The arrest and detention of environmental activist Paul Watson in Greenland drew renewed attention to Japan’s whaling, specifically the commercial whaling that resumed in July 2019. Japan stopped commercial whaling of large whales in the Antarctic in 1986-87 and coastal whaling by March 1988, following decisions in the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
Key findings
- Japan explains its whaling policy as serving science and extending cultural history. But there is no consensus on either scientific needs or whether current whaling practices truly reflect their roots in Japanese culture.
- For most EU member states, whale management is considered synonymous with environmental conservation and animal rights. However, this view creates a significant fault line since, for a diverse set of countries—including, on very different premises, Japan, Norway, Greenland and the Faroe Islands—whale management is a means of sustainable harvest.
- Japan’s withdrawal from whaling in the Southern Ocean in 2019 was expected to reduce political risk. But Japan’s simultaneous withdrawal from membership to observer status in the IWC, the world’s foremost whale management body, has contributed to ensuring that the two worlds of whaling policies never meet .
With the stated aim of gaining sufficient knowledge to re-start commercial whaling, Japan conducted research whaling for ecological and resource data, as IWC regulations permit member states to do. In 2010, Watson’s group physically interfered with a ship contributing to Japan’s Whale Research Program near Antarctica, leading Japan to issue a red notice against him through Interpol.
14 years later, in response to Japan’s request, Danish authorities in Greenland, constitutionally linked to Denmark but with extensive autonomy, detained Watson during a refuelling stop. The arrest prompted protests in Europe and an online petition with over 720,000 signatures for his release. Joining the cause are renowned actors, acclaimed filmmakers and even parliamentarians and city mayors.
Watson’s legal team claimed the incident was political and that Japan was exploiting Greenland. Faced with intense opposition from otherwise friendly nations, why does Japan continue to engage in whaling?
Arguments for Japan’s whaling policy
When Japan announced its withdrawal from the IWC in 2018, the Chief Cabinet Secretary highlighted Japan’s commitment to the sustainable use of marine resources based on scientific evidence. The statement also noted Japan’s tradition of using whales for food and other purposes, supporting local communities and fostering a culture cantered around whaling.
In March 2022, the Japanese Cabinet approved a “Basic Plan for Fisheries”, focusing on sustainable marine resource use, the growth of fishing communities and industries and strict resource management. The plan aims to ensure a stable seafood supply amid global population growth and increasing interest in food security and nutrition.
It includes a strategic approach to fisheries policy through, among other things, promoting whaling based on scientific evidence while respecting Japan’s traditional dietary habits and cultural practices.
Continuity and discontinuity in Japan’s whaling history
Efforts to resume commercial whaling are framed within a context of scientific management and cultural respect. However, the importance of preserving Japan’s whaling tradition was reinforced after the April 2014 International Court of Justice ruling determined that while Japan’s scientific whaling had the purpose and plan of scientific research, its execution and outcomes did not primarily serve scientific purposes. Moreover, the meaning of ‘culture’ can also be questioned.
Japan’s government refers to the nation’s unique whaling tradition, which uses every part of the whale—meat, oil, bones and whiskers—without waste and includes practices to honor the individual whale caught. Customs and monuments at whaling sites like Abashiri, Ayukawa, Wada and Taiji show that Japan has long respected whales culturally and viewed them as equals, thereby challenging human supremacy.
But critics argue that linking Japan’s coastal whaling culture to its post-moratorium push for commercial whaling is flapped. They point out that Japan’s shift to distant-ocean whaling, driven by military and industrial interests after 1934, marks a significant departure from its traditional coastal whaling practices.
This alleged historical discontinuity undermines the legitimate of Japan’s rationale for resuming commercial whaling. Those who hold this position also claim that ‘coastal whaling’ was a regional practice rather than a national culture, making its representation of Japanese culture problematic.
In sum, questions have been raised about whether Japan has legitimate for whaling and whale consumption. Criticism in Japan of Watson’s 2010 actions mainly come from conservative groups, not broad public opinion. Whale meat consumption has declined since the 1980s and is now at about 1 % of its 1960s peak. Nevertheless, in May 2024, Japan increased its commercial whaling quota, added fin whales to the three species already allowed (sei, minke and Bryde’s whales), and launched a new ship, Kangeimaru, costing 7.5 billion yen.
Are the EU’s whale protection and environmental conservation synonymous?
Over the last century, the whaling industry has declined, leaving only a handful of globally active whaling nations. As for large whales, a few places, including Greenland, are allowed small quotas for Indigenous or subsistence catches. Along with Japan, only Norway has an active policy aiming to reinvigorate its commercial whaling business. However, despite being just one of many marine resources, whales remain a contentious issue in global negotiations.
EU member states have played a major role in this debate. Whaling has long been banned in EU waters, and, in June 2008, the EU established a “common position” on whale protection, intensifying its efforts. The EU Commissioner for Environment has emphasized the need for effective whale conservation from political, moral and economic perspectives. Today, with the economic impact of whaling diminishing, the “political” and “moral” aspects are increasingly prominent.
The International Whaling Commission
The preamble of the convention establishing the IWC states as its dual purpose, ‘… to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry‘. The gap between the two has led the IWC to a deadlock.
In 1982, concerns about the decline of large whales led the IWC to adopt a provisional ban with a zero-catch limit and required a comprehensive resource assessment and review of catch limits. However, despite the general ban, whales are still caught:
1) The IWC allows Greenland a quota for Aboriginal subsistence whaling;
2) The IWC allows member states to issue special permits for scientific whaling; for different periods, Japan, Norway and Iceland conducted whaling under such programs;
3) When the IWC introduced the ban, Norway objected and declared that it would still pursue commercial whaling “where scientifically justified”. Japan has not been bound by the ban since leaving the IWC in 2019.
4) The member states of the IWC have never agreed to regulate the use or protection of smaller whales, such as the pilot whale caught in the Faroe Islands, for example.
The EU has criticized the IWC for not effectively protecting all whale species due to these broad exceptions.
IWC membership has grown from 15 to 88 countries, and the balance has been shifting between sustainable use and conservation priorities as landlocked and micro-states without any whaling traditions have joined.
After Japan’s departure, the IWC has faced financial challenges, including rising operational costs, fundraising difficulties and increased non-payment due to COVID-19.
The conservation of species at a global level, including whales, is encompassed within the principles of the EU’s regional environmental policies, which aim to promote international measures to address regional or global environmental issues. These principles suggest that whale protection and environmental conservation are aligned and considered synonymous; or that whale protection is viewed as a subset of environmental conservation. Based on this premise, the thesis that whaling contradicts environmental protection would hold.
However, in a wider perspective, the fundamental fault line between the positions of use=consumption and protection=non-consumption is significant. Indeed, the underlying cause of the rift, which is reaching a tipping point, lies in the historical failures of whaling diplomacy—scientific communication failed, and science itself became a point of contention regarding scientific evidence, certainty and accuracy of analysis. Meanwhile, science as a means for sustainable whale use became subordinated to political objectives.
As scientific resource management methods have become more refined and uncertainties have decreased, the differences in the objectives addressed by science have increasingly become a dividing line.
Unable to agree on disagreement
Watson was detained in Greenland. Greenland and Japan share a broad stance on the sustainable use of whale resources. Before Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC, it benefited from two of the three IWC exceptions: Aboriginal subsistence whaling and special permit (scientific) whaling. Denmark , despite pressure from the EU to conform, has emphasized its agreements with Greenland.
Though different in context, the connections and criticisms regarding pilot whale hunts in the Faroe Islands, another territory constitutionally linked to Denmark, and whaling in the Japanese town of Taiji highlight these relationships.
While Watson’s detention might be ‘political’, smaller powers and minority positions in international politics may be better served by insisting on the separation of powers and judicial fairness. When two worlds do not meet—when unable to agree even on not understanding each other— sticking to international law is the most favorable option.
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number JP20KK0278, and the Hokkai-Gakuen University Academic Research, Grant FY2024.
Share this content:
