It has just turned winter in the Northern Hemisphere, which
means that it is now summer in the Southern Hemisphere. The
Japanese whaling fleet has entered the Southern Ocean to kill up to
a self-designated quota of 333 minke whales, and Sea Shepherd has
given chase.
Ocean Warrior, Sea Shepherd’s
newest ship, moving beyond pack ice in the Southern Ocean.
Photo: Sea Shepherd Global/Simon Ager
We have heard the story before, and many of us have watched the
drama play out during six seasons of the TV series “Whale Wars” on
Animal Planet. This year, Sea Shepherd hopes to have an advantage
with a ship declared to be faster than the Japanese whaling
vessels, as I explained in
Water Ways at the end of August.
On Dec. 3, the Sea Shepherd vessel Steve Irwin left Melbourne,
Australia, for the Southern Ocean for its 11th campaign against the
whalers. The Steve Irwin was followed a day later by the new ship,
Ocean Warrior. Yesterday, the Ocean Warrior located one of the
Japanese harpoon vessels, the Yushin Maru, inside the Southern
Ocean Whale Sanctuary, according to Capt. Adam Meyerson, the
skipper of the Ocean Warrior.
“The crews of the Ocean Warrior and the MV Steve Irwin have been
battling through thick fog and ice to protect the whales in the
Australian whale sanctuary,” Meyerson said in a
news release. “The Yushin Maru was hiding behind an iceberg and
came out on a collision course.
“Finding one of the hunter-killer ships hiding behind an iceberg
in a thick fog means that the rest of the fleet is nearby,” he
added. “We all hope to have whaling in the Southern Ocean shut down
by Christmas.”
Japanese whalers recently returned to the Antarctic with a new
plan to kill 333 minke whales for scientific research, defying
official positions of many countries throughout the world.
A harpooned minke whale lies
dying, as whalers aboard the Japanese ship Yushin Maru Number 3
attempt to finish it off with rifle shots.
Photo: Sea Shepherd
Japan called off the annual whaling program for one year after
the International Court of Justice ruled that Japan’s commercial
whaling operation failed to meet the basic requirements of
scientific research. Japan had been using an exemption for research
to get around a ban on whaling under international treaty.
Japan submitted a new “research” plan for this year’s whaling,
but the document has yet to receive any official sanction. In fact,
Japan’s return to the Southern Ocean has been condemned by at least
33 government leaders.
Russell F. Smith II, U.S. commissioner to the International
Whaling Commission, said the U.S. government does not believe it is
necessary to kill whales to carry out scientific research
consistent with objectives of the IWC. Two key IWC committees have
raised serious questions about Japan’s whaling program, he
said.
“Japan has decided to proceed with the hunt without addressing
several significant issues raised in their reports,” Smith said in
a prepared
statement. “One of the key issues raised during both the Expert
Panel and SC (Scientific Committee) meetings was that Japan had not
justified the need for lethal whaling to carry out its research.
Unfortunately, rather than giving itself time to modify its
research program to fully address these issues, Japan has decided
to restart its program now.”
Japan’s plan for whaling this winter (summer in the Southern
Hemisphere) is to kill 333 minke whales, down from 935 minkes in
plans for previous years. In this new plan, the Japanese government
has not sanctioned the killing of humpback or fin whales, for which
the previous goal was 50 of each.
Although the Japanese government has declared that an annual
harvest of 333 minke whales is sustainable, the International
Whaling Commission has not approved the whale hunt nor even begun
discussing possible quotas or how any harvest, if approved, would
be allocated among other countries.
Minke whale // Photo:
Sea Shepherd
Meanwhile, the Japanese government has informed the United
Nations that it will no longer submit to the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice for “any dispute arising out of,
concerning, or relating to research on, or conservation, management
or exploitation of, living resources of the sea.” See story,
Sydney Morning Herald, Oct. 19, 2015.
Australia, which brought the international lawsuit against
Japan, is now considering another round in the legal battle. The
effort could put Japan back in the spotlight, even though success
would be unlikely if Japan spurns the court’s jurisdiction,
according to reports in the
Sydney Morning Herald on Dec. 8, 2015.
Australian courts also ruled against the Japanese whalers for
violating protection provisions within the Australian Whale
Sanctuary around Antarctica, although Japan does not recognize
Australia’s jurisdiction. The whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku
Kaisha, was fined $1 million (in Australian dollars) for contempt
of an injunction against killing Minke whales within the
sanctuary.
Other countries have joined the overall opposition to Japanese
whaling. New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said his country’s
ambassador to Tokyo delivered a “strong” formal message to Japan
from 33 countries. Read the statement on the
New Zealand Embassy’s webpage.
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which directly interfered
with the movements of Japanese whaling ships in past years, may
take a more low-key role on whaling this year. The organization’s
ships have become involved in new campaigns to halt poaching of
other species, including the endangered toothfish in Antarctic
waters. See
news release Oct. 13, 2015.
Sea Shepherd’s U.S. affiliate was enjoined by the U.S. courts
from interfering with the whaling operations, but Sea Shepherd
Australia continued the high-seas battles, as featured in the
television series “Whale Wars”
on Animal Planet.
Now, the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin, which was undergoing
repairs in Melbourne, Australia, is headed into the Southern Ocean
on its second campaign against toothfish poaching. Alex
Cornelissen, CEO of Sea Shepherd Global, says new battles against
the Japanese whalers are not out of the question.
“Sea Shepherd is an anti-poaching organization,” Cornelissen
said in a
news release. “We are ready to find, document, report on and
where possible intervene against poaching operations that threaten
the precious balance of life in the Southern Ocean; whatever form
those poachers might take, whatever life they threaten.
“If Sea Shepherd comes across criminal activity, then our
history speaks for itself,” he added. “We will, as always, directly
intervene to prevent that crime from taking place.”
Sea Shepherd U.S., which was thwarted in direct action by the
courts, has now filed a counterclaim in those same U.S. Courts,
hoping to get a legal injunction against the Japanese government
for its whaling activities. The legal campaign is called
“Operation Ultimate Justice.”
“For years, Sea Shepherd took direct action against the whalers
on the seas, saving one whale at a time from the Japanese
harpoons,” said Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson. “But if we are to
bring the illegal slaughter to an end once and for all, we cannot
simply defeat the Japanese whalers on the water; we need to defeat
them in the courts.”
The seventh season of “Whale Wars” — a three-hour presentation
premiering on Friday — follows on the heels of an unresolved
contempt-of-court ruling against Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
earlier this month.
Sea Shepherd captains (from
left) Sid Chakravarty, Peter Hammarstedt and Adam Meyerson during
2014 Operation Relentless
Sea Shepherd photo by Eliza Muirhead
The new program, to be shown at 5 p.m. and again at 8 p.m. on
Animal Planet network, documents the 2013-2014 Antarctic whaling
season and the sometimes-violent confrontation between Sea Shepherd
and Japanese whalers. Check out the
Sneak Preview.
While Sea Shepherd faces some serious court rulings, the
Japanese government finds itself in conflict with the International
Court of Justice, which concluded that its “scientific” whaling
program does not conform to scientific principles — which was the
legal justification for the program — so the whaling must stop, at
least for now. See
Water Ways, March 24, 2014.
Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd, appears to have ticked off
the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which first called his
group a “pirate” operation in December 2012. The court issued an
injunction to keep Sea Shepherd ships at least 500 feet away from
the Japanese whaling vessels. (See
Water Ways, Feb. 26, 2013.)
In its latest ruling on Dec. 19, the court says Watson and Sea
Shepherd’s U.S. board of directors acted contrary to its injunction
by shifting their anti-whaling operations over to the related group
Sea Shepherd, Australia. In the court’s view, Watson should have
done what was necessary to halt the anti-whaling tactics, not find
a way to continue them. As
Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. wrote in his findings (PDF 127
kb):
“Sea Shepherd US’s separation strategy effectively nullified our
injunction by ensuring that OZT (Operation Zero Tolerance)
proceeded unimpeded, in part by using former Sea Shepherd US
assets. Sea Shepherd US ceded control over OZT to Sea Shepherd
Australia and other Sea Shepherd entities it believed to be beyond
the injunction’s reach, knowing these entities were virtually
certain to violate the injunction.
“At the same time, Sea Shepherd US continued to provide
financial and other support for OZT after the injunction by, among
other things, transferring for no consideration a vessel and
equipment worth millions of dollars to Sea Shepherd Australia and
other entities…
“Rather than instruct its employees to help prevent OZT, Sea
Shepherd US effectively shifted these employees to its affiliates’
payrolls to ensure continued participation in a campaign it knew
was very likely to result in violations of the injunction…
“Our objective in issuing the injunction was to stop Sea
Shepherd from attacking the plaintiffs’ vessels. Sea Shepherd US
thwarted that objective by furnishing other Sea Shepherd entities
with the means to do what it could not after the issuance of the
injunction. It has long been settled law that a person with notice
of an injunction may be held in contempt for aiding and abetting a
party in violating it.”
These court findings were all related to Operation Zero
Tolerance, the Sea Shepherd campaign that ended in March of 2013.
The ruling did not address Operation Relentless, which ended in
March of 2014 and is the subject of Friday’s “Whale Wars” event. I
wonder if Japan will attempt to use the U.S. courts to collect for
damages related to the latest conflict.
The International Court of Justice ruling against the Japanese
whaling operations seems to have had no effect on how the U.S.
Court of Appeals views Sea Shepherd’s actions. Sea Shepherd’s
activities were still illegal, the court ruled, and the injunction
would still be needed if the whaling were to resume under
conditions acceptable to the international court. See
“order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss” (PDF 308 kb).
In fact, although whaling was suspended for the 2014-15 season,
the Japanese government has submitted a new plan
(PDF 2.3 mb) to resume whaling at this time next year. The plan
calls for an annual harvest of 333 minke whales — as opposed to the
previous plan to take 850 minkes, 50 humpbacks and 50 fin whales.
For additional insight on the controversy, read Dennis Normile’s
piece in
Science Insider, affiliated with Science magazine.
As for the upcoming “Whale Wars” special, a
news release from Animal Planet says the action will be as
exciting as ever, even with Paul Watson gone from the scene:
“With Captain (Peter) Hammarstedt once again at the helm and
tensions with the whalers at an all-time high, this new campaign
will likely be the most aggressive and dangerous the Sea Shepherds
have faced.”
This episode of “Whale Wars” was produced by Lizard Trading
Company, using raw footage filmed by Sea Shepherd crew members.
That’s similar to the arrangement for last year’s two-hour special.
(See
Water Ways, Nov. 7, 2013.)
Japanese whalers who hunt whales in the Antarctic can no longer
justify their actions as “scientific research” and must stop their
annual whale roundup, according to a ruling by the International
Court of Justice.
The court ruled today that Japan’s so-called “research” does not
meet ordinary scientific standards. The court ordered Japan to stop
killing whales under the guise of its research program, called
JARPA II. As stated in a 73-page finding
(PDF 649 kb) supported by 12 of the 16 judges:
“Taken as a whole, the Court considers that JARPA II involves
activities that can broadly be characterized as scientific
research, but that the evidence does not establish that the
programme’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to
achieving its stated objectives.
“The Court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan
for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with
JARPA II are not ‘for purposes of scientific research’ pursuant to
Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention (the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling).”
In the legal action brought before the United Nations court by
Australia, the judges carefully scrutinized the JARPA II methods
and procedures. They found that the sampling procedure and lethal
take of minke, fin and humpback whales falls short of legitimate
scientific study in many regards:
“The fact that the actual take of fin and humpback whales is
largely, if not entirely, a function of political and logistical
considerations, further weakens the purported relationship between
JARPA II’s research objectives and the specific sample size targets
for each species — in particular, the decision to engage in the
lethal sampling of minke whales on a relatively large scale.”
“Examining Japan’s decisions regarding the use of lethal
methods, the court finds no evidence of any studies of the
feasibility of or the practicability of non-lethal methods, either
in setting the JARPA II sample sizes or in later years in which the
programme has maintained the same sample size targets. The court
also finds no evidence that Japan examined whether it would be
feasible to combine a smaller lethal take and an increase in
non-lethal sampling as a means to achieve JARPA II’s research
objectives.”
After the ruling, Koji Tsuruoka, Japan’s representative at the
court, addressed reporters at the Peace Palace in The Hague.
According to a report by
Australian Associated Press, Tsuruoka stated:
“Japan regrets and is deeply disappointed that JARPA II … has
been ruled by the court as not falling within the provisions of
Article 8. However, as a state that respects the rule of law, the
order of international law and as a responsible member of the
global community, Japan will abide by the decision of the
court.”
He said Japanese officials would need to digest the judgment
before considering a future course of action. He refused to discuss
whether a new research program could be crafted to allow whaling to
resume.
Australian officials were careful not to gloat over the victory
as they emphasized the need to maintain favorable relations with
Japan. Bill Campbell, Australia’s general counsel in the case, was
quoted by the AAP:
“The decision of the court today, important as it is, has given
us the opportunity to draw a line under the legal dispute and move
on.”
The ruling was welcomed by environmental groups, including Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society, which has sent ships to the
Antarctic to directly confront the whaling ships and interfere with
their whaling activities, as seen on the television show “Whale
Wars.” Capt. Alex Cornelissen of Sea Shepherd Global had this to
say in a
news release:
“With today’s ruling, the ICJ has taken a fair and just stance
on the right side of history by protecting the whales of the
Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the vital marine ecosystem of
Antarctica, a decision that impacts the international community and
future generations. Though Japan’s unrelenting harpoons have
continued to drive many species of whales toward extinction, Sea
Shepherd is hopeful that in the wake of the ICJ’s ruling, it is
whaling that will be driven into the pages of the history
books.”
UPDATE, July 4, 2013
Japanese officials say objections to its scientific whaling program
are based on moral arguments, not legal ones. Australia cannot win
this case, Japanese officials say, because the international treaty
allows for scientific whaling and it allows member countries to
determine for themselves what qualifies as science.
This legal position is explained in a story written by Andrew
Darby published in yesterday’s
Sydney Morning Herald.
A later story by Darby, published in
today’s Herald, reports on the surprising testimony by a
witness called by the Japanese government. The witness, a Norwegian
expert named Lars Walloe, described several problems he had with
the Japanese research, but he confirmed that it was research.
—–
Whether Japan’s annual whale hunt is a true scientific endeavor
or a commercial operation without legal justification is the
question being debated before the United Nations highest court this
week.
Australia, supported by New Zealand, brought the case against
Japan to the International Court of Justice, which is holding
hearings in The Hague, Neatherlands.
Australia hopes to bring Japan’s whaling activities under normal
prescriptions from the International Whaling Commission, as opposed
to the ongoing scientific permits issued by the Japanese government
that allow for hundreds of whales to be killed each year.
Bill Campbell, Australia’s agent to the court, addressed the
16-judge panel in the Great Hall of Justice, according to a report
by Mike Corder of
The Associated Press.
“Japan seeks to cloak its ongoing commercial whaling in the lab
coat of science,” he said, later telling reporters, “You don’t kill
935 whales in a year to conduct scientific research. You don’t even
need to kill one whale to conduct scientific research.”
Japan, which will present its side next week, has stated that it
will challenge the court’s authority to hear the case while
justifying its whaling operations under international whaling
agreements.
UPDATE, Friday, June 25
“There are no winners and losers in this,” said Sir Geoffrey
Palmer, New Zealand’s former prime minister. “It ain’t over til
it’s over, and even then it ain’t over. There will be a pause. We
will resume discussions about this next year,” he told
The Associated Press.
As the IWC meeting ended today, Greenland’s native population
was granted permission to hunt a few humpback whales for the next
three years, expanding the list of species the Greenlanders are
allowed to kill under the license of subsistence hunting.
—– UPDATE, Wednesday, June 23
Whaling moratorium talks break down — so whaling nations will
continue to set their own limits. Changes in the governance of the
International Whaling Commission will be considered. See report in
Reuters.
—– UPDATE, Tuesday, June 22
A Norwegian delegate to the International Whaling Commission,
Karsten Klepsvick, told Reuters
reporters today that the compromise being debated behind closed
doors will fail:
“As we can see it today, we do not believe these negotiations
will succeed. There are at least eight, ten stumbling blocks, but
the main stumbling block is that those who are against whaling seem
to be willing to accept nothing but nil (quotas), and we cannot
accept that.”
—–
The future of the International Whaling Commission — and perhaps
even the survival of certain whale species — rests on decisions
being made this week in Morocco.
While I have no personal insight into this story, I think it’s
worth summarizing activities swirling around the meeting that began
today. If you haven’t heard, a controversial proposal by IWC
Chairman Cristian Maquieira would lift the ban on whaling for
Japan, Iceland and Norway. In return, the three countries would
come back into the fold of the IWC, with new quotas officially
imposed by the commission to reduce recent harvest levels.
Maquieira says his plan could save thousands of whales a year.
(Check out an article Maquieira wrote for the BBC or read a
press release (PDF 40 kb) issued by the IWC.) As the annual
meeting of the IWC got under way today, Maquiera was not present
due to illness, according to reporter Arthur Max of the
Associated Press.
Deputy Chairman Anthony Liverpool opened the meeting then
quickly moved the discussions behind closed doors for two days of
negotiations among the strident anti-whaling countries as well as
those that insist that whaling is a long-held cultural right. It’s
in those meetings that things may come to a head.
Currently, Japan, Iceland and Norway set their own whaling
quotas. Japan claims an exemption in the IWC Charter that allows
for the taking of whales for scientific research — even though
nearly all the whale meat ends up in the commercial market. Iceland
and Norway operate under a process that allows formal objections to
the whaling moratorium.
In a surprise move leading up to today’s meeting, Greenpeace,
the Pew Environment Group and the World Wildlife Fund said in a
joint
statement (PDF 420 kb) that a compromise on quotas is possible
but only if six essential elements are met:
End all whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary near
Antarctica.
All whale products must be consumed in the country for which
the hunt was authorized.
Catch limits must be calculated by the IWC’s scientific
committee to assure appropriate management procedures.
Harvest of threatened, endangered or vulnerable species would
not be allowed.
Scientific whaling beyond the limits set by the IWC would not
be allowed.
Contracting governments must agree not to operate under
objections to the agreement as originally allowed in the IWC
Charter.
Meanwhile, other environmental groups argue that it is wrong to
kill whales and that any compromise serves to reward the whaling
countries for bad behavior. As Nikki Entrup of Whale and Dolphin
Conservation Society told John Vidal of
The Guardian:
“It would be a fundamental mistake now to reward those three
whaling nations who have continued to ignore the international
consensus on commercial whaling and are opposed by millions of
people around the world. What kind of message does that give out to
countries like Korea who used to whale? I urge Greenpeace to
withdraw their position. They want to do the right thing in
principle but more whales are killed in the northern hemisphere
than in the south.”
Japan has hinted that it might pull out of the IWC if member
nations can’t abide its whaling activities. Meanwhile, Australia
has filed an action against Japan in the International Court of
Justice, saying Japan’s actions are a direct violation of the
international whaling ban in the Southern Ocean.
International politics and intrigue run thick through this whole
story. Check out last weekend’s
Times of London for an investigative report accusing Japan of
bribing officials of other countries to come to the IWC meeting and
support whaling.
It will be interesting to see if members of the IWC can find a
way to make the organization relevant again.
