Following is a media release from The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) responding to calls made today in both New Zealand and Australia for legal action to be taken against its research program in the Antarctic.
This issue was raised in comments following an earlier blog post, click here.
Media release
… ICR Director General Dr. Hiroshi Hatanaka said today: “Our research is perfectly legal in every aspect referred to by anti-whaling opponents and scientifically necessary to ensure the best decisions can be made for sustainable resource management.”
The ICR research is conducted under a special permit issued by Japanese Government based on its right under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which reads that:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government [including Japan] may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention.”
“The fact that Article VIII begins and ends by categorically stating absolutely nothing in the ICRW or its Schedule affects research carried out under this provision. This means that the current moratorium on commercial whaling, which in our view expired in 1990, and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary provide no legal basis on which to stop this research.”
Dr. Hatanaka added that while Japan’s Antarctic research was perfectly legal, the data obtained would ensure the proper management of whale resources under a future commercial whaling regime.
“While we have one eye on the law, the other is on the need to ensure that whale stocks are utilized sustainably for future generations and our research will help us achieve that.”
He added that Japan was also meeting its obligations under the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. “The Antarctic Treaty does not apply to the research activities conducted on the high seas.”
Some media coverage in Australia alleges that Japan is conducting its research in an area called the “Australian Antarctic Sanctuary”. “Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty freezes all claims to the Antarctic. Japan, like most other nations in the world, does not recognize Australia’s territorial claim: the Antarctic is for everyone,” Dr. Hatanaka said.
Furthermore, Article VI of the Antarctic Treaty says: ” …nothing in the present Treaty shall prejudice or in any way affect the rights, or the exercise of the rights, of any State under international law with regard to the high seas within that area.”
“The ‘rights’ of any State under international law with regard to the high seas include freedom of fishing,” Dr. Hatanaka said.
Finally, Dr. Hatanaka said that the necessary permits had been duly provided by the Japanese Government under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and that nothing in the CITES is violated.
“The legality of Japan’s research in the Antarctic has been discussed ad infinitum at the IWC and other fora. The legal basis is very clear; the environmental basis is even clearer: the marine resources in the Southern Ocean must be utilized in a sustainable manner in order to protect and conserve them for future generations,” Dr. Hatanaka said.
End of media release.
I would be keen to post the alternative(s) legal views with respect to whaling in the Antarctic at this blog. Email me at jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Now is your big chance to make amends Phil, your alternative legal opinion.
Wow – their legal opinion is it. I’m shocked that’s their opinion. I would have thought they would have simply said “Gee in that case then we give up – you got us fair and square”. Imagine defending their position? Would have thought they’d give in.
See you in court !
Anyway all their data are wrong as they’re affected by undersea volcanoes which produce heat island effects in the ocean. I read it on a blog.
It would seem, Phil, that you have exercised a classic “leaving the field” strategy to enable you to conserve your prejudices in the face of an absolute rebuttal.
If you deny any recognition of data on whaling then the reasonable men and women reading this blog would have no alternative but to conclude that your purpose here is purely political, but with a convenient veneer of science to fool the gullible.
Rest assured, if Greenfarce or any other green group seriously believed they could make a case in court that this research was illegal then they would certainly have been there already.
Phil, or Phil Inc, has amply demonstrated how the green (bowel?) movement regard “truth” as little more than an assemblage of convenient factoids that one selects from a drop down menue.
No I’m just using the EXACT same logic you guys use with climate research ? What’s wrong with being sceptical about data from spivs on big yen salaries – you guys quote this all the time in other areas. You’re only picking what suits you when it suits you.
Do “reasonable” men and women read this blog ? hmmmm .. ..
Jeez – bit toey today Ian – did your eco-vandalism clear felling trip go poorly? Just when I thought we might be friends to – you turn on me like this.
I’m not paranoid but sometimes I think yourself, Rog and Louis are all against me.
Call me intuitive but I can sense it.
Ender – help – they’re ganging up on me again.
As I thought, when the flag drops the b/s stops.
The Jennifer & IPA supporters here have claimed several times that the IWC is a worthless body, of no relevance. eg, to quote Ian: “The IWC is a self selected, unrepresentative body …” and rog: the IWC is “Another one of Phil Dones tea parties. With bouncing balls.”
IF your position is that the IWC is irrelevant and not legitimate, then clearly you believe that its convention does NOT lend legitimate legal support to Japan’s whaling activities. Try to maintain some consistency.
IF however, you now recognise the IWC, then you will acknowledge that the IWC has voted against special permit whaling, and it has expressed its disagreement that Japan needs to kill whales to do basic research, and that Japan whales in protected waters.
ICR has selectively presented an isolated clause while conveniently ignoring the other schedules and resolutions against special permit whaling, non-lethal research, against taking whales other than minke whales in those southern waters, and against whaling in a sanctuary.
Further, this Press Release does not excuse the ICR because is not performing scientific research, it is whaling for commercial purposes: the money multiplier effect means that the retail value of the whale meat is good for its economy and wealthy businessmen like it. Let’s not pretend that taking a few measurements before slicing and chilling the whale is justified lethal scientific research. The majority of the world’s whale biologists have declared that lethal research is unwarranted.
Even John Howard said “Our views on Japanese whaling are well known. We don’t agree with it. We think the scientific justification lacks substance and we are very critical.”
The IWC passed the following resolutions against Japan’s request for permits for research whaling (JARPA):
“the IWC has generally expressed its opinion that Special Permit whaling should be terminated and scientific research limited to non-lethal methods only; refrain from involving the killing of cetaceans in sanctuaries; ensure that the recovery of populations is not impeded (1987); and take account of the comments of the Scientific Committee (1987).
no additional Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) programs be considered until the Scientific Committee has completed an in-depth review of the results of JARPA;
STRONGLY URGES the Government of Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or to revise it so that any information needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposal is obtained using non-lethal means.
The IWC also states that some of the species Japan is targeting are vulnerable (local genetically distinct populations or total numbers of species) or the numbers are unknown.”
O yea – See you in court.. ..
Incidentally Rog and Ian, speaking or bowel movements and baleen/s, a cetacean researcher tells me you can analyse what whales eat from whale poop. How do catch whale doo-doos – very carefully.
They tried the method on right wingers too but found the sample material contained only billy-goat and old horses.
The fact is, the Southern Whale Sanctuary is recognized in multiple legal documents accepted by the overwhelming majority of nations in the civilized world (evidenced by the fact, that while the “antarctic is for everyone”, ONLY Japan whales there).
The fact that Japan refuses to recognize a territorial claim is simply a conflict of jurisdiction. The Whale Sanctuary itself is recognized by the UN LOS and the IWC. If the “science” is deemed noncredible, which it has by the officiating body (the IWC) then the legality is not in question – it is ILLEGAL – and thus, any actions taken under the UN LOS – which would include firing upon, boarding, scuttling or sinking the Japanese whaling fleet – are completely and inherently legal.
There seems to be a bit of ranting going on here. Maybe I can help, especially to “Think before you Rant”. As someone who has attended the last five IWC meetings, I can say yes, the IWC has passed a number of non-binding resolutions to ask Japan to stop its research. This has been led by, believe it or not, Australia and New Zealand. In fact, these non-binding resolutions are passed each year, just as the same non-binding resolutions are passed each year asking the IWC to provide a minke quota to Japan’s Small Type Coastal Whalers and end the “economic, social and cultural impact the moratorium has on Japan’s four traditional whaling communities”. The common theme being, all non-binding resolutions are just that, non-binding and often ignored by both sides.
Just quickly, the Japanese programme includes monitoring the Antarctic ecosystem and modelling competition among whale species. For example, since fin whales are increasing in number and have a large biomass their role in the ecosystem related to prey consumption and interspecies competition among whales for a single prey (krill) is important. That is why fin whales are being studied.
Whales, like fish, are studied by killing them. Yes, you can obtain a certain amount of information through non-lethal studies, but you can gain a lot more through lethal studies, and in a shorter period.
So let me pose a question: how do you propose to manage a species to ensure that when commercial whaling resumes it does so in a sustainable way?
Mr. Inwood, your argument is disingenous on the very reason on which are your argument is based.
Japan’s “research” program is useless for the precisely the reason you defend it – to gather information on how to properly manage a commercial whaling program?
Understand sir – THERE WILL NEVER BE A RESUMPTION OF COMMERCIAL WHALING.
NEVER.
The world has learned its lesson, even if the Japanese have not.
The world has established its common moral conscience, even if Japan has not.
The world is against commercial whaling for the simple reasons that it is immoral, inhumane and disgusting to the conscience of man- even if Japan and its paid for mouthpieces and allies lack such a conscience themselves.
Japan has proven, time and again, that it has no respect for the oceans, no respect for wildlife and no respect for the common morality of great nations – a community to which it aspires.
Japan seeks a seat on the UN Security Council – a seat that with one exception, every other member opposes in some form.
It is precisely for these reasons that Japan will, time, abandon its barbaric defense of a heritage that has brought us nothing more than Pearl harbor, the Rape of nanking and quite thankfully Fat Man and Little Boy.
They want to play with the civilized nations of the world.
And until they can prove in matters of trade, the environment, labor practice, wildlife management, and foreign affairs that they are, in fact, civilized and have, in fact embraced that common morality, they will remain on the outskirts of the world opinion.
Mr. Inwood, I do have one other question for you…
…what national, cultural or ethnic interest does Japan have in the management of a waterworld not its own?
Do you think japan would dare undertake such a “scientific” study in American waters? Or British?
What interest do they possibly have in establishing the viability of an ecosystem that is not theirs to harvest?
Sorry, Phil, I am trying very hard to be your friend but you keep misrepresenting the situation. I have never dismissed GH data out of hand like you did with whale data. When presented with the Vostock Ice Core data I did not dismiss it out of hand, but rather, had issues with the interpretation of that data. In particular, I noted that temperatures had risen for centuries or more prior to increased CO2 levels and concluded that this lag was inconsistent with CO2 being a causal agent of temperature change.
The simple fact of the matter is that, short of whales consenting to full medical examinations (surely not too problematic for such supposed sentient beings?), or being fitted with some sort of collostomy bag in the high seas of the roaring forties, nothing will give a clearer picture of the state of whale populations than examination of stomach contents and full autopsy.
It is your right to disapprove of the method of collecting the data but your dismissal of any data from that source betrays a purely political intent, not a scientific one.
Mate.
“Mate !” – you social climber you.
(very very quick sidebar on the CO2 – the CO2 rises and warms after an orbital nudge kicks it off – you’ve been told).
Ian – pity we don’t have facial expressions in blogs – I am taking the mickey out of you guys. Not you in particular but the blog has a habit of questioning any speck of data associated with AGW. Call for a Royal Commission every time. Come on volcanoes and whales – attempt at humour Ian. OK – not funny .. .. hmmm
Pity you haven’t seen how I’m reasonably (but unreasonably to you) using the same logical argument approach in reverse this time.
OK seriously – I think we have right to question the data of an organisation with such a vested interest in the outcome. Any independent data ??Do we have independent observors on board. Why do they need take so many – can’t we know what they eat by now – do we have to do the same research over and over. That’s what we’d tell our beef research guys.
And if it is purely for research – why package it and have it for sale.
Why don’t they just fess up and tell it like it is. They simply want to eat whales.
And it ain’t roaring forties every day either.
I have no political intent. I am speaking as an independently minded citizen as I do on all posts here.
I totally admit to have personal feelings on this issue as my last post on Jen’s latest shows. And the issue is an examination of values.
What we haven’t seen yet on this blog is a reasonably agreed assessment of the status of the world’s whale species. Numbers, those endangered etc.
Still the core issue is avoided, how one’s legitimate and lawful activities can be varied or restricted or stopped by unelected and representative mob rule. Japan has a legal right to conduct its activities and Greenpeace has no right to stop Japan from conducting those activities. Greenpeace and its supporters are in fact unprincipled.
As for the much quoted “marine expert”, it seems he was taken out of context as can be seen here
“I also did not say that the MARU rammed SUNRISE; you will notice that I specify that SUNRISE did the actual ramming i.e. contact of prow into hull. What I DID SAY was that IF the MARU skipper wanted to create an incident he COULD have done so by executing a 360 degree turn under the right conditions.”
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001108.html
Oh boring – go and lodge a court claim then.
Snore.. ..
Glen Inwood’s post above is employing bog standard PR tactics:
“fin whales are being studied”. No they’re being killed for food. The majority of scientists and nations are able to study populations for ecosystems purposes without resorting to lethal “means. If Japan is honestly whaling for research, then why does it slice and then refrigerate the carcass for commercial use? Surely better to avoid all this unpleasantness and its potentially negative economic consequences by retaining the stomach contents, if necessary, and returning the rest to sea? After all, factory ships are expensive to run (& generally frowned upon).
“Whales, like fish…” Whales are not fish. It is a PR attempt to frame the issue in a more favourable light by repeatedly drawing parallels between the offensive target and a different but widely accepted practice -> an attempt to manipulate readers into forming associations that diminish the offence in their minds.
“you can gain a lot more through lethal studies, and in a shorter period”. Then advise your Japanese client to demonstrate that the whaling is for research purposes. It’s easy to do. They can avoid all this unpleasantness by gettig the information they need and then dropping the carcass back into the ocean. It would dramatically reduce the high costs of their whaling expeditions. As their strategic PR advisor you’re not advising them to do this then you’re remiss in your duties. ‘But they need to recoup the costs of their research efforts’ you will no doubt say. If they didnt store the carcasses for food, they could just run 1 or 2 smaller whaling vessels at a much lower cost. They run the current expensive setup because they’re whaling for food, not research.
“how do you propose to manage a species to ensure that when commercial whaling resumes it does so in a sustainable way?”
Um, **when** commercial whaling resumes? = another PR ploy to couch uncertain issues in certain terms. I propose ignoring PR agents and following good science instead: scientific consensus that’s grounded in years of dedicated research. The majority of world leading whale biologists (as you know but ignore) have not yet advised that whale stocks have generally recovered to levels that can be sustainably whaled for commercial purposes AND that locally distinct populations of whales are important to the ongoing survival of their species and therefore must not be depleted.