact, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO) states that 80 per cent of the world’s fish stocks are depleted due to commercial fishing activities. To propose culling whales instead of engaging in serious global efforts to curtail over-fishing is simply irresponsible. How many whales would Japan propose we cull in order to resolve our fishing problems? Thousands? Tens of thousands? More than two million, as were killed in the southern hemisphere during the 20th Century? The government of Japan knows, as all objective scientists know, that culling marine mammals has never been the answer to failed fisheries management. It may provide a conveniently simplistic justification for whaling, but it has no basis in either science or sensible resource management.
We also agree with you that Japan and all nations should be ‘committed to upholding the rule of law’ with regard to whaling. But we would point out that the Japanese government currently has little credibility on this issue. Japan began its scientific whaling programme immediately after the establishment of a global moratorium on commercial whaling proposed in response to overwhelming international concerns about the precipitous decline in global whale populations. The majority of the whales killed by Japan are taken in an internationally designated sanctuary which Japan has chosen to ignore. Furthermore, last year the Japan whaling industry deliberately extended its efforts to two new species at the same time they were negotiating on how best to ensure compliance in future whaling efforts. Lawyers may argue whether the Japan is technically violating international law, but few will deny that Japan’s efforts have seriously undermined the intent of the ICRW and the wishes of most of its members.
Before Japan can claim to be committed to the rule of law, the government must stop trying to block all attempts to build an objective monitoring and compliance regime into the IWC. Between 1995 and 1997, IFAW-funded scientists purchased whale products in Japanese retail markets; the DNA was then analysed by scientists at the University of Auckland. The results, published in the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, show that whale products in Japanese markets contain meat from protected humpback, blue and fin whales. They also indicate an alarmingly high level of direct or incidental catch of other species in Japanese and adjacent waters, catches which are subject to neither regulation nor monitoring. Despite evidence that it lacks controls over its domestic whale meat market, Japan has since rejected all proposals to include a DNA monitoring scheme as part of an international regulatory system. The history of commercial whaling is one of non-compliance and lack of control, and we cannot support efforts to continue that sad tradition.
Fred O’Regan
Dear Fred
Although I appreciate your agreement with so many of my points, particularly those concerning the need to respect cultural differences and the rule of law, I don’t claim this dispute is simply rooted in cultural differences. The critical question is whether an
abundant marine species may be sustainably used for food, or should become an ‘untouchable icon’.
Most of your assertions are contradictory to the intent of the ICRW, while the rest misleadingly
misrepresent the facts.
The MORI poll you quoted was commissioned
by Greenpeace and the IFAW, and failed to meet
minimum survey standards or any other test of
credibility. Also, you incorrectly interpreted the 55 per cent of respondents who held no opinion or were neutral as a negative result. A more credible survey by the Japanese Prime Minister’s Office found 77 per cent of Japanese support regulated whaling.
Japan’s whale research programs are perfectly legal and have a sound scientific basis. The ICRW provides for the issuing of permits for the killing of whales for research purposes and the IWC Scientific Committee has commended Japan’s research, noting that it is providing valuable scientific information that will contribute to the management of whale stocks. Further, the ICRW requires that regulations be based on scientific findings. These facts render absurd your statement that Japan’s whale research undermines the intent of the ICRW. It is the anti-whaling members of the IWC that undermine the purpose of the ICRW. There is no ‘good faith’ interpretation of the convention that provides for the prohibition of whaling when science supports the sustainable use of abundant whale resources.
Contrary to your assertion that Japan is ignoring efforts to curtail over-fishing , Japan is leading the world in response to the UNFAO’s call for a reduction of fishing capacity having scrapped 20 per cent of its tuna long-line fleet. The point you miss is that cetaceans are consuming three to five times the amount of marine resources harvested for human consumption, and failure to include this in ecosystem models for managing our ocean resources may diminish the effects of controlling fishing capacity.
With regard to DNA testing in the market place, the work of IFAW-funded scientists lacks credibility. Their pronouncements that blue whale meat was found on the market in Japan were proven false by Japanese scientists and later corrected by the authors themselves. Further, contrary to standard scientific procedures, they have consistently refused to provide samples for independent verification.
Japan is opposed to the inclusion of DNA market testing in the IWC’s Revised Management Scheme simply because, from a legal point of view, the IWC’s mandate is to regulate whaling, not markets. Insistence that DNA market testing be included is just one example of stalling by anti-whaling members
to prevent the IWC from functioning. Even so, Japan has voluntarily instituted a DNA register and market sampling programme. Results of market sampling and testing by The World Conservation Union (IUCN-Traffic) indicate that the small amount of meat whose origin is questioned could have come from frozen storage, stranded animals or whales accidentally caught in fishing nets.
Joji Morishita
Dear Joji
I must disagree with your assertion that Japan’s whale research programs have a sound scientific basis. The international scientific community seems to view research whaling as anything but scientifically sound. Why else would the IWC ask you to cease every year?
Since Japanese research whaling was introduced, your government has repeatedly changed the aims of the program. The original stated objectives, which arose following the implementation of the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling, concerned the estimation of biological parameters for stock management of minke whales and their role in the marine ecosystem. Then, in 1995, a new objective was introduced, to investigate the effects of environmental change on cetaceans. Research was then expanded into adjacent areas and additional animals were killed. Although Japan told the IWC that this expansion was for one year only, the extra catches have continued ever since.
As you know, the IWC Scientific Committee has already devised a management procedure for whales based on data collected exclusively from observation, and not requiring any data collected by killing whales. The committee undertook a comprehensive review of the Japanese ‘scientific whaling’ program in 1997, which concluded that the data collected are not required for management. In 1998, the IWC noted the grave concerns expressed in a letter from eminent members of the international scientific community, stating that ‘moral and ethical issues are raised when a single research program results in more than 2,500 cetaceans being killed over eight years, with whale meat and other whale products resulting from such research being sold in commercial markets, while a moratorium on commercial whaling remains in force.’
Your government now appears to be calling for the culling of whales on the grounds that they are
competing with humans for fisheries resources. These claims are unsubstantiated by any peer-reviewed research or objective scientific body. To make such claims prior to conducting and reviewing research involving ecosystem models shows a total disregard for science-based management. Sadly, this is what we have come to expect from Japan’s research whaling program. In none of the cases investigated so far has it been found that culling marine mammals would benefit fisheries, although nations with failed fisheries policies are often eager to use marine mammals as the scapegoat for those failures, or to raise the issue in an attempt to garner support for whaling. How can Japan’s ‘scientific whaling’ be seen as credible, objective science when the government of Japan has clearly already concluded that whales compete with fisheries before the necessary research has been conducted?
Your simple comparison between the estimated consumption of marine resources by whales and
fisheries is meaningless given the complex interactions in the marine ecosystem. The major predators of commercially important fish are not whales, but other fish, while whales often prey on fish that are of no value to humans. To confuse the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding needed reductions in fishing effort with the poorly understood role of whales in the ecosystem is ludicrous.
You claim that Japan is opposed to the inclusion of DNA market testing in the IWC management scheme because the IWC’s mandate is to regulate whaling, not markets, and state that the anti-whalers are stalling progress in the IWC. Once again you have distorted the scientific objective. As you know, the proposals to include DNA testing are not for the purpose of regulating markets but for the purpose of checking whether catches are within the limits set by the IWC. It is not the proposed DNA registration scheme that is stalling progress in the IWC, but the refusal by Japan (and Norway) to accept any objective monitoring of commercial whaling.
Fred O’Regan
Dear Fred
As the IFAW’s position has never been based on
science, your criticism of Japan’s research is misinformed. Changes to the objectives of the programme, which you criticise, were additions to reflect IWC resolutions regarding the environment and pollution and questions from the IWC Scientific Committee concerning whale stock structure. Both the quantity and quality of the scientific work has been commended by the Scientific Committee.
Your reference to the quote of ‘eminent members of the scientific community’ merely confirms that their concerns are ethical and moral and not scientific. Article VIII of ICRW requires utilisation of the research by-product (whalemeat) to avoid wastage. Our culture views wastage as unethical and immoral. Your reference to the IWC’s resolutions against Japan’s whale research is misleading. These non-binding resolutions were adopted by the anti-whaling arm contrary to the convention and the views of the Scientific Committee which recommended the continuation of the programme.
Regarding RMS, it is the anti-whaling members
of the IWC who seek a permanent moratorium
who have delayed its completion. Their actions undermine a decade of work by the IWC and its Scientific Committee to bring the IWC back to its mandated task of managing whaling on a sustainable basis. Also contrary to your statement, the scientific literature does contain studies documenting the impact of marine mammals on fisheries. Again, since science is not the basis for IFAW’s position, it is easy to dismiss these. The fundamental difference between our positions is: We believe that the management of marine resources, including whales, should be based on scientific advice. The IFAW’s position is that no whales should be killed period – irrespective of their abundance and importance to other cultures. In your attempt to impose your views you have misused science, misinformed the public and rejected the need to respect cultural differences. To the IFAW, whales must remain an untouchable icon but to the Japanese, they are a valuable source of food.
Joji Morishita
Dear Joji
I suspect that all the scientists who have been involved in the peer-review process of IFAW’s many publications on the whaling issue would find your statement that ‘IFAW’s position has never been based on science’ quite offensive. The resolutions calling on Japan to stop its lethal research whaling were not passed by an ‘anti-whaling faction’ but by a large majority of the Commission, following conclusions by the IWC Scientific Committee that the data were not required for management of whales.
Rather than cast aspersions on IFAW’s science, perhaps the Japanese government should listen to its people, more than one third of whom believe that whaling should stop if it harms Japan’s international reputation. There can be little doubt about the harm done to Japan’s reputation by your Fisheries Ministry’s insistence on conducting whaling in an international sanctuary, or by expanding whaling operations while supposedly negotiating in good faith on a new management scheme.
You finish by accusing the IFAW of viewing whales as an untouchable icon. During the 1970s whales became the living symbol of a global environment movement so powerful that it brought us strong national laws and international agreements to protect the oceans, rain forests, and wildlife. Whales became that symbol because industrial whaling by countries like Japan, Norway, the Soviet Union and the US had so obliterated whale populations that we wondered if they would ever recover. And now you would cull them because they are an easy scapegoat for failed fisheries policies.
Is this a symbolic battle? Perhaps. Millions of
people view whales as symbolic of the need for the continued protection of many species. Your government sees this as a battle to weaken the conservation movement by refusing to comply in international environmental agreements or to accept any science but your own. We believe the choice is clear.
Fred O’Regan
|
| |
| Back to articles related to Farming |
| |
 |
|
|
|
'contentbuilder is a service provided by etribes Limited - www.communitybuilder.com' |
| |
|
|
