DOCSLIB.ORG

Renegade Whaling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Renegade Whaling RENEGADE WHALING: Iceland's Creation of an Endangered Species Trade ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTS EIA would like to thank Tomo for helping with the research for this report and OceanCare for financially contributing to EIA's investigation. 1 INTRODUCTION Report design by: www.designsolutions.me.uk 2 ICELAND’S WHALING HISTORY July 2011 ISBN: 0-9540768-9-3 3 ICELAND’S 21ST CENTURY WHALING 5 HVALUR – HALF A CENTURY HUNTING FIN WHALES 7 FIN WHALE TRADE INVESTIGATION 10 WHALE SALES ONLINE 12 REQUIRED ACTIONS BY THE US AND EU 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (EIA) 62/63 Upper Street, London N1 0NY, UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7354 7960 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7354 7961 email: [email protected] www.eia-international.org WHALE AND DOLPHIN CONSERVATION SOCIETY Brookfield House, 38 St Paul Street Chippenham, Wiltshire SN15 1LJ, UK Tel: (44) (0)1249 449500 Fax: (44) (0)1249 449501 email: [email protected] www.wdcs.org COVER: © Jonas Freydal INTRODUCTION © WDCS/Nicola Hodgins The Icelandic whaling company Hvalur hf The investigation has confirmed the has killed 273 endangered fin whales, and involvement of the Japanese 'scientific' exported more than 1,200 tonnes of fin whaling company Kyodo Senpaku in the whale meat and blubber to Japan since distribution of Icelandic fin whale 2008. These shipments, worth an estimated products. This is a key concern given US$17 million, and Iceland’s escalating its dominance within Japan’s whale whale hunts, are clear abuse of the meat market and effective control of International Whaling Commission (IWC) an extensive distribution network. as well as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Iceland’s killing and exporting of Fauna and Flora' (CITES), to which Iceland internationally protected and endangered is a signatory. They are carried out with whales is clearly undermining the IWC the full knowledge of Icelandic authorities, and CITES; unless Iceland ceases these and are evidence of Iceland’s disregard for hunts and trade, economic sanctions international environmental treaties. should be enacted directly against the commercial interests of Hvalur. With Japan’s whaling on the decline and a mountain of unwanted whale meat and For the past three years, the IWC has other whale products in storage, it is been tied up in futile negotiations with fair to ask why Iceland and Hvalur the whaling countries in a supposed persist in the killing and trading across attempt to control their renegade borders of an endangered whale species whaling. This process has been marked protected by the IWC and CITES. The by a reluctance on the part of real question however, is why do other conservation-minded governments to IWC/CITES signatories continue to speak out against Iceland and other tolerate these abuses of international whaling nations in fear of being seen to conservation accords? harm the negotiations. In response, however, Iceland has set ever higher A new EIA investigation into the whaling quotas, and has dramatically international trade in fin whale products expanded its export of CITES Appendix 1 in Japan paints a distressing picture of listed whales, not only to Japan but to increasing distribution and sale of several other countries. Icelandic-caught fin whales. This dynamic is fuelled by artificially low prices If the IWC is not to become the influenced by Icelandic businessman, dysfunctional body that the whaling and Hvalur boss, Kristján Loftsson in his countries work tirelessly to bring about, determination to expand Iceland’s whaling. the Commission must assert its authority Combined with the special status of fin and publicly condemn Iceland’s escalating whales as the most desirable whale commercial whaling and whale exports. product in Japan and the absence of fin It is time for Parties to secure an whales from Japan’s own whale hunts, this immediate cessation of Iceland’s whaling has given Loftsson the opportunity to sell activities and its international trade in hundreds of tonnes of Icelandic fin whale, whale products. already profiting a Japan-based import company he helped establish by as much as US$8 million. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) July 2011 1 ICELAND’S WHALING HISTORY © Jonas Freydal ABOVE: In the long and bloody history of legally to have accepted it. Indeed, Fin whale killed in 2006. commercial whale hunting, Iceland is Iceland officially ceased commercial one of the most notorious and persistent whaling in 1985 in accordance with the protagonists, killing more than 35,000 moratorium decision, but swiftly began whales since the late 19th century and exploiting the clause in the IWC’s opposing or circumventing efforts by the founding treaty, the International international community to regulate Convention for the Regulation of whaling and prevent the decimation of Whaling (ICRW), which allows whaling whale populations.1 for ‘scientific purposes’.5 The main stage for Iceland’s infamy In the first years of the moratorium, has been the International Whaling Iceland submitted several research Commission (IWC), of which it was a proposals to the IWC, even seeking founding member. Because of the refusal ‘experimental catches’ for blue and of whaling nations to comply with its humpback whales which had been restrictions on where, when and how protected since the 1960s.6 Between many whales could be hunted, the IWC 1986 and 1989, Icelandic whalers killed failed for decades to prevent the 292 fin whales and 60 sei whales - all devastating impacts of illegal and legal ostensibly in the name of science but yet unsustainable, commercial whaling. really intended for commercial export to Unable to prevent Parties, including Japan.7 Even after the IWC adopted a Iceland, killing undersized individuals or 8 2 Resolution in 1986 recommending the targeting protected species, the IWC meat and other products be “utilised eventually recognised that nothing less primarily for local consumption” following than a total ban would be sufficient to the completion of “scientific treatment” allow time for whales to begin to rebuild (which was interpreted with Iceland’s their depleted populations. In 1982, the agreement to mean that up to 49 per Commission adopted the ‘moratorium’, cent of whale products could be prohibiting the hunting of all the ‘great 3 exported), Iceland continued to submit whales’ for commercial purposes from research proposals to the IWC that 1986 onwards. would generate thousands of tonnes of meat, far more than its domestic market Although Iceland voted against the could absorb, and continued to export moratorium decision in 1982, following a the majority to Japan. An EIA investigation bitter debate in its Parliament it did not in 1991 demonstrated that Iceland register a formal objection to the decision exported between 58 and 77 per cent of at the time and, unlike the Soviet Union, its whale meat to Japan during the Japan4 and Norway, was thus deemed four-year scientific whaling programme, in contravention of the Resolution.9 THE IWC AND SCIENTIFIC WHALING Ultimately, it took a public boycott of Since the adoption of the moratorium on commercial whaling, the Icelandic fish in Europe and the US Commission has passed more than 30 Resolutions censuring various special and the threat of trade sanctions by permit operations by Iceland, Japan, Norway and Korea, and expressing the US to persuade Iceland to call it a day when its special permit the view that such special permit research should only be permitted in 10 exceptional circumstances,11 meet critically important research needs,12 be programme concluded in 1989. consistent with the IWC’s conservation policy13 and use non-lethal techniques.14 Iceland left the IWC in 1992, having ceased whaling entirely. 2 ICELAND’S 21ST CENTURY WHALING Less than a decade later, Iceland was whaling for commercial purposes despite back. In 2000, it joined the Convention the moratorium on commercial whaling”, on International Trade in Endangered and stating that “Article VIII of the Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Convention is not intended to be exploited (CITES) with a reservation which in order to provide whale meat for commercial exempts it from a ban on international purposes and shall not be so used”.18 commercial trade in whale products and Clearly aimed at Iceland’s plans, the enables it to trade legally with Norway Resolution urged “any country … and Japan, which also hold reservations considering the conduct of Special Permit for whales. It then tried the same tactics whaling to terminate or not commence such at the IWC, rejoining in 2002 with a activities and to limit scientific research to ‘reservation’ to the moratorium which, it non-lethal methods only”. Undaunted by claimed, revoked its previous acceptance this condemnation, Iceland’s special of the ban.15 permit operation went ahead. Ultimately, the programme targeted only minke Many IWC parties asserted that whales - killing a total of 200 - but was Iceland’s reservation is incompatible extended from two to five years.19 with the object and purpose of the ICRW and was, therefore, not permissible In 2006, before any findings from the under international law, but Iceland’s special permit hunt were published, membership was nevertheless accepted Iceland resumed commercial whaling by the Commission in 2002.16 Iceland under its disputed reservation, setting wasted no time; although its ‘reservation’ itself a hunting quota of 30 minke stated that it would not start commercial whales
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Japanese Whaling and the International Community: Enforcing the International Court of Justice and Halting NEWREP-A
    Japanese Whaling and the International Community: Enforcing the International Court of Justice and Halting NEWREP-A By Samuel K. Rebmann The bodies that regulate public international law, particularly those concerning areas of environmental law, are currently incapable of unilaterally enforcing international treaties and conventions. On December 1, 2015, Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) commenced the organization’s New Scientific Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean (NEWREP-A). This paper argues that by launching NEWREP-A, Japan willfully acted in direct contravention to the International Court of Justice’s ruling in Australia v. Japan (2014), which found that the ICR’s previous research programs violated existing public international law and, thus, blocked all future scientific whaling permits from being issued to the Japanese institute. Through examining the international treaties and conventions governing whaling, environmental and maritime law, the historical context of Japanese whaling practices, and American legislative and political history, this paper defends the International Court of Justice’s opinion and calls on the American government to support and enforce the ruling through extraterritorial application of United States law. In direct opposition to a 2014 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Japanese government declared in June 2015 their intent to revive the Institute of Cetacean Research’s (ICR) scientific whaling program. The ICJ held in Australia v. Japan that the second phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program Under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) violated international law; the court ordered the revocation of all existing permits and prevented the issuance of future permits, which included the proposed Research Plan for New Scientific Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean (NEWREP-A).¹ Specifically, the court found that JARPA II failed to observe regulations set forth by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), such as the 1986 binding international moratorium 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture, Politcs and Japanese Whaling Perspectives of Japanese Youth
    Bibliography ABC. 2008. ‘Japan Grants Whale Meat Import License’. ABC Radio Australia 20th November 2008. Available at <http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/programguide/stories/200811/s2424490.htm> (accessed 26th November 2008). ABC. 2009. ‘Japan Vows to Carry on Whaling’. 11th December. Available at <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/11/2768448.htm?section=justin> (accessed 9th April 2010). ABC. 2010. ‘Whaling Commission Asked to Probe Bribery Claims’. 21st June. Available at <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/21/2932682.htm> (accessed 14th August 2010). Allen, K.R. 1980. Conservation and Management of Whales. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 12-14. Anderson, J.L. 1991. Japanese Tea Ritual. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Andresen, S. 1989. ‘Science and Politics in the International Management of Whales’. Marine Policy 13(2): 99-117. Anton, D.K. 2008. ‘Australian Jurisdiction and Whales in Antarctica: Why the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctic Waters Does Not Pass International Legal Muster and is also a Bad Idea as Applied to Non-Nationals’. Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 11(3&4): 159-192. Anton, D.K. 2009. ‘Antarctic Whaling: Australia’s Attempt to Protect Whales in the Southern Ocean’. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 36(2): 319-351. Aoyagi-Usui, M., Vinken, H., & Kuribayashi, A. 2003. ‘Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Behaviours: An International Comparison’. Human Ecology Review 10(1): 23-31. Arcury, T.A. & Christianson, E.H. 1993. ‘Rural-Urban Differences in Environmental Knowledge and Actions’. Journal of Environmental Education 25(1): 19-25. Aron, W.
    [Show full text]
  • Sink Or Swim : the Economics of Whaling Today
    Sink or Swim : The Economics of Whaling Today A Summary Report produced by WWF and WDCS Based on a study by Economics for the Environment Consultancy (eftec) Published in June 2009 eftec report written by Dr Rob Tinch and Zara Phang A copy of the full report by eftec can be found on both WWF and WDCS websites - http://www.panda.org/iwc http://www.wdcs.org/publications.php "The whaling industry, like any other industry, has to obey the market. If there is no profitability, there is no foundation for resuming with the killing of whales." Einar K. Guðfinsson, former Minister of Fisheries, Iceland, 2007 BACKGROUND Whales have been hunted commercially for centuries. Historically, the main demand was for oil made from their blubber, which was used for fuel. In 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was signed, subsequently establishing the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to regulate whaling and conserve whale stocks. The IWC started out essentially as a whalers’ club, with only 15 members, all of which were whaling nations. It had no provisions to detect and punish over-hunting and it paid scant attention to the sustainability of whaling. The results were disastrous for whales. Some species, such as blue and right whales, were hunted to near extinction; reduced to less than 5 per cent of their original population abundance. Yet it must be seen in the context of its time, which far pre-dated any environmental or conservation treaties, or awareness of the need to utilise wild species sustainably. In 1982, a growing conservation movement within the IWC secured a ban on commercial whaling.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender in the Early-Modern Japanese Whaling Industry
    Heroic Whalers Hunting Whale-Mothers: Gender in the Early-Modern Japanese Whaling Industry Jakobina Arch Abstract: This paper reconsiders the overwhelmingly masculine business of whaling in Tokugawa Japan (1603-1868) and the ways that gender played a role in the process of whaling, in the uses of some of its products, and in ideas about whales themselves. The gender divisions within whaling groups paradoxically are often overlooked because women barely appear in Japanese whaling sources. While other nations' whaling industries were also centered on men, baleen had a major influence on women's fashion in Europe and America. However, Japanese uses of baleen remained within the more male-centered cultural sphere. At the same time, rethinking Japanese whaling as a gendered practice helps explain the ways that whales themselves were equated with women through cultural expectations about women's roles like caring for children. The intersectionality of shared marine environments and cultural specifics explored here highlights the importance of considering both labor and gender roles within maritime spaces. As maritime historian Lisa Norling notes, "Seafaring has traditionally for centuries, maybe for millennia been one of the most rigidly and completely gender segregated of all forms of labor."1 As a result, stereotypes associated with seafaring are so thoroughly male that the gender divide has become naturalized and ahistorical. And as Elliott Gorn points out for the American whaling industry, "so long as virtually men alone were whalers, we do not bother to think about gender...why did this particular occupation end up being so gendered that we hardly can imagine it otherwise[?]"2 The same could be asked about whaling in early modern Japan (approximately concurrent with the Tokugawa period, 1603-1868), where nearly all of the sources about whaling focus on men, leaving the question of women's roles generally ignored.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Or Slaughter? Two Opposing Views on Japanese Whaling: a Critical Discourse Analysis
    Science or Slaughter? Two Opposing Views on Japanese Whaling: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Jason Peppard An assignment for Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics Module 1 - Written Discourse March 2007 Centre for English Language Studies Department of English UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom WD/06/04 Choose two news / current affairs texts, one from English-speaking media (e.g. a British or American TV news report, an Australian newspaper, etc) and the other from a media outlet in another country / language, but both dealing with the same ‘global’ events (e.g. the war in Iraq, the Asian Tsunami…). Critically discuss the two texts with reference to CDA (see Written Discourse unit 7). What differences in the representation of events, and in relations with the intended audience, can be identified? How might any such differences be related to underlying cultural and/or ideological issues? Estimated word count: 4445 1 1.0 Introduction This paper aims to identify and discuss cultural and/or ideological differences concerning the same ‘global’ event in media texts from two different countries, one from an English media outlet and the other from a non-English country. The texts will be analyzed from a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) perspective. The topic to be discussed in this critical analysis is Japanese whaling. Japanese whaling, and whaling in general, has become an increasingly controversial topic over the years. Although only a handful of countries actively hunt whales, a great deal of media coverage and ensuing controversy resurfaces each time a new hunting season begins. Those opposed to whaling make arguments on ecological and moral grounds: Some species of whales are considered endangered which creates ecological debate while others claim that it is morally wrong to kill and eat whales since they are generally considered to be highly intelligent and sentient creatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter I Whales Saved the Japanese
    Chapter I Whales Saved the Japanese History of the Japanese love for whales: the Jomon and Yayoi periods The Japanese have been closely tied to whales from ancient times. Whale meat eating goes back a remarkably long way. A great number of bones of cetaceans have been unearthed from various areas including graves and shell mounds of the Jomon period, about 8,000 to 9,000 years ago. “Shell mounds” suggests at least that people in the Jomon period were collecting shell fish as food, which is nowhere near the fact. Subsequently, whale meat was selected as food since, more than anything, whale meat is delicious, which I would like to point out here. Once you eat whale meat, its good taste remains with you, making you want to eat it again. In addition, one whale can feed hundreds or even thousands of people at a time. Furthermore, the bones can be processed into tools and, moreover, bones, teeth, fins and baleen can all be used. Stoneware unearthed from Tsugumenohana Site, Nagasaki Prefecture (Source: Tsugumenohana Iseki no Gaiyo (Overview of Tsugumenohana Site), Shobayashi M. and Baba , Bulletin of the Nagasaki Archaeological Society Vol. 2) 1 Whale’s intervertebral disk used as a workbench for pottery (Unearthed from Saga Site / Tsushima City, Nagasaki Prefecture) The flesh of whales contains large amounts of excellent protein and, considering the dietary habits in those days, eating whale meat could have been dramatically vitalizing. That is why, for ages, the Japanese have been tied to whales. From the shell mound of the Tsugumenohana Site in Hirado City, Nagasaki Prefecture, which has been dated to between the early and the middle phases of the Jomon period, the skeletal remains of many whales, dolphins and sharks have been unearthed.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of SCIENTIFIC WHALING in the ANTARCTIC Analysis of the Responses of the International Whaling Commission and Japan to the ICJ Judgment on Whaling
    THE FUTURE OF SCIENTIFIC WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC Analysis of the responses of the International Whaling Commission and Japan to the ICJ judgment on whaling By Iris van Gerwen Thesis submitted to Tilburg University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts: Liberal Arts and Sciences, Major Law in Europe July 2017 Thesis Supervisor: prof. C.J. Bastmeijer 1 Abstract Over the years, whaling has been looked at from different viewpoints and today, this is still the case. Some countries consider whales to be natural marine resources; others believe them to be inherited from past generations and that it is our duty to protect them for the future. In this thesis, the aftermath of the 2014 “Whaling in the Antarctic” judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will be discussed. The thesis aims to find the answer to the following main research question: “What have been the responses to the “Whaling in the Antarctic, Australia v Japan (New Zealand intervening)” case in respect to (scientific) whaling, both from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and from Japan with regards to its other scientific research programmes?”. Making use of the ICJ Judgment of the case, IWC documents, and other academic sources this question will be discussed, using JARPA II and NEWREP-A, the two latest Japanese scientific whaling programmes, as examples. The conclusion is that within the system of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, not much has changed in the years following the landmark “Whaling in the Antarctic” case. In contrast, Japan has taken the judgment into account by Japan when developing NEWREP-A.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture, Politcs and Japanese Whaling Perspectives of Japanese Youth
    Culture, Politics & Japanese Whaling Perspectives of Japanese youth & what these might portend for the future By T. Julia Bowett BSc. MSc. University of Tasmania Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania (June 2011). This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Signed Tanya Julia Bowett BSc. MSc. Date 7th June 2011 ii Declaration This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any tertiary institution, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis. Signed Tanya Julia Bowett BSc. MSc. Date 7th June 2011 iii Abstract The contemporary whaling debate is one of the most complex and intractable issues of international environmental politics. The debate is multi-dimensional, with a large diversity of anthropological and ecological facets, and involves a myriad of international governments, environmental actors, and environmental non- governmental organisations. In recent years, the schism between anti- and pro- whaling actors has expanded, resulting in a great deal of political unrest, international distrust, and controversy over social rights. Japan is currently the world’s third largest economy, with a large presence and responsibility in international development and environmental matters. It is also the most prominent whaling country in the world. This research examined the attitudes of young Japanese people on issues related to whaling (an area of research that is conspicuously lacking), in a bid to generate greater knowledge and understanding of the suite of issues crucial to the resolution of the whaling controversy.
    [Show full text]
  • Artisanal Whaling in the Atlantic: a Comparative Study of Culture, Conflict, and Conservation in St
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2010 Artisanal whaling in the Atlantic: a comparative study of culture, conflict, and conservation in St. Vincent and the Faroe Islands Russell Fielding Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Fielding, Russell, "Artisanal whaling in the Atlantic: a comparative study of culture, conflict, and conservation in St. Vincent and the Faroe Islands" (2010). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 368. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/368 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. ARTISANAL WHALING IN THE ATLANTIC: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CULTURE, CONFLICT, AND CONSERVATION IN ST. VINCENT AND THE FAROE ISLANDS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Geography and Anthropology Russell Fielding B.S., University of Florida, 2000 M.A., University of Montana, 2005 December, 2010 Dedicated to my mother, who first took me to the sea and taught me to explore. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation has benefitted from the assistance, advice, inspiration, and effort of many people. Kent Mathewson, my advisor and major professor, provided the kind of leadership and direction under which I work best, offering guidance when necessary and allowing me to chart my own course when I was able.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle Over Scientific Whaling: a New Proposal to Stop Japan’S Lethal Research and Reform the International Whaling Commission
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 41 Issue 2 Article 5 February 2017 The Battle Over Scientific Whaling: A New Proposal to Stop Japan’s Lethal Research and Reform the International Whaling Commission Laura Hoey Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Repository Citation Laura Hoey, The Battle Over Scientific Whaling: A New Proposal to Stop Japan’s Lethal Research and Reform the International Whaling Commission, 41 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 435 (2017), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol41/iss2/5 Copyright c 2017 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr THE BATTLE OVER SCIENTIFIC WHALING: A NEW PROPOSAL TO STOP JAPAN’S LETHAL RESEARCH AND REFORM THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION LAURA HOEY* Hugest of living creatures, in the deep Stretched like a promontory sleeps or swims, And seems a moving land; and at his gills Draws in, and at his breath spouts out a sea. –John Milton, Paradise Lost† INTRODUCTION The whale had been harpooned at 10.15 in the morning. Apparently the master already realized that they had an unusually wary and resourceful whale on their harpoon. Normally these whalers harpoon, chase, lance and kill their whales in about an hour and 20 minutes. Already this whale had succeeded in avoiding the fatal lancing from the canoa for two hours . 13.12 — . And so the hunt goes, hour upon hour, the brave bull whale, through the day lanced again and again, dives and eludes, dragging the whalers after him.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions on Whaling September 2019
    Frequently Asked Questions on Whaling September 2019 Sustainable use of marine living resources What is Japan’s position on sustainable use of marine living resources? Japan takes the position that marine living resources should be utilized in a sustainable manner under science-based management. What is Japan doing for the conservation of marine environment? Japan is making efforts to address the issues concerning the marine environment with a holistic approach. For example, on the issue of marine plastic litter, which is negatively affecting marine ecosystems including cetaceans, Japan is tackling the issue in collaboration with other countries. At the G20 Osaka Summit, Japan shared the “Osaka Blue Ocean Vision” with the Leaders, which aims to reduce additional pollution caused by marine plastic litter to zero by 2050. To realize the vision, Japan will support developing countries’ efforts including by extending assistance to their capacity building and infrastructure development in the area of waste management. Japan has already committed to provide training for 10,000 officials engaging in waste management all over the world by 2025. For details, please see the link below. （https://www.mofa.go.jp/ic/ge/page25e-000309.html） 1 International Whaling Commission (IWC) Wasn’t whaling outlawed by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946? No. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is an international agreement to ensure proper management of whaling. It articulates that it aims not only to “provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks” but also to “thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”, and this language remains effective.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Whaling Today a “The Whaling Industry, Like Any Other Industry, Has to Obey the Market
    A summary report produced by WWF and WDCS based on a study by Economics for the Environment Consultancy (eftec) Sink or Swim The Economics of Whaling Today A “The whaling industry, like any other industry, has to obey the market. If there is no profitability, there is no foundation for resuming with the killing of whales.” Einar K. Guðfinsson, former Minister of Fisheries, Iceland, 2007 BackgROUND hales have been hunted commercially the guise of scientific whaling, using a loophole for centuries. Historically, the main demand in the ICRW. Norway also continued commercial Wwas for oil made from their blubber, whaling registering an official objection to the which was used for fuel. In 1946, the International moratorium. Iceland has engaged in both scientific Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and commercial whaling since 2003. Indeed, since (ICRW) was signed, subsequently establishing 1986 more than 31,000 whales have been the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to killed for commercial purposes. regulate whaling and conserve whale stocks. Whilst anecdotal information has suggested The IWC started out essentially as a whalers’ that commercial (including scientific) whaling club, with only 15 members, all of which were operations would not be economically viable whaling nations. It had no provisions to detect were it not for significant government subsidies, and punish over-hunting and it paid scant no comprehensive economic analysis of whaling attention to the sustainability of whaling. The in these countries currently exists. To help fill results were disastrous for whales. Some species, this gap, and further inform the global debate such as blue and right whales, were hunted to about commercial whaling, WWF and WDCS near extinction; reduced to less than 5 per cent commissioned an independent economist to of their original population abundance.
    [Show full text]