Interview/ Masayuki Komatsu: Commercial whaling could be sustainably resumed

When the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meets for a general assembly in June, it is set to discuss proposals to further cut down on whale catches. While Japan stopped commercial whaling in the face of strong opposition by anti-whaling countries, Masayuki Komatsu, a former senior official of the Fisheries Agency who represented Japan in past IWC negotiations, urges Japan to act on scientific data in the negotiations. He also argues that Japan should increase its catches to supply whale meat at lower market prices. Excerpts from an interview with The Asahi Shimbun follow:

* * *

Question: As of last year-end, as much as 4,000 tons of whale meat was in stock. It appears consumers are turning the other way. Why aren't they buying whale meat?

Answer: The meat does not sell because it is expensive and of poor quality. When you look at whale meat sold in the market, you notice a red, blood-like juice oozing from it. The juice that makes the meat tasty drained because cell membranes were broken when the meat was frozen. This is because the temperature can only be lowered to 30 degrees below zero on whaling ships. Since tuna is quick-frozen to minus 70 degrees, cell membranes remain intact. In whaling, too, new ships should be built so that the meat can be quick-frozen for better quality. I am sure it would drastically change the awareness of consumers. Whale meat could be used as a sushi ingredient in place of tuna.

To begin with, current whaling is aimed at scientifically studying the rise and fall of whale populations, sexes and age and distribution of groups. This is called research whaling. The whale meat on the market is a by-product of such research. But that does not justify the poor quality of meat on the market. When the number of catches is increased, costs can be lowered and tasty whale meat can be supplied at lower prices.

Q: Isn't Japan catching whales to sell the meat?

A: The purpose of ongoing research whaling is to gather scientific data so that commercial whaling can be resumed. The right to conduct research whaling is recognized under an international treaty. The convention also recognizes the sale of meat from captured whales.

Q: There is strong international criticism against whaling. How has Japan been presenting its case at the IWC?

A: For one thing, it has been maintaining that whales should be used as a sustainable source of food based on scientific findings. It also stands by the basic stance that food cultures that differ by region should be respected.

The IWC has been tackling the improvement of methods to control resources based on reflection that whale populations drastically declined as a result of past over-hunting. Japan had provided two research-sighting ships for a project to look into the population of minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean every year from December to February for 12 years. Researchers of the IWC's Scientific Committee were also on board the vessels. As a result, the Scientific Committee concluded in 1990 that some 760,000 minke whales were alive. Such research continues to this day. The committee is expected to reconfirm the current population at between 460,000 and 690,000.

Q: Do you mean there are enough minke whales to resume commercial whaling?

A: The IWC calculates quotas for catches based on such scientific data as current populations and past catches. In the case of minke whales, as of 1992, the annual quota had been calculated at 2,000, accounting for 0.26 percent of the total population. The breeding rate of whales is estimated at 4 percent and there is no chance the minke whales would go extinct with such a quota on catches. Still, anti-whaling countries are opposed to commercial whaling and there are no prospects for its resumption.

Q: Why are anti-whaling countries opposed to a resumption despite the backing of scientific data?

A: The Japanese side also has problems. What surprised me when I started taking part in the negotiations in the Scientific Committee was that Japanese researchers remained silent throughout the complicated discussions because they couldn't follow what was being discussed in English. If you do not speak out, you will lose. To overcome the problem, I invited experts from South Africa and Norway and organized study sessions with domestic researchers to revise the basic plan for Japan's research whaling.

Q: In February, the IWC released a draft plan by its chairman to set caps on catches by whale species and regions to cut down on the number of overall catches. The proposed plan makes no distinction between research and commercial whaling with or without objection and calls for the IWC to comprehensively control catches. In April, the proposal was revised to require Japan to halve the catch under the research whaling to about 400 in five years and halve it again to about 200 in the following five years. Member nations hope to agree on the proposal at the annual commission meeting to be held in June. Some Japanese officials also support it. What do you think?

A: It poses a big problem. The IWC is only authorized to make decisions on commercial whaling with no objection. Research whaling is a right authorized by an international treaty. Allowing the IWC to comprehensively control catches constitutes the abandonment of Japan's right to research whaling. Moreover, the resumption of commercial whaling that Japan has called for would also be shelved. We cannot provide a proper explanation to Caribbean and African countries that have been supporting us.

To begin with, since minke whale resources in the Antarctic Ocean are abundant, there is no reason to reduce catches. We must honor the principle that debates should be based on scientific data. If we ignore that principle, decisions would be made arbitrarily. In IWC meetings, Japan has consistently insisted that debates should be based on scientific findings. Japan must stick to its basic position that it will call for resumption of commercial whaling through discussion supported by scientific data.

Q: But Japan's actual minke whale catches are significantly smaller than planned. The situation seems to make Japan's argument less persuasive. What do you think?

A: It is a problem. According to plans, Japan was supposed to catch up to 935 minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean, but actually it caught only 506 in fiscal 2009. This is because of sluggish sales of whale meat. Since it is unpopular with consumers, in an effort to cover whaling costs, Japan reduced the number of catches to maintain prices at high levels. As a result, the expensive meat does not sell. It is a vicious circle. Whaling countries such as Norway and Iceland are boosting catches. Japan, too, should shift its policy and increase catches to supply cheap and tasty whale meat at the risk of price collapse.

Q: Since fewer Japanese consumers are eating whale meat, why should Japan stick to whaling at the cost of international bashing?

A: It is unreasonable to impose a ban on using resources that can be used in a sustainable way. We rely on livestock as a main source of animal protein. But we need huge quantities of oil to produce the chemical fertilizers used to grow the grains that will become feed for cattle. Livestock farming needs a massive amount of water and it also produces waste. Meanwhile, whales sustain themselves in the ocean. Making better use of them will reduce our dependence on livestock.

I wish to stress once again the importance of advancing discussions and making decisions based on scientific data. In that sense, the decision concerning the bluefin tuna was regrettable. When the conference of the parties to the Washington Treaty (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) met in March, it rejected a proposal to ban international trade of the Atlantic bluefin tuna with the objections of Japan and other countries.

But I believe Japan should have cooperated with the European Union and the United States to strengthen the regulation. Generally speaking, whale resources are abundant although there are differences among species. While the minke whale has a green light above it, the fin whale has a yellow light, for example. But a red light is flashing over the bluefin tuna, whose populations have dwindled as a result of overfishing.

Banning the bluefin tuna trade may appear disadvantageous to Japan in the short term, but if we develop policy based on scientific grounds, we can win trust of the international community in the end. The principle of sustainable use also applies to abundant whales.

* * *

Masayuki Komatsu is a former Fisheries Agency section chief who was known as a tough negotiator when he represented Japan in IWC negotiations from 1991 to 2004. He quit the agency in 2007 and became professor of ocean and marine resource policy at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in 2008.