JAPAN’S scientific whaling program has been the subject of jokes for years but did it actually provide any relevant data after 24 years in operation?

The International Court of Justice’s recent ruling against Japan’s whaling in the Antarctic has provided some insight into Japan’s research and its findings.

Japan’s first study took 18 years, with mixed results

Japan’s first JARPA Research Plan in 1987 was primarily aimed at estimating the numbers of Antartctic minke whales and ran until 2004-05.

During the 18 years, more than 6,700 minke whales were killed.

But Australia argued that it was “practically unachievable” to estimate the probability that a whale would die from natural causes in any particular year.

It also said the Scientific Committee was unable to conclude that any of the program’s objectives were met, including an adequately precise estimate of the natural mortality rate of the whales.

Japan says recommendations made as part of a final review led to further analysis, and that an estimate of the mortality rate was accepted by the Scientific Committee in 2010.

Overall, the parties disagreed whether JARPA made a scientific contribution to the conservation of whales.

Here’s hoping Japan’s second study does better

The second study, JARPA II, had no end date as Japan said its aim was to monitor the Antarctic ecosystem and this required a continuing program of research.

But it is organised into six-year “research phases”, with a review held after each phase.

The first review by the Scientific Committee is due this year.

Here are the four things they hoped to achieve:

1. Monitor the Antarctic ecosystem for changes in whale numbers, prey numbers, the effects of contaminants, pregnancy rate, age at maturity and other factors.

2. Construct an “ecosystem model” that models competition between species, such as whether the overhunting of species such as fin and humpback whales led to more food for others, like the smaller minke whale. This could examine the effects of the resumption of commercial whaling.

3. A comparison of the numbers of whales based on historic information and yearly fluctuations.

4. Improve the management of minke whale stocks and analyse whether the catch quota is set too low.

But do the whales really need to be killed?

Japan says it needs to kill whales so it can collect ear plugs to determine the age of the whales, examine stomach contents for eating habits, and measure blubber thickness to study changes in prey conditions.

The Court of Justice said killing whales was not unreasonable for research objectives but it was unconvinced about how Japan came up its figures on how many should die.

The study sought to kill three whale species, 850 Antarctic minke whales as well as total of 50 fin and humpback whales.

But the court found that based on Japan’s calculations, the number of fin and humpback whales killed were not enough to produce statistically useful results, such as determining the rate of change in age at sexual maturity.

The court found limited information was provided on what influenced Japan’s targets. It noted that Japan said it could also rely on nonlethal methods to study humpback and fin whales for the construction of an ecosystem model.

An expert for Australia said that almost the same level of accuracy could be obtained with a smaller number of minke whales killed. Japan did not refute this expert opinion.

On the other hand Japan also needs to pick up its act — it’s not killing enough whales!

Japanese vessels have in fact only killed 18 fin whales in seven seasons and no humpback whales.

On average about 450 minke whales (of the 850 target) are killed each year.

An expert for Japan said that the country’s target for fin whales was not possible to achieve because the species lives further north of the research area. Not only that, Japanese vessels are not big enough to accommodate large whales, they can only cope with smaller fin whales.

Japan has partly blamed sabotage activities such as those conducted by Sea Shepherd for the lower numbers, along with the fact that it also agreed to a request not to kill humpback whales.

But Australia believes the decline is due to lower demand for whale meat.

They’ve killed less whales, but they don’t seem to care

Despite falling well short of its targets for whale specimens, Japan has not made any changes to its research objectives or targets.

The court says Japan’s statement that it can achieve scientifically useful results with a longer research period or lower level of accuracy, raises further doubts about whether the target of 850 minke whales was reasonable.

It also added force to Australia’s contention that the target for minke whales was set for non-scientific reasons.

So maybe they’re killing whales for other reasons ...

The court noted a statement from the director-general of Japan’s Fisheries Agency that minke whale meat is “prized because it is said to have a very good flavour and aroma when eaten as sashimi and the like”.

In trying to justify its lethal methods, Japan also referred to an unpublished 2007 paper it submitted to the Scientific Committee that stated nonlethal methods were “impractical, cost ineffective and prohibitively expensive”.

It states that “whale research is costly and therefore lethal methods which could recover the cost for research (are) more desirable’. No analysis is provided in support of these conclusions.

So 3600 minke whales have died in six years, has this benefited anyone?

Japan says genetic and age data from lethal whaling has already been provided but a meaningful evaluation of the most recent study, JARPA II, can only be done once a review is complete.

Australia has acknowledged that the Scientific Committee has considered some of the results, but argues that the data has not proven useful or contributed “significant knowledge” towards the conservation and management of whales.

The court noted that the main scientific output would follow the six-year research period for minke whales and the 12-year period for humpback and fin species.

But the first six-year research phase (2005/06 to 2010/11) has already finished and Japan has only pointed to two peer-reviewed papers produced as a result.

These papers also do not relate to the research objectives and rely on data collected from minke whales caught during a feasibility study.

Japan also refers to three presentations made at scientific symposiums, and to eight papers it has submitted to the Scientific Committee. But six of the papers were cruise reports, one was an evaluation of the feasibility study and the other related to the program’s nonlethal photo identification of blue whales.

“In light of the fact that JARPA II has been going on since 2005 and has involved the killing of about 3,600 minke whales, the scientific output to date appears limited,” the court said in its report.

So no more killing for scientific purposes

The court found killing whales was not unreasonable for research objectives but that Japan’s evidence did not establish that its program’s design and implementation were reasonable to achieve its scientific aims.