Japan-IWC Whale Dispute (JWHALE)
CASE NUMBER: 40
CASE MNEMONIC: JWHALE
CASE NAME: Japan-IWC Whale Dispute
A. IDENTIFICATION
1. The Issue
"Only the most unprejudiced of men...nowadays partake of
cooked whale." Since Herman Melville said this in Moby Dick in
1851, whaling has changed considerably. No longer do nation's have
large whaling industries and only a handful of them still maintain
a whaling fleet. Instead, the mammal has become a symbol of
conservation, not cooking. Throughout the stormy "whale wars" of
the last 20 years, Japan (along with Norway) has been an island of
determination in a sea of opposition. The Japanese government
believes that whaling is an "aboriginal" enterprise deeply entwined
in its culture and has steadfastly held on to its rights to harvest
whales.
2. Description
The eight largest of the whale species have been recorded as
"endangered" under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) voted for a moratorium on
commercial whaling, which began in 1986. However, by labeling its
whaling activities as "research", Japan has exploited a loophole in
IWC rules. Japan, the main opponent of the ban on whale hunting,
has turned the matter into an issue of national pride. The
Japanese believe that the whale stocks are hardier than Western
scientists think and this underlies some of the conflicts between
Japan and the West about global environmental affairs. For
example, the Japanese have been slow to stop whaling on the high
seas because they view the whale as a form of food.
Under pressure from the United States, Japan agreed to give up
whaling from 1988 in line with an IWC moratorium on commercial
whaling (see NWHALE case).
The moratorium was adopted because the IWC considered that the
survival of some species is in doubt. A year before it was due to
cease whaling, Japan came up with a proposal to begin "scientific
research" whaling. Under Article VIII of the International Whaling
Commission, member nations can kill as many whales as they like for
scientific research purposes. Research proposals must be submitted
to the IWC's scientific advisory committee but the committee's
advice can be ignored. While the Institution of Catacean Research,
which took over Japan's whaling activities when commercial catching
was banned, argue that Japanese "research" fleet activities are in
line with IWC "stipulations", disruptive activities are
"unjustifiable".
Greenpeace, on the other hand, argues that Japan is exploiting
a loophole in IWC rules by using scientific research as disguise
for whale hunting. Kazuo Yamamura, a spokesman for the Institute
of Catacean Research, responsible for Japan's scientific whaling
under government contract, argues that Japan's whaling is true
scientific research. According to Kunio Arai, head of the Japan
Whaling Association. the main purpose of Japan's research is to
determine natural mortality and pregnancy rates in the minke
whale. In 1989, Japan killed 273 whales as part of research aimed
at proving whale populations are big enough to resume hunting.
There has been debate going on in the IWC 1993 meeting about
the methods used to kill whales for scientific research. The
Japanese use electric lances to stun the whale after harpooning
which leaves it writhing for up to 8 minutes. The electric shock
inflicted is likely to increase the animal's pain and suffering.
The IWC has called for more information on the methods used to kill
whales for its 1995 meeting in the United Kingdom. However, the
Japanese researchers have rejected non-lethal methods of studying
whales, such as taking skin samples, because this cannot identify
the age and sex.
The 1989 hunt, which the Institute of Catacean Research
described as feasibility study, killed 330 minke whales and brought
home 1,100 tons of whale meat as "by-product". The sales of this
"by-product" (red meat) equalled 1.6 billion Yen (about $2 million
then) and 6.5 million pounds wholesale by volume. The meat will
cost many times more than that in specialty restaurants (perhaps
$55 per pound). The claret-red, chewy whale meat is harvested from
scientific expeditions for up to 3,000 Yen or $25 for 1,000 grams.
Some opponents say that Japan is exploiting a loophole in the
international agreement banning whaling to keep its own whaling
industry intact. Others argue that Japan's research whaling is
just a way to maintain readiness for the resumption of full-scale
commercial whaling operations. However, a London-based
investigation agency has disclosed that Japan is killing dolphins
and using them as "hostages" to keep the whaling industry alive.
Apparently, the EIA also accused Japan of killing dolphins and
using them as bargaining counters in a cynical move to support the
whaling industry alive (see TUNA case).
Since a worldwide whaling ban has been introduced in 1986, the
Japanese government has allowed the killing of at least 165,000
Dall's porpoises. These dolphins are being processed in a whale
factory owned by New Nippo, one of Japan's largest whaling
companies.
Although Japan stopped commercial whaling in 1986, it still
hopes to resume a regulated hunt if it can persuade the IWC that
the minke whale is not in danger. Japan failed to persuade more
neutral nations to side with commercial whalers in IWC, despite
spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the financial aid.
Consequently, the International Whaling Commission voted on May 14,
1993 to extend a 1985 global ban on commercial whaling in a
stinging rebuff to its host, Japan. After this meeting, facing
growing pressure to give up whaling completely, Japan bitterly
attacked conservationist nations and threatened to leave the IWC.
In the meeting, France, supported by the United States, Britain and
New Zealand, proposed a whale sanctuary off the Antarctic coast,
which has since been adopted. Along with the whale sanctuary,
there was a proposed 50-year ban on killing whales between 40
degrees south latitude and the Antarctic coast line.
Despite international efforts to conserve the whales, the
Japanese commissioner warned the United States and European
countries to abandon what he called their objectionable
"ethnocentrism" and to respect other countries' diets, habits,
cultures and traditions. Finally, the whale's future rests upon
Japanese decision on whether or not to withdraw from the IWC -- to
continue whale hunting regardless of its extinction or, to
cooperate with the international consensus.
A 1994 decision by the IWC has established a whale sanctuary
in the Antarctic Ocean and increased the size of the Indian Ocean
sanctuary. This was a bitter loss for Japan, the only country
opposing the measure. Japan's efforts to cultivate votes in the
IWC, backed by development assistant programs to countries to
influence member voting, was only partially successful. Several
Caribbean countries did abstain in the vote after receiving
Japanese development assistance.
3. Related Cases
Keyword Clusters
(1): Forum = International Whaling
Commission [IWC]
(2): Bio-geography = OCEAN
(3): Environmental Problem = Special Loss Sea [SPLS]
4. Author: Nikorndej Balankura
B. LEGAL Clusters
5. Discourse and Status: DISagreement and COMPlete
The Japanese whaling case is a disagreement between Japan's
Fisheries Agency and the IWC over whether the minke whale is in
immediate danger of extinction.
6. Forum and Scope: IWC and MULTI
Many groups were included in this case, including: the
Institute of Catacean Research (under the Japanese Fisheries
Agency), Environmental groups such as Greenpeace, and the
signatories in the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The IWC
has worked with several other international organizations to
prevent the extinction of the whales, such as Committee on
Fisheries of United Nations, International Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Commission (ICNAF), FAO's Advisory Committee on Marine
Resource Research (ACMRR), UNEP, Friends of the Earth (FOE) and
World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
7. Decision Breadth: 41 Countries (IWC members)
This case is a multinational agreement which includes Japan
and other 41 signatory countries in the IWC and the anti-whaling
countries outside the IWC.
8. Legal Standing: TREATY
C. GEOGRAPHIC Clusters
9. Geographic Locations
a. Geographic Domain : GLOBAL
b. Geographic Site : GLOBAL
c. Geographic Impact : JAPAN
Japanese scientific whaling primarily operates in the
Antarctic ocean. In addition, the IWC recognizes whaling for
aboriginal subsistence purposes which are operated in Japanese
coastal waters.
10. Sub-National Factors: NO
11. Type of Habitat: OCEAN
D. TRADE Clusters
12. Type of Measure: Regulatory Ban [REGBAN]
The United States has threatened to halve Japan's quota in the
U.S. 200-mile economic zone by invoking the Magnuson Packwood Act,
a domestic law designed to curtail the fishery catch of nations
that ignore IWC recommendations.
13. Direct vs. Indirect Impacts: DIRect
14. Relation of Measure to Environmental Impact
a. Directly Related : YES WHALE
b. Indirectly Related : NO
c. Not Related : NO
d. Process Related : YES Species Loss Sea [SPLS]
15. Trade Product Identification: MEAT (whale)
Products from whales are varied, including whale meat (sold in
restaurants) and whale oil (a single whale yields 20 tons of oil
used for wax candles, soap and automatic transmission fluid).
16. Economic Data
The whale hunting for research expedition in 1989 cost 1,700
million Yen, for which the government contributed 350 million Yen.
Public donations, collected largely at fund raising whale meat
parties, made up the difference. The 600 tons of red meat from 330
minke whales killed in the hunt brought 1.6 billion Yen wholesale.
Whale meat at present cost approximately $50 per pound. In the
1960's, Japan caught over 20,000 whales a year, valued around $200
million. The first Japanese research "survey" produced 1,100 tons
of meat and the sale of meat accounted for 1.3 billion Yen and 5.6
million pounds.
17. Impact of Measure on Trade Competitiveness: BAN
The measure will cause the loss of $100-200 million in sales
in Japan. Since the moratorium on whaling was imposed by the IWC,
the price of whale meat and related-by products has increased by 4
to 5 times.
18. Industry Sector (SIC): FOOD
19. Exporter and Importer: NONE and JAPAN
The leading exporters of whale products are Japan, Norway,
Iceland, Korea, Brazil, Philippines, and the former Soviet Union.
The leading importer is Japan.
E. ENVIRONMENT Clusters
20. Environmental Problem Type: Species Loss Sea [SPLS]
21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species
Name: Minke Whale
Type: Animal/Vertibrate/Mammal/Cetacea
Diversity: NA
Although there are eight whale species recorded as endangered
in the U.S. Endangered Species Act (the Fin whale, Minke whale,
Blue whale, Gray whale, Sperm whale, Bowhead whale, Bottlenose
whale and Bryde whale), the Japanese commercial whaling ban is
directed towards the Minke species only.
22. Resource Impact and Effect: MEDium and PRODuct
Based on population data in 1990, sightings south of latitude
60 between 1978 and 1984 had a blue whale population estimated
between 200 to 1,100 (compared with the 1965 estimation of 11,000),
and the fin whale population estimated at about 2,000.
23. Urgency and Lifetime: SHORT and 50 years
Whale populations have increased in recent years and,
according to estimates by the IWC, some 900,000 exist worldwide.
24. Substitutes: LIKE products
During World War II, whale meat constituted 47 percent of
Japanese meat supply. Japanese whaling peaked in 1944 at 34,800
tons, "of which 27,600 tons were used as meat." Because of the
importance of whaling of Japanese food production and the
devastation following World War Two, General Douglas Macarthur
permitted and encouraged the Japanese whaling industry in the years
following the war. Whale continued to be a major source of animal
protein until the mid-1960s. Now, beef, chicken and pork have
surpassed whale in availability, is more affordable, and for many,
is more desirable. However, whale sashimi (raw whale meat) is
still an expensive delicacy for urban Japanese.
VI. OTHER Factors
25. Culture: YES
Although Japan presents whaling as an aboriginal enterprise
deeply entwined in its culture, under the threat of retaliation by
the United States, the Fisheries Agency has drastically cut Japan's
proposed whale catch.
26. Trans-Border: NO
27. Rights: NO
28. Relevant Literature
"A Community on Edge". Far Eastern Economic Review (June 10,
1993): 34-35.
"A Global Consciousness." Oceans (March 1984): 64-69.
"Buying Sanctuary: A Permanent Way To Save the Whale." The
Economist 319 (June 1, 1991): 12-13.
"Cruel Whale Slaughter Methods Debated At Key Talks." Press
Association Newsfile (May 13, 1993).
"Dolphins' Day." The Economist November 30, 1991: 34-35.
"Earth Spiders and Careful Tigers." International Wildlife.
22 (March/April,1992): 40-47.
"Gray Whale Protection." Oceans (July 1977):. 45-49.
"IWC Cracks Down On Activities of Scientific Whaling Nations."
Nature 328 (July 2, 1987): 9.
"Japan Circumvents Whaling Ban." Nature 327 (June 18,
1987): 548.
"Japan Contemplates Bigger Kill." Nature 339 (June 22,
1989): 573.
"Japan Kills Dolphins as Whale Fight Hostages." Press
Association Newsfile (June 1, 1993).
"Japan Reveals Results of 'Scientific' Whaling." New Scientist
(March 25, 1989): 17.
"Japan Whaling Group Says World Should Mind Its Own Business."
Reuters (March 16, 1989).
Kalland, Arne and Moeran, Brian. Japanese Whaling: End of an
Era?. London: Curzon Press, 1992).
"Let Them Eat Beef." Time (May 24, 1993): 56-57.
"Minke On Menu." New Scientist (May 19, 1990): 27.
"More Insults Fly But Japan's 'Scientific' Whaling Goes On."
Nature 337 (February 9, 1989): 494.
"New International Data To Show Whale Species In Danger."
Reuters (June 11, 1989).
"Sharpening The Harpoons." Time (May 24, 1993): 56-57.
"Sperm Whale Oil and the Jojoba Shrub." Oceans (July 1977):
65-66.
"The Case For Scientific Whaling." Nature 344 (March 15,
1990: 189-190.
"To Kill A Whale." Oceans (January 1977): 62-65.
"Why the Japanese Are So Stubborn About Whaling." Oceans
32 (Spring 1989): 45-51.
References
[End notes will be added]
Go to Super Page