Scientific whaling' decision - experts respond
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has voted in favour of a resolution restricting Japan's 'scientific whaling' program, but a representative of the country says they will proceed anyway.
At a four day meeting in Slovenia, the commission voted in favour of a resolution put forward by New Zealand to impose limits on future scientific whaling permits, requiring non-lethal alternatives to be considered for any approved scientific research on whales.
Previously Australia, with the support of New Zealand, took Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), claiming their whaling program was not scientific and therefore illegal. In March, the ICJ ruled that the program was not scientific. These rulings were submitted alongside the resolution to the IWC.
The Science Media Centre has gathered the following expert comments in reaction to the International Whaling Commission's decision.
Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. If you would like to follow up with these or other New Zealand experts, please don't hesitate to contact us on (04) 499 5476 or by email.
Dr Rochelle Constantine, Director, Joint Graduate School in Coastal and Marine Science, University of Auckland, comments:
"It is disappointing but not surprising that Japan has announced its intention to resume lethal whale research activities in the Southern Ocean and to not agree with a proposal to evaluate their research programme by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) scientific committee.
"Whilst the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling was clear about the short-comings of the JARPAII research programme, the Japanese government has chosen to interpret the ICJ findings in a different way.
"Japanese whale scientists have yet to provide any compelling evidence that we need to kill whales to answer questions about, amongst other things, whale stock structure, diet, age, reproductive biology and role in ecosystem functioning.
"Collaborative research carried out largely by scientists as part of the Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP, consisting of 10 IWC member nations including New Zealand) has clearly shown that you can answer all these questions using non-lethal methods such as telemetry, tissue biopsies, acoustics, photo-identification and laboratory analyses of these samples. Scientists working on SORP research projects have strongly encouraged Japan to use non-lethal methods.
"The recent failure of IWC members to reach consensus on the New Zealand resolution for the IWC scientific committee to evaluate Japan's future Southern Ocean whale research is a further blow to the promotion of non-lethal research. We await with some interest Japan's proposed 2014-2015 lethal whale research that we know will result in the needless deaths of whales under a thin disguise of research."
Joanna Mossop, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, Victoria University of Wellington comments:
"In March this year, the International Court of Justice found that Japan was not acting consistently with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling when it caught whales under its special permit scheme for scientific research. The Court found that a range of features of the Japanese programme (known as JARPA II) cast doubt on whether the programme was reasonable in light of its objectives. These include the scale of the lethal harvesting and problems with the design and implementation of the scientific research. Therefore, JARPA II did not meet the requirements of Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
"It is important to note what the Court did not do. It did not find that lethal catches of whales in pursuance of scientific research was prohibited. It did not prevent Japan from revising its scientific programme in the future to ensure that the design of the programme was more consistent with its objectives. Although Japan indicated that it would halt its Southern Ocean whaling programme for a year to respond to the Court's criticisms, it made it clear that it was still committed to whaling under the scientific permit exception in the future.
"Although the majority of the International Whaling Commission have voted for a resolution which requires states to submit their plans for scientific permit whaling to the Scientific Committee of the IWC and to wait for the IWC to respond to the Scientific Committee report, this is not binding on Japan. Resolutions cannot bind members of the IWC - they are hortatory only. Japan has stated that it does not agree that the measures in the Resolutions are consistent with the ICJ decision and will not comply with it. This is within their rights under the IWC rules.
"If Australia and New Zealand believe that the redesigned Japanese scientific whaling programme does not meet the requirements of the ICJ decision, it might be necessary to seek another opinion from the ICJ. Depending on how the Japanese programme is designed, it is possible that the Court would find in favour of Japan next time. However, the ICJ will be reluctant to play an ongoing role in mediating between the whaling and non-whaling interests in the IWC."