(from "The Japan Times", 5/Nov/1994)

Dr. Seiji Ohsumi
Executive Director, the Institute of Cetacean Research

Glaciers then begin to slowly move toward the sea, shaving the sand and rock of the continent and releasing them as nutrients in the ocean. An explosive growth of phytoplankton turns the water green with life.

Then, Antarctic krill consume the tiny diatoms in vast quantities, and the shrimplike zooplankton form huge ruddy patches on the sea surface.

Baleen whales such as the blue and fin whales make their way to the Antarctic from their warm and distant breeding grounds. These giant mammals furiously feed on krill to prepare themselves for the coming breeding season. Gorging on the protein-rich krill, they put on tremendous weight in a short period of time.

The Antarctic in summer is the most productive ocean in the world; it is a treasure house of whale resources. It is for this reason that it has been the world's major whaling ground.

Three-fourths of the Earth is covered by ocean. The sea is the mother of life, where a large variety of marine plants and animals grow and reproduce by consuming the continuously replenishing supply of sunshine and mineral nutrients. Humankind has been utilizing these marine organisms since prehistoric times as a major food resource.

Since extractable mineral resources such as coal and petroleum are not renewable, their total volume inexorably decreases as they are consumed. It is important to use these non-renewable resources sparingly so that they can be preserved for future generations. Living resources, however, have the ability to reproduce and, if properly managed, can be utilized without the problem of depletion. Furthermore, population levels can be maintained by keeping the rate of population growth in sync with the mortality rate.

Living resources can be utilized almost endlessly so long as the population level doesn't decline precipitously. The utilization of living resources is the basis for human existence, and the social justification is self-evident. Indeed, failing to properly use a living resource is a waste of a gift of Nature.

The key issue involved in the whaling debate is the rational use of the rich variety of living resources in the world's oceans. The whales are as much a part of marine living resources as fishes, squid and shrimp. There is no reason for asserting that the whale is essentially different from other living resources. The deer is a wild mammal just as the whale, and it is customarily hunted in Europe and America. On an equal footing, under a scientific management system, there is ample reason to consider the whale as a natural resource.

It is a historical fact that the populations of major whale species such as blue and fin whales were severely reduced by whaling in the Antarctic. However, the decrease of these whale populations should not be blamed on the activity of whaling itself. Rather, the reason for depletion was over-exploitation of these resources - by catches that went beyond the species' maximum reproductivity (the maximum sustainable yield - MSY).

In the past, humankind exploited Antarctic whale resources without any notion of scientific management or standards, and went after big catches in pursuit of large profits, thus inflicting serious damage. If each whale resource had been used in a way to ensure that exploitation would remain below the MSY level, whaling of these species could have continued as long as population levels remained constant.

Since whales, especially baleen whales, live by extensive migration, and several nations engage in whaling, international cooperation was needed for rational management of these resources.

Although the first international treaty for whaling was signed in 1931, it did not take effect due to the outbreak of World War II. The existing International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed in 1946, and the International Whaling Commission came into existence in 1948. However, scientific knowledge of whale resources was so poor at the time that the Scientific Committee (SC) of the IWC could not provide the IWC with effective management recommendations in the form of accurate figures. Thus, reasonable management of whale resources was delayed in the early years of the IWC.

In the 1960s - after rapid progress in research and knowledge resulting from the work of many scientists from member countries - the SC started to actively make recommendations on the management of whale resources.

Soon, the IWC started to enforce strict management measures such as banning the hunting of blue and humpback whales and substantial reductions in catch quotas of other whale species. During this period, reasonable exploitation and management measures started to be enforced.

As a result of such stringent management, European countries, one after another, stopped hunting for whales in the Antarctic by the late 1960s. The industry that was aimed solely at obtaining whale oil had become unprofitable.

On the other hand, Japan (which utilized whale meat as a food resource) and the former Soviet Union were able to continue whaling under small catch quotas authorized by the IWC.

The issue unfortunately became politicized when whaling was suddenly placed on the agenda as a "scapegoat" issue at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 in what was apparently an attempt to divert world attention from environmental devastation caused by the Vietnam War.

Thus, for the wrong reasons, the whale became the very symbol of the environmental conservation movement. After that, antiwhaling movements by environmental organizations rapidly gained momentum. These groups exerted considerable influence on the whaling policies of small nations, which were encouraged to join the IWC to reinforce the antiwhaling camp's voting power at the IWC, where any decision could be passed by a simple majority.

At that time, the IWC was in the position to pass any overly protective resolution without the advice of the SC. Antiwhaling organizations pressed some whaling countries such as the Philippines to join the commission only to force these countries to stop whaling through ill-advised resolutions. Finally in 1982, the decision to pass a moratorium on commercial whaling was passed in disregard of the SC recommendations that a three-fourths vote was required. But it was decided at the same time that the SC should conduct a comprehensive assessment of whale resources by 1990 and that the moratorium should be reconsidered based on the results of the assessment.

The SC then carried out a comprehensive assessment on some major whale resources, although the group's work was slowed considerably by antiwhaling groups. In 1992, the SC completed a revised management procedure (RMP) after several years of arduous effort. As a result of the comprehensive assessment of Antarctic minke whale resources in 1990, the SC agreed that the population stood at 760,000 and that the whales were in good physical condition.

The estimate of the population size comes from the survey IWC/SC International Decade of Cetacean Research since 1978, and the Japanese government has contributed to the project substantially by providing research vessels, crew members and researchers. In addition, the SC showed in 1992 that at least 2,000 minke whales could be exploited safely each year in the Antarctic as long as the RMP was applied to the resources. This means that the SC signaled a "go-ahead" for the resumption of Antarctic whaling.

Current knowledge of whale resources and population dynamics have largely been developed by the SC, and the exploitation and management of whale resources can be implemented without threatening the population.

But antiwhaling activists who were eager to block any resumption of whaling have persistently introduced new hurdles for whaling countries at IWC meetings. One such hurdle is the proposal of a revised management system (RMS), which says the RMP alone is not enough for the complete management and standards of population research, collection of needed whaling data and enforcement of the international observer system. However, this high hurdle of the RMS is expected to be overcome soon by the accommodation of whaling countries. Seeing little or no prospect of attaining their goal, the antiwhaling forces in the IWC have presented yet another barrier - the proposal for an Antarctic whale sanctuary.

This proposal was brought forward by France just before the annual meeting of the IWC in 1992. It is clear from the French commissioner's remark at the 1993 IWC annual meeting that the proposal is of a purely political nature aimed at preventing the resumption of Antarctic whaling. Japan opposed strongly any such political proposal, which denied rational utilization of living resources and disregarded the scientific evidence.

Japan did as much as possible to reject and amend the proposal. Although Japan opposed the proposal, it presented an amendment cosponsored by several countries. Discussed in the final stage of the IWC meeting, the proposal said minke whales should be excluded from the application of the sanctuary provisions. However, the amendment failed to win the support of many commissioners, who abandoned any pretense of considering the matter seriously and became a mere voting bloc. Thus, the proposal for an Antarctic whale sanctuary passed the IWC plenary session at the 46th annual meeting in 1994.

Prior to the 1982 decision to place a moratorium on whaling, the IWC strengthened the management procedures of whale resources from the 1960s, enforcing such measures as the prohibition of exploitation of whale resources that needed protection. The SC gave a virtual green light for the resumption of Antarctic minke whaling. The U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 agreed on the concept of sustainable development, or utilization of living resources. The establishment of the Antarctic whale sanctuary infringes upon this new international concept.

The IWC has attempted to protect the populations of the Antarctic blue whale since 1964. Recently, it was revealed as one of the results of the IDCR that only about 600 common blue whales exist at present, notwithstanding the period of nearly 30 years since protection of this species was enforced. The population had remained almost the same as that was established in the 1960s.

Organisms exist in their ecosystem in mutual ecological relations. It is assumed that the reason for the Antarctic blue whale population not having recovered to the anticipated population level is that the minke whale population has increased in parallel with the decline in the blue whale population, and now occupies the niche (ecological position) of the blue whale to a large extent. The Antarctic minke whale is now in an overpopulated condition.

According to this theory, the recovery of the Antarctic blue whale population cannot be ensured if the minke whale population is not culled to some extent. The establishment of the sanctuary, therefore, will not contribute to the recovery of the Antarctic blue whale population at all but instead only delay their recovery for many decades to come.

The original French proposal was amended to change the northern boundary with the aim to gain supporting votes of Latin American countries in the final stage of the 46th annual meeting. Such tactics show clearly that the proposal is not based on science at all. However, the amended proposal was adopted by the IWC.

On August 12, 1994, the Japanese government lodged a formal objection to the IWC on this unjustifiable decision of the IWC, with the attachment of an explanatory note saying that:

1) about 2,000 Antarctic minke whales can be exploited annually by application of the RMP;
2) it does not meet the objective of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling; and,
3) it will become a bad precedent for future management of wildlife populations.

The government of the Russian Federation also followed suit by filing an objection to the same schedule amendment. In a similar move, the Norwegian government circulated a letter to the contracting governments through the IWC Secretariat explaining that:

1) the sanctuary is not in compliance with the convention;
2) there is no scientific basis for the sanctuary;
3) the RMP provides a highly precautionary approach to conservation and management, and it is not required to ensure the protection of depleted species through the establishment of a sanctuary, and,
4) no decision of this nature should be made by the IWC in the future.

These international reactions show that Japan is not the only country opposed to the Antarctic whale sanctuary.

The IWC established the Indian Ocean whale sanctuary in 1978. Since then virtually no research has been conducted on whale resources in the area. The Indian Ocean is now a "dark ocean" for whale science. Since the year of the establishment of the whaling moratorium, the IDCR and Japanese whale research under Article 8 of the Convention have been carried out in the Antarctic, and monitoring of whale populations and their environment has been continued with the help of a substantial financial contribution from the Japanese government amounting to about 800 million Yen annually.

If this research fund, which aims to pave the way toward the realization of rational exploitation of whale resources in the future, is discontinued, the Antarctic will certainly become another "dark ocean" for whale science, and for whale management, just like the Indian Ocean.

This unreasonable decision should be withdrawn as soon as possible, and whale resources should be utilized rationally in the highly productive ocean of the Antarctic for the welfare of generations in the 21st century, when humankind is expected to face major food shortages.

For this reason, whale research must be continued and developed in the Antarctic throughout the period of the current moratorium.

_