EVERY year the members of the International Whaling Commission get together
for a showdown to decide the fate of the world鈥檚 largest mammal. And every year
the script gets more predictable
(see 鈥淪eeking sanctuary鈥�).
Pro-whaling nations press for a
resumption of commercial whaling. Their opponents cry 鈥渟hame鈥�. Both sides
ritually block each other鈥檚 proposals. The 鈥済ood guys鈥� harrumph over Japan鈥檚
vetoing of a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific. Japan, the pantomime villain
of the piece, fumes at the West, accusing it of sentimentalism in the face of
evidence that whale populations are thriving. Then everyone settles their
mini-bar bill and life for the planet鈥檚 whales goes on as before.
But not this time. The whole fragile treaty on whaling is now hanging by a
thread. The Japanese say they鈥檒l continue to exploit a loophole that lets them
catch鈥攁nd eat鈥攕everal hundred whales a year under the guise of
鈥渟cientific鈥� research. Norway, another nation with twitchy harpoons, is set to
defy the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and sell whale meat
to Japan. Iceland, too, looks determined to restart commercial whaling on a
limited scale. And where these nations go, Russia鈥檚 whalers will surely
follow鈥攅specially if CITES decides to lift the ban on trade in minke whale
meat next year.
In short, the dam may be about to burst and the whaling commission is in a
state of terminal paralysis, its 16-year-long moratorium no longer able to keep
the whalers at bay. So what should governments do? Scrap the whaling commission
for starters. Its time is up and it seems incapable of being anything other than
a forum for bitter dispute between conservationists and whalers. A new body, the
UN perhaps, should take over the responsibility for protecting whales.
Advertisement
Its first job: to decide whether to keep the ban on hunting whales for
profit. Or whether to give Japan and its buddies what they want鈥攕trict
catch quotas and a legal trade in whale meat. The arguments on both sides are
finely balanced and clouded by hypocrisy.
Let鈥檚 clear the air. Japan鈥檚 scientific whaling is nothing of the sort. Its
recent 鈥渟cientific鈥� revelations of the quantity of fish eaten by toothed whales
bear no serious scrutiny and are rich coming from a nation of inveterate fish
eaters. And as one Japanese official discovered last week, calling minkes the
鈥渃ockroaches of the ocean鈥� is no way to win friends.
But Japan is right when it accuses opponents of ramming their own cultural
values down its throat. Australians kill鈥攁nd increasingly
eat鈥攎illions of kangaroos every year, Americans shoot millions of wild
deer. The Japanese see a similar source of protein when they look at the whale.
Like it or not, that is their tradition. What鈥檚 more, it鈥檚 a tradition that
occupying American generals were only too happy to encourage when food was
scarce in Japan after the Second World War.
Of course, several species of whale are still in grave danger. But it鈥檚 a lie
to suggest that limited numbers of the comparatively common minke and sperm
whales could not be caught sustainably, at least in theory. The problem is
whether such whaling can be managed and policed.
Whale populations are notoriously difficult to estimate, and setting safe
annual catch quotas would be even more uncertain. Nor do we know what lifting
the trade ban on whale products would do to demand. Once whale meat was dirt
cheap in Japan. Now it is a rare gourmet item. But a mass market for the meat
might re-surface鈥攁nd prices fall鈥攊f the trade is officially
sanctioned and more shops and restaurants stock it. That would inevitably
encourage poaching and the killing of some rare whales. Placing monitors on
every boat would help, as would taking DNA fingerprints from every whale caught
so their meat can later be identified. But it would not curb all illicit
trade.
Not great. Unfortunately, the alternative looks even worse. To continue with
prohibition is to risk a free-for-all in which whaling nations kill as many of
the beasts as they like. Imperfect as they are, catch quotas and DNA
fingerprints may be a better bet, as some conservation groups are beginning to
recognise. Even the WWF says controlled culling may now be the lesser of two
evils. But persuading western governments of that is going to be tough. When the
Japanese look at a whale they see food. When westerners look at a whale they see
a mythical ocean creature that communicates with haunting sounds sold on CDs.
And as every politician knows you can鈥檛 challenge such a picture without risking
votes and popularity.