Scientific whaling, and what the exemption is for

In July 2012, at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Panama City, the Republic of Korea announced that it intended to resume hunting Minke Whales in its own waters, under the convention’s provision for scientific research.

The announcement drew immediate international criticism, and it was not pursued.

The provision itself

Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling permits a member state to issue permits to take whales for the purposes of scientific research. The important feature is that it is self-authorising: the state issues its own permits, sets its own sample size, and is not required to obtain the commission’s agreement.

That was a reasonable arrangement when the convention was drafted, in a context where whaling was ongoing and the research question was how to manage it. It reads differently under a moratorium, where it constitutes a route around the restriction that any member can take unilaterally.

Why it attracts the objection it does

Two features do most of the work.

The first is that the meat from animals taken under research permits is generally sold. That is permitted under the convention and it means the activity is not straightforwardly distinguishable from commercial whaling in its outputs, whatever its stated purpose.

The second is proportionality of output. Critics have argued that the volume of published research arising from research whaling has been modest relative to the number of animals taken — an argument about whether the sample size is driven by the scientific question or by something else.

The narrowing case for lethal sampling

There are questions about whale biology (some aspects of diet, age structure and reproductive history) that have historically required examining a dead animal.

That set has shrunk considerably. Biopsy darting supplies tissue and genetics from a living whale. Photo-identification tracks individuals over decades. Acoustic monitoring gives distribution and abundance. Faecal and skin sampling answers questions about diet and stress hormones that once required dissection.

The case for lethal methods therefore has to be made for a specific question, not in general, and it is a case that has become steadily harder to make.

The bycatch context

Any assessment of whaling in Korean waters has to account for bycatch, which is substantial. A considerable number of Minke Whales are reported each year as accidental catches in fishing gear, and that meat may lawfully be sold.

That matters for two reasons. It means a supply exists independently of any hunt, which affects the economics of resuming one. And it raises a monitoring question that applies whatever the legal position on hunting: distinguishing an accidental catch from a deliberate one, after the fact, is difficult, and the incentive structure around a saleable animal is not neutral. The same national reporting covers the tidal flats at Incheon and Ganghwa, where an environmental case was also made against a proposal presented as a public good.