EDITORIAL: Compromise on whaling

For more than 20 years, the International Whaling Commission has failed to perform its regulatory function amid the heated confrontation between pro-whaling and anti-whaling countries.

Both camps have continued to make arguments and proposals that are totally unacceptable to the other side.

A compromise proposal by IWC Chairman Cristian Maquieira to improve the dire situation is being discussed at an annual meeting of the commission that began Monday in Morocco.

This is a great and rare opportunity to get the dysfunctional organization back on track.

The chairman's proposal would remove the current distinction between commercial hunting and whaling for scientific or other purposes and allow the IWC to set ceilings on the number of whales that can be caught for each area and species.

The proposal is intended to substantially reduce the number of whales killed around the world through such integrated management of whaling.

Japan's annual quota for minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean would be 400 for the first five years, less than half of the number Japan catches in scientific whaling in the area.

The annual Japanese quota for the following five years would be halved to 200, forcing Japan to make a huge concession.

In return, Japan would be allowed to catch up to 120 minke whales per year in coastal whaling, which would effectively be commercial whaling.

The government led by the Democratic Party of Japan, which came to power last year, has adopted a more realistic and flexible stance on the issue. It has shown a grudging willingness to accept the downsizing of Japan's whaling in the Antarctic Ocean in exchange for the resumption of commercial coastal whaling.

The new rules proposed by the chairman leave open the question of what would happen after the first 10 years, but they are not totally unacceptable to Japan. The government should make serious efforts toward an international agreement on the blueprint.

The biggest challenge facing the attempt to strike a deal is how to convince the nations that are vehemently and uncompromisingly opposed to whaling.

Australia, for instance, has voiced its strong objection to the chairman's proposal, vowing to oppose any whaling in the Antarctic Ocean.

Underscoring its unwillingness to compromise, Australia has lodged a complaint against Japanese whaling at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

It is no easy task to extract a concession from such hard-line anti-whaling countries.

It may be in the best interest of Japan to consider a drastic policy change for its research whaling in the Antarctic Ocean, which has been the main target of criticism by the anti-whaling camp.

The Japanese government has been arguing that such hunting is legitimate because it is based on an international treaty.

But Japan should calmly consider whether whaling in that part of the world is really worth the enormous energy required to battle anti-whaling countries and environmental groups willing to take extreme measures to promote their cause.

Japanese consume a very small amount of whale. The per-capita consumption of whale meat in Japan is less than one-100th of the amounts of beef and pork eaten, according to various surveys.

Even if Japan stops hunting whales in the Antarctic Ocean, domestic demand can be met by carrying out very small-scale coastal whaling.

Some argue that scientific research into the populations of whales is indispensable because uncontrolled proliferation of the mammals would deplete fish stocks and damage the fishing industry.

This argument, however, doesn't offer any strong justification for Japan's whaling in remote waters around the South Pole.

Now that the reasonable proposal from the IWC chairman is on the table, the Japanese government should enter the negotiations in Morocco with a determination to persuade the anti-whaling countries to accept a sensible compromise.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 21