Episode 5 – Japan has left the IWC: Now what?

TRANSCRIPT

Musical interlude

 Lisa Campbell: Hello everyone, welcome to Seas the Day. A podcast from the Duke University Marine lab. I’m your host Lisa Campbell and today we bring you another episode in our Conservation and Development series. Like all episodes in this series, the show was written and produced by a group of students as a course project. In this case, the students Andie Kolarova, Emma Shanabrook, and Colyer Woolston faced an interesting challenge. None of them listened to podcasts, and I mean not at all. So, for example, when I ask students to name and describe podcasts they like and why they like them—something we do to help them think about content, style, and production value—this team had nothing. But they embraced the challenge and I’m pleased to bring you the results of their work. 

Lisa: Working in January 2019, Andie, Emma, and Colyer took on a timely news item—Japan’s withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission in December of 2018. Also known as the IWC, the International Whaling Commission is an international treaty originally set up to coordinate whaling activities among nations. Just a month after Japan’s withdrawal, Colyer, Emma, and Andrea focus their episode on what the withdrawal might mean for whales, whaling, and the Commission itself. 

Lisa: Listen for insights from our own Andy Read, currently Director of the Duke Marine Lab. Andy has considerable experience working within the IWC framework, having served as convener of the subcommittee on small cetaceans for the IWC Scientific Committee from 1999 to 2004.  I’ll turn it over to them now. 

Andrea Kolarvoa: Welcome to our podcast.  

All: My name is Andrea Kolarova. My name is Colyer Woolston, and I’m Emma Shanabrook.  

Andrea: And today we’ll be discussing the recent controversy surrounding Japan’s departure from the International Whaling Commission. On December 26 of 2018, Japan formally announced its withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission (or the IWC) to resume commercial whaling. This was a critical moment for the future of modern whaling conservation and has received much international attention. In this podcast, we will discuss the events leading up to this point and the possible implications of this decision. Our focus is on the competing arguments surrounding whaling and Japan’s involvement with the industry.  

Andrea: Throughout this podcast, we will be drawing in the voice of Dr. Andy Read, the Director of the Duke Marine Laboratory. Dr. Read is a leading scientist in the research of long-lived marine vertebrates, particularly marine mammals. Dr. Read’s expertise in small cetaceans and published research on small whales has led to his long-time involvement with the International Whaling Commission on the scientific council. 

Colyer Woolston: When Japan announced its intention to leave the IWC, the general sentiment from the international and environmental community can be summarized in this statement from Sam Annesley, the Executive Director of Greenpeace Japan: [quote] “The declaration today is out of step with the international community, let alone the protection needed to safeguard the future of our oceans and these majestic creatures. The government of Japan must urgently act to conserve marine ecosystems, rather than resume commercial whaling.” [end quote] (Victor, 2018). However, even within the international and environmental community, there is more than one perspective on this issue. Dr. Read, who also advocates for marine mammal protection, had a different interpretation of this recent development and instead sees the silver lining. In his interview, he expounded on the complicated political, cultural, and environmental contexts of Japan’s whaling industry and the IWC to better understand the competing arguments. 

Andrea: From our own research and our interview with Dr. Read, we have identified a dominant discourse as well as three alternative framings of this issue. The dominant discourse describes Japan’s desire and decision to resume commercial whaling as morally, ethically, and environmentally wrong. According to this view, Japan should adhere to the international whaling agreements and submit to the ‘global’ decision to end commercial whaling altogether.  

Colyer: We believed that there are alternative ways to reframe this issue — views that cast a less critical light. These “alternative” discourses provide additional explanatory power to what is moral, ethical, and right. Specifically, we investigated the different counter arguments to the dominant discourse by asking and answering the following three questions: 

Colyer: First, did Japan have cause for leaving the IWC? To answer this, we researched the history of the IWC and the changing geopolitics associated with this international organization. Second, due to the dramatically smaller area of Japan’s exclusive economic zone (hereto referred to the EEZ) compared to the hunting grounds it utilized under its special permit authorization (which included the Southern Ocean and Northwest Pacific), will Japan’s new commercial whaling efforts lead to significantly fewer whale captures? Here we analyze the differences between Japan’s “research” whaling and the proposed EEZ harvesting as a possibility of positive change. This includes the implications of focusing their efforts within their EEZ. Third, by resuming commercial whaling within Japan’s EEZ, is Japan regaining some of its lost cultural heritage? We considered arguments about the significance of whales to Japanese coastal culture. We also address differing global perspectives on the value of whales, the cultural history of harvesting and consuming whale meat in Japan, and the generational patterns in the interest in whale meat. 

Andrea: We understand that even within the reframing of the issue there may still be cause for concern for Japan’s actions. As such, we will also investigate the possible reasons why Japan’s departure from the IWC and its new commercial whaling program within its EEZ could have negative consequences for the conservation of whales. 

Andrea: A final note before we begin: whaling is not a static, simple, nor passive issue; people on either side of the argument are passionate beyond an “agree to disagree” mentality. This podcast episode will consider all angles to provide clarity on the many perspectives within this issue. 

Colyer: To begin, we will discuss the dominant discourse surrounding this issue; specifically, the prevailing views of the anti-whaling nations on the use of whales as a resource, their concern for Japan’s whaling practices, and their fears in light of Japan’s departure from the IWC. Japan, in its interest to conduct commercial whaling programs, has often been met with significant pushback and condemnation (Hirata, 2005; McCurry and Weaver, 2018). While this was in part due to the anti-whaling and environmentalist view of whaling as ‘immoral,’ this is largely a result of Japan’s special permit whaling (Black, 2007). Known as “scientific” whaling, this activity began in the Southern Ocean and North Pacific following the enactment of the temporary IWC moratorium on commercial whaling (Ishi and Okubo, 2007; Black, 2007).  

Andrea: Special permit whaling is permitted under Article 8 of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), providing governments with the right to kill whales for scientific purposes. It states [quote] “any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted” (IWC, Scientific Permits, N.D.) [end quote]. Japan used special permits to conduct whaling with the stated goal of studying whale ecology and biology in order to assess the viability of stocks for future commercial whaling (Katz, 2018). This has included data on whale longevity, sexual maturity, diet, health, and ecological role (Ackerman, 2002). Moreover, Japan asserts that this data can only be gathered through killing and processing the whales (Katz, 2018). Following the enactment of the moratorium, Japan had, as of 2006, harvested in excess of 9000 whales under its special permits (Papastavrou, 2006). With annual catch limits in 2005 of 380 whales in the North Pacific, as well as 935 minke whales and ten fin whales from the Southern Ocean (Papastavrou, 2006), the environmental and anti-whaling communities suspected that Japan’s special permit whaling programs were intentionally operating under the pretense of being “scientific” in nature, providing Japan with ethical and legal “cover” to conduct a commercial whaling program (Chappell, 2018; Morell, 2014). Dr. Read with more on this issue: 

Dr. Andy Read: The scientific permit catches are certainly legal under the convention, but they – Japan – used it as a loophole to maintain commercial harvest of whales. They also used it as a cudgel to try and get governments like Australia and New Zealand to change their position with respect to the moratorium, which was never successful because public opinion in Australia and New Zealand is uniformly opposed to commercial harvest of whales. 

Andrea: Additionally, Dr. Read provided his thoughts on Article 8 itself: 

Dr. Andy Read: It was a very loosely worded clause in the convention saying that, okay, if a country wanted to harvest whales for science — kill whales for science, not harvest whales — kill whales for science, that was fine and they could do whatever they wanted with the whale. Nobody ever imagined in 1946 that a country would do what Japan had done. So, I think that’s a good thing that the special permit catches are over. 

Colyer: With the special permit catches, Japan had the ability to process thousands of whale carcasses — the meat of which entered its markets (Sand, 2008). As a result of the large number of whales killed under these special permits, Japan was brought to the International Court of Justice in 2014 and ordered to terminate its scientific whaling program, the argument being that the scientific data collected from the thousands of harvested whales was not enough to justify the program (Chappell, 2018).  

Colyer: Japan’s recent announcement to commence commercial whaling within its EEZ has also prompted severe international scrutiny. The UK’s Environmental Secretary Michael Gove stated that he was “extremely disappointed” and that [quote] “The UK is strongly opposed to commercial whaling and will continue to fight for the protection and welfare of these majestic mammals” [end quote] (McCurry and Weaver, 2018). This statement echoes the general sentiment of anti-whaling nations. 

Andrea: Environmental organizations also criticize Japan’s views, particularly in respect to claims that whale stocks are stable and healthy.  Greenpeace for instance voiced a concern that, quote “most whale populations have not yet recovered, including larger whales such as blue whales, fin whales, and sei whales” [end quote] (McCurry and Weaver, 2018). These organizations argue that whale stocks everywhere are currently considerably threatened by additional compounding factors, including pollution and bycatch from fishing practices (McCurry and Weaver, 2018). Conservation organizations and anti-whaling countries alike believe that Japan’s views are outdated and not in equilibrium with contemporary views on whaling. This was reaffirmed at the IWC’s meeting in Florianopolis, Brazil in September of 2018, where shortly after voting down Japan’s motion to lift the temporary moratorium on whaling, the IWC passed a non-binding declaration, known as the “Florianopolis Declaration,” stating that [quote] “commercial whaling is no longer a necessary economic activity” [end quote] (Child, 2018). Three months later, Japan announced its decision to leave the IWC (Child, 2018). 

Colyer: Japan’s announcement to leave the IWC sparked new fears for the global conservation of whales and their management. For example, the NGOs, Whale and Dolphin Conservation and Humane Society International, both voiced concern that Japan’s departure from the IWC could instigate other countries, such as South Korea, to abandon the IWC (Chappell, 2018; McCurry and Weaver, 2018). This claim stemmed from South Korea’s current interest in the consumption of whale meat (McCurry and Weaver, 2018) as well as its decision to abstain from voting during Japan’s motion in September 2018 to repeal the temporary moratorium (Child, 2018). Additionally, Whale and Dolphin Conservation and Humane Society International expressed apprehension regarding the IWC’s loss of oversight over Japan’s new commercial whaling program in its EEZ, particularly regarding the threatened population of Japan’s coastal minke whales (McCurry and Weaver, 2018; Chappell, 2018).  

Andrea: To summarize, the prevailing view — this dominant global discourse — argues that killing and consuming whales is immoral, and the “scientific” whaling conducted by Japan is a disguised form of commercial whaling that supplies whale meat to the Japanese markets. This has condemned Japan in the public eye. Additionally, there is concern about the loss of oversight from the IWC with Japan’s exit, coupled with fear of other similarly-aligning nations making the same exodus. Finally, there is an environmental concern about the status of whale populations targeted by Japan’s new interest in commercial whaling. But despite the pessimistic outlooks on the dominant discourse, we believe there is more to this story than simply this perspective. 

Andrea: To begin to address the alternative discourses associated with this situation, we first ask and seek to answer this question: Did Japan have cause for leaving the IWC? 

Andrea: So, we’ll start with a short history of the IWC and Japan’s involvement with  the organization. When the IWC was established in 1948 to serve as the governing body to oversee the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the mandate of the ICRW was [quote] “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whale industry” [end quote] (Hirata, 2005). This was still the expressed mission of the ICRW when Japan joined the IWC in 1951 (Hirata, 2005). However, over time, as more countries joined the IWC, the number of anti-whaling and non-whaling nations increasingly outweighed the pro-whaling nations and as a result the majority began to reflect anti-whaling values (Hirata, 2005). This led to a change in attitude at the IWC, reflecting an interest in the protection of whales rather than their value as a harvestable resource (Hirata, 2005). As Dr. Read explains here, this was in part due to the language of the convention: 

Dr. Andy Read: If you go back to the preamble of the convention, the language in the text of the convention to something like “the IWC should promote the conservation of whales, conservation of whale stocks,” sorry, and to a little clause later, “to promote the orderly development of the whaling industry.” Even the language there in the preamble is conflictual. Countries like Japan say we want to conserve whales so we can harvest them rationally. Countries like New Zealand and Australia say we just want to conserve, conservation is there and is separate.  

Colyer: However, it was also a result of pressure from influential anti-whaling nations and conservation groups, which encouraged countries to join in support of their animal rights cause to end commercial whaling (Day, 1987). This eventually led to the institution of a temporary moratorium. Here’s Dr. Read with more on this:  

Dr. Andy Read: Because of the arcane rules of the IWC, it took a while until from 1972 to 1985 until enough countries had joined the IWC who are against whaling so they get the three-quarters majority that they would need to put the moratorium in place. It pissed Japan off, right. So all these countries who are not whaling: Monaco, Aman, Switzerland, countries that had no — landlocked countries that had no history of whaling joined the IWC, joined up to save the whales… Japan basically worked for ten years under the good faith assumption that it was going to be a short term thing and then they would be able to go back under some new regime and harvest whales commercially again. Became clear that it would never happen. 

Colyer: So despite continuous lobbying from Japan for its right to whale and for the IWC to hold to its original mission, the IWC began to restrict whaling in the 1970s (Hirata, 2005). In 1982, the IWC established a temporary moratorium on commercial whaling to which Japan, Norway, and the Soviet Union filed objections pursuant to Article 5.3 of the ICRW. This states that “if a member lodges an objection to an IWC decision within a certain period of time, it is not bound by the decision” (Hirata, 2005). This legally exempted these countries from the moratorium (Hirata, 2005). The Japanese Government expressed three reasons for why it objected to the moratorium: first, to the Japanese people, whale meat was a primary source of food; second, all endangered species of whale had already received protection from the IWC; and third, the moratorium was not founded on sound science (Ishi and Okubo, 2007). 

Andrea: Thus, returning to the question of whether Japan had cause to leave the IWC, it is worth considering whether Japan was pushed out by the U.S. and the other anti-whaling nations of the IWC and whether Japan had been treated fairly, particularly in the case of its fishing rights within the U.S. EEZ. Despite the U.S.-Japan agreement regarding the moratorium, the U.S. terminated Japanese fishing quotas within its EEZ over the period of 1985 to 1988 (Black, 2007). This came as a result of pressure from fishermen and NGOs to protect their waters and jobs from the threat of foreign fleets and for reasons of concern regarding the bycatch of marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds (Ishi and Okubo, 2007; Black, 2007). The Japanese government and fishing industry felt they had been cheated by the U.S. (Black, 2007). As a likely result of this “bad faith,” the Japanese commenced their special permit scientific whaling program shortly after the termination of their own right to fish within U.S. waters (Ishi and Okubo, 2007; Black, 2007).  

Colyer: As further insult to injury, it became clear that the temporary moratorium on commercial whaling established by the IWC was becoming an indefinite action due to the support from the anti-whaling nations (Hirata, 2005). In reaction to this, a Japanese former Defense Minister, Itsunori Onodera, described the IWC as [quote] “[becoming] a dysfunctional organization” [end quote]. Others in the Japanese government argued that the IWC had lost track of its original mission, which was to manage whale stocks for sustainable use, not protect them (McMurray and Weaver, The Guardian, 2018). Ultimately, with unrelenting pushback from the IWC and U.S. on its requests to be allowed to whale commercially, and shortly following the “Florianopolis Declaration” in September 2018—the veritable nail in the coffin that confirmed the anti-whaling nations’ views towards a permanent moratorium on commercial whaling—Japan left the IWC (Child, 2018). 

Andrea: Perhaps, other more diplomatic actions could have been taken to attempt to keep Japan in the fold. However, with the dominant sentiment of the IWC becoming increasingly anti-whaling — counter to Japan’s interests — Japan’s continual membership in the organization may simply have not been feasible.  

Colyer: Now we move on to our discussion of alternative discourse II. A second critical question we pose to more fully understand the impacts of Japan’s action to resume commercial whaling is the following: due to the dramatically smaller area of Japan’s EEZ compared to the Southern Ocean and Northwest Pacific, is it possible that Japan will now catch fewer whales? To answer this, there are several considerations that must first be investigated. 

Colyer: As mentioned before, Japan harvested 380 whales in the North Pacific as well as 945 whales from the Southern Ocean in 2005 (Papastavrou, 2006). If Japan were to fish exclusively within its EEZ, it is likely that Japan would harvest fewer whales than it did previously due to the much smaller geographic area in order to sustainably manage the stock. A commitment to a sustainable harvest within its EEZ is reiterated in a press statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga stating that [quote] “whaling will be conducted in accordance with international law and within the catch limits calculated in accordance with the method adopted by the IWC to avoid negative impact on cetacean resources” [end quote] (Sieg, 2018). Dr. Read echoed a similar sentiment, but with reservations: 

Dr. Andy Read: My suspicion is that they will be pretty good global citizens by abiding by IWC guidelines and regulations even though they’re not member states. That would be what I would expect that they would do in terms of the harvested whales within their EEZ. We’ll see whether that happens or not, but I expect Japan to do the same thing: to follow IWC protocols even though they’re not IWC members. They’ve said very explicitly they’re going to be observers, they’ll come to the meetings but they just won’t be member states. 

Andrea: The argument here is that a smaller area will result in a smaller and more sustainable harvest. Yet constraining Japan to its EEZ could be a double-edged sword. Japan’s concentration of harvesting efforts into a smaller area will put an increased pressure on its coastal stocks of whales. Moreover, it is also possible that Japan will not limit harvest to its sustainable levels. If Japan is interested in maintaining its high quota of whales killed through its special permit whaling programs, in order to meet existing demands, Japan may be forced to harvest an unsustainable number from its EEZ. While this may still be an overall reduction in the number of whales Japan has harvested historically, it will likely result in a collapse of its coastal stocks of whales. 

Andrea: It is widely known that there are two populations of minke whales existing within Japan’s EEZ (Read, 2009). One of these populations is an offshore ‘O-stock’ population of minke whales that is perceivably abundant and not threatened (Read, 2009). However, the other is a coastal ‘J-stock’ population of minke whales, which is considered depleted and at-risk and therefore susceptible to extinction (Read, 2009). Dr. Read with more on this: 

Dr. Andy Read: The trick is some of the stocks of minke whales in the Japanese EEZ are in terrible shape, the J-stock in particular. The stock structure up there is very complicated. There are at least two stocks of minke whales that mix. And I think it’s impossible to tell them apart at sea. If you’re a gunner and you have a harpoon, and you see a minke whale you won’t know whether if it’s a J-stock or something else. So Japan’s going to have to think very carefully about that. The J-stock is in trouble because of past overharvest and because of bycatches in a bunch of fixed gear fisheries in Japan and Korea. So we know that that stock is depleted — it shouldn’t be harvested, it should be protected. So how Japan proceeds with respect to that stock will really tell us how serious they are about abiding by the rules.  

Andrea:  Additionally, studies involving molecular sampling have found evidence that whale meat from the more threatened J-stock is commonly sold in Japanese markets (Lukoschek et al., 2009 as cited by Read, 2009). This brings into question the extent to which, despite its threatened status, this stock has been targeted for Japanese fisheries (Read, 2009), a consideration that brings significant concern to Japan’s movement to commercially harvest whales within its EEZ. 

Colyer: Ultimately, the main consideration within this discourse is whether the Japanese harvest within its EEZ will be sustainable or not. And if it is not sustainable, what implications this will have for its whale populations. In particular, there is concern for Japan’s already threatened stock of coastal minke whales (the J-stock), which may be affected even by a small harvest. While there is reason for sustainable harvest — the likely course of action given Japan’s public stance on the issue as well as its interest in participating in the IWC as an observer — there are points of concern regarding the viability of these harvests that will need to be assessed as Japan commences its commercial whaling program.  

Andrea: The third and final argument for Japan’s resumption of commercial whaling is cultural. We ask: by resuming commercial whaling within Japan’s EEZ, is Japan regaining some of its lost cultural heritage? Yoshimasa Hayashi, the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Minister of Japan, issued a statement on this topic, particularly addressing international criticism of the cultural importance of whales on Japan. He sees the disapproval from other nations and the violent clashes with militant conservation groups as a prejudicial attack on Japanese culture (Ozawa, 2013). He goes on to say, [quote] “Japan is an island nation surrounded by the sea, so taking some good protein from the ocean is very important… We have never said everybody should eat whale, but we have a long tradition and culture of whaling (Ozawa, 2013)” [end quote]. So what is Japan’s tradition of whaling? 

Andrea: To answer this, it is important to provide historical context. Small-scale whaling in Japan dates back thousands of years – as evidenced by temples and shrines as well as ancient burial mounds with whale drawings, bones, and hand harpoons (Hirata, 2005; Kato, 2007; “Japanese Whaling”, 2018). These temples and monuments are still very important to the culture and daily lives of small Japanese fishing villages today (Kato, 2007). A community-based coastal industry – mostly for humpback, right, and grey whales – was established in the 17th century (“Japanese Whaling”, 2018). By the 20th century, Japan was a commercial leader in the whaling industry along with its European and American counterparts (“Japanese Whaling”, 2018). When the global narrative changed to recognize whales as sentient, charismatic beings with legal protection against harvesting, Japan found itself and its interests on the other side of the argument. 

Colyer: In Japan there are four whaling towns, Taiji, Ayukawa, Chiba Prefecture, and Ishinomaki, that have been critically impacted by the IWC moratorium (Wingfield-Hayes, 2016). In 2003, there were only nine whalers left in Taiji (Sowa, 2014). In response, the Japanese government has commissioned and produced several papers about the cultural importance of whaling for Japanese coastal communities as part of a public relations campaign to directly counter conservation, arguments of the IWC and anti-whaling nations (Catalinac, 2005). These cultural inquiries sought to show that the termination of commercial whale hunting hurt Japanese coastal communities. The Japanese have claimed that the moratorium destroyed the central source of income, sense of solidarity, and rich cultural traditions, including the custom of giving whale meat as a gift in small coastal communities (Catalinac, 2005). Moreover, UNESCO considers community-based coastal whaling as a part of an intangible cultural heritage (Kato, 2007), which is important to maintaining cultural diversity in the face of growing globalization (“What is intangible cultural heritage?”, N.D.). Japan has adopted this idea of accepted cultural importance in their own justification for continued whaling. 

One of the cultural differences the Japan Whaling Association addresses is that of valuing animals. In the dominant narrative, whales are off limits. They are viewed as charismatic, sentient marine mammals that deserve protection and are not to be used as a food source, apart from limited harvesting by indigenous groups. According to the Japan Whaling Association, [quote] “asking Japan to abandon this part of its culture would compare to Australians being asked to stop eating meat pies, Americans being asked to stop eating hamburgers, and the English being asked to go without fish and chips” [end quote]. Dr. Read with more on this argument: 

Dr. Andy Read: For example the Japanese commission of the IWC famously said once that the Japanese people are horrified that Australians kill kangaroos. Japanese people love kangaroos and Australians don’t even kill them necessarily for meat, they are sometimes just culled and Japanese people are appalled by this, you know. And so, again, it points to the fact that different cultures value different animals in different ways, and we have to respect that, I think. So it can be difficult for those of us who have grown up in a culture in which whales have been provided special status, and we have a law in this country that provides whales special legal status. 

Andrea: Yet another misconception arising from cultural differences originates from Japan’s view of whales as fish, a harvestable commodity (Kato, 2007). In the eyes of the animal activist, it appears that Japan gives no regard to their sentience. However, there is more to this. The Japanese claim significant cultural and spiritual importance for whales and treat them with a degree of respect (Kato, 2007). Still, the cultural argument is difficult to support because of this caveat, expressed by Dr. Read: 

Dr. Andy Read: I think if those products were only being used in those communities, so for example, if a whaler from Shimonoseki went and harpooned a minke whale and all the whale that – all that meat – that came back to the community was consumed locally, even if there was some sort of sale of that it would go to a local market and this would be whale that you harvested today. I think it might be a different — a different argument — but it’s not. It goes to Tokyo, it goes to Tsukiji …  it goes to the big market there, and it’s commercialized so it’s… a difficult argument and I don’t agree with it completely. 

Colyer: This argument has also been reiterated by the IWC, which has found that Japan’s coastal whaling programs feed directly into Japanese commercial markets. The current whaling programs do not fall within the definition of subsistence whaling programs as defined by the IWC and therefore do not receive the moral exemption given to subsistence whalers in other parts of the world (Hirata, 2005). 

Colyer: Yet another challenge for the Japanese cultural argument is internal. There are generational differences in interest in whale meat. Younger generations – which are increasingly westernized – have largely accepted the narrative that whales are not a source of food. Older generations – who can remember eating whale meat growing up – are the more invested group in the pro-whaling argument (Block, 2014).  

Andrea: An additional counter argument to Japan’s cultural interest in whale meat is that while Japan has a history of small-scale subsistence whaling, the mass consumption of whale meat is not a historical aspect of their culture. Whale meat first became a commonly consumed food item in Japan following World War II when there was a severe food shortage (Hirata, 2005). It was this dependence on whale meat for food that lead to Japan’s industrial whaling program and the commercialization of the Japanese whale meat industry.  

Dr. Andy Read: General MacArthur started pelagic industrial whaling by Japan by sending two vessels to the Antarctic because they were worried about food security for the Japanese people after the war. If you move through until the sixties, the membership of the IWC was comprised mostly… entirely, not mostly, entirely of whaling nations. Nobody else cared, right, and there was no save the whales movement until the birth of the environmental movement in the 1960s.  

Colyer: While the consumption of whale meat and its role as a cheap food source may have been instrumental to the country regaining footing after World War II, the arguments perpetuating the idea that whale meat has historically been a primary food source are in fact generally unfounded (Hirata, 2005). Rather, historical evidence instead seems to indicate that whale meat as a food source is more closely connected with the Japanese small-scale whaling. However, despite any views to the contrary, the Japanese currently believe that the consumption of whale meat is a foundational characteristic of their culture (Hirata, 2005). 

Andrea: Our analysis throughout this podcast has demonstrated the complexity of this issue; specifically, that despite the prevalence of the dominant discourse and the negative connotations it has spread over Japan’s historical actions and its recent decision to resume commercial whaling, there are additional important perspectives that need to be considered. These alternative discourses provide much needed and beneficial insight to an otherwise myopic view. By attempting to answer three questions — did Japan have cause for leaving the IWC?; is it possible that Japan will harvest fewer whales?; and is Japan regaining some of its lost culture? — we have provided alternative framings of this complicated issue. These include considerations of the potential merits of Japan’s decision, such as a healthier relationship between Japan and the IWC, as well as a more cohesive IWC with Japan’s departure; and a decrease in the number of whales harvested by Japan globally, arguably “good things” even within the dominant discourse. Additionally, a third merit is Japan’s return to its historical and cultural practices that the IWC had forbade with the enactment of the moratorium. Although perhaps not viewed as positively within the dominant discourse, it is hard to consider this purely negatively, especially given its cultural significance to Japan. 

Colyer: However, our investigations into the alternative discourses also led to more questions and points of concern, such as: will the coastal J-stock of minke whales existing within the Japanese EEZ be put at significant risk of extinction from Japan’s new commercial whaling program?; And is Japan using a cultural argument based on historic small-scale whaling practices to promote a non-historic commercial whaling program? Regarding the former, it is simply too soon to answer. Regarding the latter, despite the evidence to the contrary, as an outsider to their culture, who are we to have any say in this matter? For the many questions inherent in this issue, many are difficult to answer, impossible to answer, or simply not right for us, as cultural outsiders, to answer. However, even without having all the information, our explorations into this issue have provided us with a greater awareness as well as a deeper understanding and appreciation of the many variables within this issue. With hope, this will help guide us and our listeners to make more informed decisions and to give greater consideration to these alternative discourses as this complicated scenario plays out. 

Colyer: Finally, we would like to thank Dr. Andy Read for his generosity of time and his willingness to be interviewed for our podcast. We would also like to thank our team member Emma Shanabrook for recording and editing this podcast. Thank you. 

Lisa Campbell: Hi, it’s Lisa again. As I mentioned at the start of our show, today’s episode was written in January 2019, just one month after Japan left the IWC. Since that happened almost two years ago, I wanted to provide an update. My podcast co-conspirator Rafa Lobo looked into what happened in Japan, and here’s what she found out. Japan did remain at the IWC as an observer.  On July 1st, 2019, the country resumed commercial whaling in Japanese waters for the first time in 30 years. It reported to the IWC a catch of 187 Bryde’s whales, 25 sei whales, and 44 minke whales, for a total of 256 whales, 29 over its self-imposed quota of 227. According to news reports, the first catches to reach local markets were sold at celebratory prices, that reached up to 15,000 yen, or about $198 per kilogram. And this is several times higher than the $26 per kilogram average paid for Antarctic minke whale meat. That was very short lived, however. Increased supply, little interest in whale meat consumption by younger generations, and restaurant restrictions due to the Covid pandemic caused prices to plunge. For the fiscal year of 2020, the Japanese government actually set aside 5.1 billion yen in subsidies to support the whaling industry. 

Today’s episode was written and produced by Andrea Kolarova, Emma Shanabrook, and Colyer Woolston. Brad Dubik advised on the episode. Bo Baney and Rafa Lobo edited it.  

For more information on our podcast visit our website – sites.nicholas.duke.edu/seastheday.  Follow us at Twitter and Instagram at seasthedaypod.  

Our theme music was written and recorded by Joe Morton. Our artwork is by Stephanie Hillsgrove. Jeff Priddy provdes technical support and Jill Powell supports our website.  

If you enjoyed today’s show, please share it with a friend. Thanks for listening. 

Ackerman, R. B. (2002). Japanese whaling in the Pacific Ocean: Defiance of international  whaling norms in the name of scientific research, culture, and tradition. BC Int’l Comp. L. Rev., 25, 323. 

BBC News, (2019, July 1). Japan resumes commercial whaling after 30 years. Retrieved October 5, 2020 from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48821797 

Black, R. (2007, May 16) Did Greens help kill the whale? Retrieved February 4, 2019,  from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6659401.stm  

Blok, Anders (2008). Contesting Global Norms: Politics of Identity in Japanese Pro-Whaling Countermobilization. Global Environmental Politics 8(2), 39-66. 

 Catalinac, A. L., & Chan, G. (2005, March). Japan, the West, and the whaling issue: understanding the Japanese side. In Japan Forum (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 133-163).  

 Chappell, Bill. (2018, Dec. 26) Japan Embraces Commercial Whaling, Pulls Out Of Global  Alliance That Banned It. Retrieved from www.npr.org/2018/12/26/680143270/japan-embraces-commercial-whaling-pulls-out-of-global-alliance-that-banned-pract?fbclid=IwAR2qrS3rJQyP-vzBcOOoSjZajwAlTG1yePf4UGZIsQU1KvCylJFfj4RxvKQ 

 Child, D. (2018, Sept. 14) IWC rejects Japan’s proposal to lift commercial whale hunting ban.  Retrieved February 4, 2019, from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/iwc-rejects-japan-proposal-lift-commercial-whale-hunting-ban-180913222708438.html 

Day, David,  THE WHALE WAR 97 (1987); M. J. Peterson, Whalers, Cetologists, Environmentalists, and the International Management of Whaling, 46 INT’L ORG., 147-186 

Greenpeace Japan. Opinion poll on scientific whaling summary report 2006. Greenpeace Japan. Prepared by Nippon Research Center, Ltd. 15 June 2006. Accessed on 27th January, 2019. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/whaling-poll-japan.pdf 

Hirata, Keiko. (2005). Why Japan Supports Whaling. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 8(2-3), 129–149. 

History and Purpose. IWC | International Whaling Commission, Retrieved from iwc.int/history-and-purpose. 

 Ishii, Atsushi, and Ayako Okubo. (2007). An Alternative Explanation of Japan’s Whaling Diplomacy in the Post-Moratorium Era.” Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 10(1), 55–87. 

 Japanese Whaling. (2018). Retrieved from https://awionline.org/content/japanese-whaling 

 Japan Times, The (2020, April 21). One year after resumption, Japan’s commercial whaling in viability struggle. Retrieved October 5, 2020, from:  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/21/national/japan-commercial-whaling-meat-hard-sell/  

Japan Times, The (2020, April 21). Japan back in whaling business, but quotas and cost make meat a hard sell. Retrieved October 5, 2020, from: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/21/national/japan-commercial-whaling-meat-hard-sell/ 

Kato, Kumi. (2007). Prayers for the Whales: Spirituality and Ethics of a Former Whaling Community-Intangible Cultural Heritage for Sustainability. International Journal of Cultural Property, 14(3), 283-313. 

Katz, B. (2018, May 30). Japan Killed 112 Pregnant Whales in the Name of Scientific Research.  Retrieved February 4, 2019, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/japan-killed-112-pregnant-whales-name-scientific-research-180969205/ 

Lukoschek, V., Funahashi, N., Lavery, S., Dalebout, M. L., Cipriano, F., & Baker, C. S. (2009). High proportion of protected minke whales sold on Japanese markets is due to illegal, unreported or unregulated exploitation. Animal Conservation, 12(5), 385-395. 

McCurry, Justin, and Matthew Weaver. (2018, Dec. 26). Japan Confirms It Will Quit IWC to Resume “Commercial Whaling.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/26/japan-confirms-it-will-quit-iwc-to-resume-commercial-whaling. 

Morell, V. (2014, April 04). Court Slams Japan’s Scientific Whaling. Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6179/22 

Ozawa, H. (2013, Feb. 26) JAPANESE MINISTER: Our Country Will Never Stop Hunting Whales. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/japanese-minister-our-country-will-never-stop-hunting-whales-2013-2 

Papastavrou, V. (2006) In the name of science? A review of scientific whaling. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Bristol, UK available at http://www.ifaw.org. 

Read, A. J. (2009). Lessons from Japanese markets for the conservation of whale populations. Animal Conservation, 12(5), 396-397. 

Sand, P. H. (2008). Japan’s ‘Research Whaling’ in the Antarctic Southern Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean in the Face of the Endangered Species Convention (CITES). Review of  European Community & International Environmental Law, 17(1), 56–71. 

Sieg, L. (2018). Japan to resume commercial whaling after pulling out of IWC. Retrieved February 4, 2019, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-whaling/japan-to-resume-commercial-whaling-after-pulling-out-of-iwc-idUSKCN1OP03O 

Sowa, F. (2014). Seaside Communities in Crisis: On the Construction of Collective Identity in a Japanese Whaling Town after the Moratorium. Roczniki Socjologii Morskiej, (23), 21-35. Retrieved February 3, 2019, from https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=49745. 

UNESCO – What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? (n.d.). Retrieved from  https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003 

Victor, D. (2018, Dec. 26). Japan to Resume Commercial Whaling, Defying International Ban. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/world/asia/japan-whaling-withdrawal.htm 

Wingfield-Hayes, R. (2016, February 08). Japan and the whale. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397749