An annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), held once every two years, will be held from 10 to 14 in Florianopolis, Brazil. Japan, along with the resumption of commercial whaling, suggests reform of the organization. Under the chairman Mr. Toshiaki Morishita chosen by Japan for the first time in half a century, it is likely to be a meeting to reconsider the role of IWC.
Japan's aim to resume commercial whaling is to aim for an organization that allows whaling and anti-whaling factions to be separated within the IWC and to make decisions.
Specifically, we must agree that important decisions requiring approval of three quarters of the General Assembly are agreed without prior consent at the committee for each object such as "sustainable use" or "protection" , And the decision shall be applied only to approval countries.
We will collectively proposal together with cancellation of commercial whaling moratorium (temporary suspension) limited to resource-rich types such as minke whales and aim for consensus.
However, it is a tough situation that the contents including resumption of commercial whaling get broad support. According to the Fisheries Agency, among the 89 IWC member countries, 41 countries, including Japan, East Asia and Africa, support the sustainable use of whales. There are 48 anti-whaling nations, mainly Australia and the West and the United States, and IWC is strengthening its character as a whale protection organization.
The host country Brazil is proposing a resolution of the "Florianopolis Declaration" seeking to allocate budgets to protection more importantly, "Commercial whaling is no longer necessary."
In Japan, last year, the "Whale Science Survey Implementation Law" that clearly states the responsibility of the country that conducts research whaling is established by lawmaker legislation. We are also considering new construction of an aging whaling mother ship, and it is necessary to show future ways of whaling. If IWC reform does not proceed, the theory of withdrawal may increase. (Yamamura Tetsushi)
I asked Mr. Toshio Morishita, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology Professor who was chairman of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) General Assembly to discuss the issues and perspectives.
- How do you think about the issue of IWC? Will it continue to play a role in the international community in the future?
In Japan, there is also the theory that IWC is unnecessary, but it is useful for a considerable part of so-called anti-whaling nations. For example, countermeasures against whale whales being caught by fishery through IWC and preparation of guidelines for whale / watching are being carried out. There is a gap between the idea of considering whales such as Japan as resources.
Why are gaps born? It is because the way of thinking about whales and whaling is completely divided into two. For people who are opposed to whaling, it is a symbol of environmental protection to protect whales whatever they are.
Whaling is only one of the many whale threats, overwhelmingly more by other threats such as climate change and marine pollution, underwater noise, bycatch in fishery. Since they are international issues, I believe that IWC will handle it exactly. Although the organization name is "whaling", the claim that the world has changed.
On the other hand, from Japan, there is no objection to defending a whale as a resource, but we insist that only an abundant whale is allowed to use. Current IWC does not admit whaling, so it seems that it does not function. Is not it a fair view of the current situation that it is an international organization with a big gap, apparently apparently different in role and role, due to the difference in position?
I do not see the real meaning of mutual claim unless I think about what the IWC should be in such recognition. Which is bad, bad, if you do it, blame your opponent, deny and it will end.
- Is there a possibility of playing a new role?
I do not think whether IWC is necessary or not, and it is the real problem to ask the world whether for international organizations to use and protect whales now is the real challenge, the answer is " That's it.
From the perspective of capturing whales, Iceland and Norway, regardless of size, it seems that activities to catch whales will remain in the future. America is also a fine whaling country, and it is no wonder that if countries become food-stuffed in the future, there will be countries that try to eat new whales. If whaling continues, it is necessary to maintain resources in whaling countries as well. As whales migrate widely, international organizations that manage capture will be necessary.
On the other hand, threats to global whaling and marine pollution such as whales also exist. Will IWC be able to fulfill its role, or will it be willing to fulfill. Do the Member States think that the current framework is the best? I need such a point of view.
If the answer is yes, I think that it is necessary for the IWC General Assembly this time to talk about what to do. At that time, whether the current IWC can play both roles of managing and preserving its use. I think that it is the IWC General Assembly this time to return and discuss again.
- Japan is proposing a reform proposal that allows sustainable use and anti-whaling faction to be divided among the IWC.
Even in the explanation of the Fisheries Agency about the proposal in Japan, I used the analogy of "married couple just before divorce" that I used before.
There are two people who have different ways of thinking. Do you make a partition inside the house and live under the same roof? There may be a way of doing so that he does not look at his face at all. If it can not be done, divide the roof (house) into two. The proposal in Japan is a method of drawing a line (setting up a partition) in the house. Instead, you may have to make a makeup in the house.
Whether by chance, this time there is a proposal from Brazil "Florianopolis declaration". "IWC has changed, let's concentrate on protecting whales." The problem consciousness was the same as the proposal in Japan, and proposals came out from both sides for the way and existence of IWC existence.
- The Florianopolis Declaration does not mean that whaling nations go out of the IWC?
This is also a case I often use, but we entered club activities thinking about soccer. But, as the world gradually changed, the member said that it is already bird watching. When I noticed it, everyone was doing bird watching and I was told that I was talking about soccer so far, and I have to rethink the rules of the department once more.
After voting, it was bird watching that everyone voted. Still stay in the department and do bird watching? Will you keep soccer there? I think that giving up and making a soccer club outside will ask this.
- I usually make a soccer club outside.
Is not it? Those who are doing bird watching will be "savage", but for those who play football they are never going to do bad things. There are others who are playing soccer. Some football clubs do it even if they are gone. Well then it will be to create a soccer club somewhere.
- Adjustment is necessary to use the same place.
We must respect each other or have rules. If I handle the same whale, I think that adjustment is needed somewhere. With regard to Japanese officials and government, withdrawal and various talks are out, but there is not the end there, it starts from there. If I go out, I can not do if all goes well and I can do whaling.
We have to think about where we will landing at the point where we jumped out, how to create a new rule, what to do after landing. It is the same as the wedding ceremony, not the goal in but the start. You have to think about what to do after a bit more carefully.
In the past, we also made proposals for international NGOs to create the second IWC (including Japanese stakeholders). Since then, it did not sing, it did not fly, and the country which supports sustainable use was not able to do it. Compared to that time, more machines are ripe now.
- Beyond discussion at the General Assembly.
Compared to when we started talking about four years ago, the key countries among the Member States are aware of the seriousness of this. Until then I did not try to discuss serious problems from the front. That was why all the "peace talks" in the past collapsed.
If this is the country of sustainable use and the country of anti - whaling, and trying to summarize it in normal diplomatic negotiations, we will create a compromise plan for both sides. Doing it with IWC will form a sea area that can not capture the whale and a sea area to be taken, and certain compelled whaling will surely enter the compromise plan. But, at the moment that happened, everything collapsed. If a tough anti-whaling nation can not take even a single head, negotiations exploring any compromise plan will almost certainly fail.
It is a novelty that Japan is not raising a compromise proposal, but raising the problem of how to do with IWC this time.
- Whales are increasingly a presence as a symbol of environmental protection.
A whale is said to be a charismatic animal. Originally conservation ecology, there was a concept of an animal that became the key to the ecosystem, but gradually the animal that attracted attention was taken up gradually, apart from its role in the ecosystem.
A charismatic animal is like a logo. For example, everyone knows pandas. Besides it is cute. Everyone makes a donation. Sometimes it is easier to budget by using it.
For example, when comparing frogs that may be in the mountains of Canada, where extinction is a concern, energy and money all go to whales. It is inevitable that charismatic animals have appeal degree. I can not argue just by saying such a funny thing.
Major movements to date over whaling
1948 Established the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Japan joined in 1951
1982 IWC decided commercial whaling moratorium (temporary suspension) from 1986
1987 Japan withdrew from commercial whaling in the Antarctic Ocean and started research whaling
1994 IWC set sanctuary (prohibited fishing area) in Antarctic Ocean
Australia in the year 2010 illegal Japanese search whaling in the Antarctic Ocean sued the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
A 2013 ICJ ruling to seek the cancellation of Japanese research whaling. Japan stops research whaling
Japan resumes research whaling in a new plan in 2015