Hang up the harpoons

Few environmental conflicts are as fraught and intractable as whaling.

Under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, commercial whaling has been illegal since 1986. But the agreement contains a loophole that has guaranteed continuing controversy: Signatories can still kill whales for scientific research.

Since the ban took effect, Japan’s whaling industry has continued to kill hundreds of whales a year, insisting that the annual hunt is necessary for research purposes. The meat of whales taken in the name of science can be sold legally, and it is in Japan.

But Australia is now challenging Japan’s claim of scientific whaling in the International Court of Justice, alleging that it is simply a cover for the continuation of commercial whaling. The court is unlikely to rule on the issue for several months, but already Japan is preparing for a potential loss by threatening to leave the International Whaling Commission and, in effect, to become an “outlaw” whaling nation.

The battle over whaling has pitted a handful of countries that remain committed to it-primarily Japan and to a lesser extent Norway and Iceland-against dozens of anti-whaling nations and a tidal wave of global public opinion.

Regardless of what one thinks about the ethics of whaling, its continuation makes no sense from an economic, political, ecological or cultural perspective.

Economically, the industry survives only through heavy government subsidies. Industrial whaling in Japan is largely a post-World War II phenomenon, so claims that it is part of a deep cultural tradition are baseless. Few livelihoods depend on whaling and nobody will go hungry because of a lack of whale meat. In fact, demand for whale meat is at an all-time low.

In Japan, the whaling industry employs fewer than 1,000 people, and those jobs are completely dependent on public handouts. Whale watching, on the other hand, annually generates more than $20 million in Japan, as well as being a multibillion-dollar growth industry around the world.

Politically, whaling causes nothing but ill will and tarnishes Japan’s image. Ecologically, whaling is unjustifiable. Most whale species are not even close to recovering from the massive population crash caused by commercial whaling. From a conservation perspective, it is very unwise to harvest a large mammal that reproduces very slowly.

Fin whales-the second-largest animal ever to live on Earth and a species that Icelandic whalers continue to hunt-gestate for 11 months and give birth to just one offspring every three years. Moreover, scientific studies demonstrate that whales play an important role in ocean ecology. By feeding on deep-water plankton and excreting at the surface, they help prime the biological pump that ensures the continual recycling of nutrients throughout the oceans’ depths.

Regardless of what the International Court of Justice rules, the few remaining whaling nations should cut their losses-and whaling subsidies-and take advantage of the benefits that come from membership in the nonwhaling community. Their hearts might not be in it, but they’d stand to gain far more than they would lose.

-

———◊-

———

Frank Zelko is an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of Vermont.

Editorial, Pages 16 on 07/26/2013

Upcoming Events