ISARIBI NO.84

ISSN1346-2512

ISARIBIJapan
Fisheries
Association Fishing Fire

漁火

FEB. 2015
Sankaido Bldg.,
9-13 Akasaka 1, Minato-ku,
Tokyo, Japan 107-0052
tel: 81-3-3585-6683
http//www.suisankai.or.jp

Views and Opinions of Japan’s Fisheries Industry

ICFA promotes understanding on the role offishery products in food securityT

he annual meeting of the International Coalitionof Fisheries Associations (ICFA), the largest
international non-governmental organization in
the world's fisheries industry (Note 1), was held on
September 24-25, 2014, at the headquarters of the
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Note 2)
in Rome. During this period, ICFA representatives also
had an informal meeting to exchange views with the
FAO. The Japanese delegation was headed by Toshiro
Shirasu, President of the Japan Fisheries Association(JFA). An outline of the annual meeting is given below.
1. The role of fishery products in food security
The role fishery products have in food security was
highlighted at a meeting of the United Nations Openended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans andthe Law of the Sea (UNICPOLOS) held in May as well as
in the report of the Committee on World Food Security
to the FAO's Committee on Fisheries in June, bringing
ICFA's resolution on food security--adopted on February
13, 2014--in line with the world's current mainstream.
Members of ICFA have captured every occasion
at various international conferences to refer to that
resolution, and showed their intention to continue tounderline it at other related meetings after its annual
meeting, including the meeting of the Committee on
World Food Security (starting on October 13, 2014).
2. Report on the situation of restoration in
the areas hit by the Great Earthquake andTsunami in Japan, persistent negative rumors on
Japanese seafood, and Japan's effort to expand
seafood exports
After expressing gratitude to the assistance extended
by foreign countries to the recovery from the disaster,
Japan made the following reports and requests:(1) Restoration in the area hit by the disaster
The damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami
to Japan as a whole amounted to an astounding JPY1.3
trillion—a figure nearly equivalent to Japan's total
fishery production of JPY1.4 trillion and its total seafood
imports of JPY1.3 trillion.

The bulk of thedamage was coveredby the government's
budget. As a result,fish landings haverecovered to 70% in
volume and 80% in
value, in comparison
with the pre-disasterperiod.
H o w e v e r, t h eoverall recovery
from the aftermathof the earthquake
Shirasu (right) and Mr. Mathiesen
and tsunami has notadvanced smoothly
because of rising construction costs and labor shortages.
Notably, the rehabilitation of freezing and chilling
facilities has been slow due to the loss of the market andcustomers.
Fisheries in the disaster areas accounts for 20-30% ofJapan’s entire fisheries industry. It can be said, therefore,that there will be no development of Japan's fisheries
industry without the restoration of fisheries in the disasterareas.
In order to accelerate the pace of restoration, it isessential to boost domestic demand for seafood andexpand exports.
Japan also explained the above situation to, andsought the understanding of, Arni M. Mathiesen, Assistant
Director General of the FAO’s Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department.
(2) Rootless negative rumors on seafood from thedisaster area
Japan reported that there have been persistent
rootless negative rumors on the effects of the accident
at Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant on local seafood.
Some countries are still continuing import restrictions
on the seafood from affected prefectures, regardless ofwhether radioactive contamination exists.
With regard to this situation, Japan explained:(i) Fishermen are taking voluntary actions not to fish

ISARIBI: First published by the Japan Fisheries Association in October 1992.
JFA President: Toshiro Shirasu; Editor: Masashi Nishimura

ISARIBI NO.84

FEB. 2015

FAO Headquarters: The banners announce the Committee on World
Food Security (CFS)( 13-18 October 2014) and the 2nd Conference on
Nutrition in November (19-21 November 2014)

in the area near the Fukushima Power Plant. No fishing
operation is taking place in the area.
(ii) Thoroughgoing monitoring surveys are conducted
so that no fish with radioactive values beyond thebenchmark level may be distributed in the market.
(iii) Japan’s benchmark level of radioactive cesium of
100 Becquerels is the most rigorous in the world.
With this explanation, Japan submitted data of its
monitoring surveys on the safety of seafood, andrequested continued understanding and cooperation
regarding imports of Japan’s seafood.
In response to Japan’s presentation, some ICFA
members including a member from the National
Fisheries Institute (NFI) of the United States and an
Australian member indicated that they are promoting
publicity activities using video presentations on theirwebsites regarding the impact of the nuclear power
accident on the safety of seafood and the actual safetyof Japanese-produced seafood.
In conclusion, Japan emphasized that the Japanese
government is taking measures to ensure that fish withradioactive cesium exceeding the standard limit is notsent to the market by conducting rigorous monitoring ofradioactive cesium.
(3) Promotion of exports of fishery products
Japan reported that it is promoting the expansion ofseafood exports in line with the restoration from thedisaster.
In addition to the above, Japan stated, as new aspectsof seafood export expansion, that(i) demand for seafood is expanding globally;(ii) notably, demand for Japanese seafood whichenjoys a high reputation for its safety is rising; and(iii) Washoku (Japanese cuisine) was registered as an
Intangible Cultural Heritage by UNESCO.
The Japan International Seafood & Technology Expo,sponsored by the JFA, is now located next in line only to
the world’s three major seafood shows--Boston, Brussels
and China. Japan encouraged ICFA members to takepart in the next expo in the summer of 2015, sayingthat many buyers will visit it from overseas.
3. Tuna issues

Japan made a presentation regarding the following
tuna issuesi) The strengthened draft Conservation andManagement Measure (CMM) on Pacific bluefin tuna
adopted in September by the Northern Committee ofthe Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission(WCPFC) (this draft CMM is expected to be adopted at
WCPFC 11 in December 2015);ii) Control on overfishing capacity of large scale purse
seiners: CMM2013-01 (the multi-year management
program for 2014-2017 on tropical tunas) adopted by
WCPFC10 in December 2011 includes epoch-making
provisions such as the reduction of the number of large
scale purse seiners by certain members to the 2012 yearend level. The Commission shall develop a scheme forthe reduction of overcapacity, etc., in order to attain theobjectives of this CMM. All members concerned shallcooperate in fully implementing this CMM;iii) Rejecting the entry of products from IUU fishingactivities into major markets is obviously effective intackling IUU fishing. In this regard, lists of legitimate
fishing vessels maintained by RFMOs and documentation
systems (in which documents containing information on
harvest are issued by the relevant authorities of exporting
countries and forwarded to the relevant authorities ofimporting countries) are of paramount importance;iv) Introduction of IMO vessel numbers to be used as
Unique Vessel Identifiers (UVI) in tuna related RFMOs as
an additional means for tackling IUU fishing; and v) As
for sharks, inappropriate and excessive control measures
should not be taken under the name of the protection of
sharks. Ensuring adequate management of shark stocks
and full utilization are important.
4. Moves to ban bottom trawling
Regarding the issue surrounding the conservationof deep sea ecosystems, Japan noted that there havebeen two management approaches: management
through the establishment of the EBSA (European
Biosafety Association) promoted by the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD); and management through theestablishment of VMEs (Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems)
promoted by the FAO and regional fisheries management
organizations.
Regarding the project--now being implemented by
the FAO and the United Nations Environment Program( U N E P ) - - t o e n h a n c e t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f m a r i ne
resources and fisheries including bottom trawling, Japan
stated that it strongly hopes that the EBSA should be
excluded from the project and that, on that condition, the
FAO launch the project. Japan requested the cooperation
by member countries so that the project will be promoted
within the framework of the VMEs which takes science
seriously.
5. Eco-labels
Some ICFA members exchanged views with FAO
officials in charge of eco-labeling. Japan explained thepossibility for the FAO and related countries, including
developing countries, and private organizations tocoordinate among themselves from the viewpoint ofpromoting overseas development of the fishery products
certified under the Marine Eco-label Japan (MEL Japan)

Page 2

ISARIBI NO.84
scheme from sustainable fisheries.
Japan also made a similar presentation to ICFA
members and request for cooperation.
ICFA decided to hold its next annual meeting in
Vigo, Spain in early October 2015 so that the meeting
will be conducted at the time of the event marking the20th anniversary of the adoption of the FAO’s Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
(Note 1) ICFA members as of the time of the 2014
annual meeting are:
-Chinese Fisheries Association of the Republic of
China-Danish Fishermen’s Association-Fisheries Association of Iceland-Fisheries Council of Canada-Japan Fisheries Association

FEB. 2015-National Fisheries Institute (USA)-New Zealand Seafood Industry Council-Spanish Fishing Confederation-Pelagic Freezer-trawler Association (consisting oforganizations from the Netherlands, Germany, France, theUnited Kingdom, and Lithuania)-Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Association-Seafish (UK)
-Union des Armateurs à la Pêche de France (UAPF)-The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation(FRDC) (Australia)(Note 2) T h e FA O i s a s p e c i a l i ze d a g e n c y o f
the United Nations dedicated to attaining the goalof eliminating hunger through the improvement offood production and distribution in the world and theenhancement of living standards.

Future of Japan's Antarctic Research Whaling--on the basis of the ICJ judgment--

Hideki Moronuki
Senior Fisheries Negotiator, International Fisheries Affairs Division,
Fisheries Agency of the Government of Japan
Outline of the ICJ's judgment
Late in June 2013, I was called back on short noticefrom my overseas assignment to join the Japanesedelegation at the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
regarding the lawsuit filed by Australia (with New
Zealand intervening) against the Second Phase ofJapan's Research Whaling Program in the Antarctic(JARPA II). It was truly disappointing to see the ICJ's
judgment issued on March 31, 2014. I have been
involved in the whaling issue over a span of many years
and have encountered unreasonable allegations andbehavior of anti-whaling proponents from time to time,
and therefore I initially felt indignation against the
ICJ's decision which at first glance seemed irrational
similar to those responses by anti-whaling proponents.
However, as I re-read the text of the judgment timeand again to try to understand it more deeply, I cameto find several interesting points.
The gist of the ICJ judgment is that JARPA II does
not fall within the provisions of Article VIII paragraph
1 of the International Convention for the Regulationof Whaling (ICRW) and therefore is not regarded asa research for scientific purposes under the special
permit issued pursuant to the provisions of ICRW.
Based on this judgment, the Court determined insuccession that JARPA II constitutes a violation of thecommercial whaling moratorium, a violation of themoratorium on factory-ship whaling, and a violation of
the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. On the basis ofthese assumptions, the ICJ handed down a rigorous

judgment that the current permit for JARPA II should be
revoked and no special permit for JARPA II should be
issued in the future.
Criteria of examination leading to the judgment
The text of the judgment shows the criteria for
examination and explanation of the process by which
the ICJ decided that JARPA II does not fall within theprovisions of Article VIII paragraph 1 of the ICRW. First,
the ICJ judgment mentions the non-lethal researchmethods. Japan just asserted, the ICJ says, that othernonlethal research methods are inefficient and have lowlevel feasibility, although it has been conducting sighting
surveys and biopsy sample collection. The ICJ says thatJapan has not conducted sufficient verification regarding
the feasibility or non-feasibility of non-lethal research.
Second, it is noted that Japan's consideration regarding
the establishment of the target sample size of minke
whales lacked transparency and that the actual catch isunreasonable because it is largely smaller compared withthe target sample size. Third, the judgment decided itis questionable to characterize JARPA II as research forscientific purposes because of its open-ended time frame.
Fourth, it was also pointed out that there are few peerreviewed papers on the results of JARPA II published inprominent scientific journals or other publications, and,fifth, the significant cooperation with other scientificorganizations both in Japan and overseas was absent.
Mainly on the basis of the above five criteria, JARPA
II was not validated as reasonable to implement and to
Page 3

ISARIBI NO.84

FEB. 2015

achieve its stated objectives, although JARPA II can becharacterized as scientific research in a broad sense. It
was decided that the special permit granted for JARPA
II is not "for purposes of scientific research" pursuant
to Article VIII paragraph 1 of the ICRW, and therefore,
constitutes a violation of the Convention.
However, there exist views that all five points are false
charges. Some point out that, although Japan presented
detailed presentations to clarify those points, the Court
did not use many of the explanations raised in thepresentations at all. For these reasons, I initially felt that
the ICJ's judgment is very dissatisfactory.
Views regarding the object and purpose of theConvention
In spite of this very rigorous judgment, I graduallycame to find a number of significant views endorsed,
so to speak, by the ICJ, after I re-read the judgment
text closely. Those views include confirmation of validityof research whaling providing scientific informationthat cannot be collected through non-lethal researchand suggestions on what form future research whaling
should take. Thus, I came to understand that the
judgment contains some very useful suggestions for us.
The ICJ clarified that it is impossible to alter the object
and purpose of the Convention as such even though it
is possible to emphasize one or other objective throughSchedule Amendments or IWC resolutions. In otherwords, it was recognized that the objective provided in
the preamble of the ICRW: "... conservation of whale
stocks and thus make possible the orderly developmentof the whaling industry” cannot be altered at all. It
was also made clear that research whaling pursuant to
Article VIII of the ICRW is not subject to the obligations
under the Schedule concerning the commercial whaling
moratorium, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary
and the moratorium relating to factory ships; neither
a restrictive nor an expansive interpretation of Article
VIII is justified; research whaling should foster scientificknowledge; and research whaling may pursue an aim
other than those for the conservation or sustainable
exploitation of whale stocks (if it is for scientificpurposes). In addition, views were expressed that thesale of whale meat and the use of the proceeds are
possible for the aim to accommodate funds for research,and the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) isapplicable as a management procedure. Furthermore,
the ICJ found that the activity of JARPA II involving
lethal sampling can broadly be characterized as“scientific research”. (Nevertheless, I still find it difficult
to understand the logical consequence of the judgmentthat determined that JARPA II “does not fall within thepurview of the research for scientific purposes.”)
The ICJ stated clearly that it is not feasible toobtain some kinds of scientific data through nonlethal alternatives and it is reasonable to use lethal
methods. From this, we can say we have proved thatthe allegation by anti-whaling NGOs and others that “allthe information that are obtained by Japanese researchwhaling can be obtained through non-lethal methods” istotally fake propaganda.

Suggestions for the implementation of researchwhaling in the future
There were also some suggestions regarding thefuture state of research whaling programs and theirimplementation. First, as a matter of principle, it was
expressed clearly that the reasoning and conclusions
contained in the judgment should be taken account of inevaluating the possibility of granting any future permits forresearch whaling. In other words, the ICJ suggested that,
if Japan considers to issue a special permit for researchwhaling in the future, analyses and verification regarding
the feasibility of the use of non-lethal research methods
should be carried out properly, and transparent process
and clear evidence should be presented when establishingobjectives of the research and calculating target sample
size. Seen from a reverse angle, it has been made clearthat if the contents of the ICJ judgment are fully takencare of and reflected in a research program, there would
be no impediment for issuing the special permit. It meansthat the ICJ judgment provides us a very useful suggestion
in developing future research whaling programs not only
by Japan but also by any other IWC member country.
Regarding future research whaling
Following the ICJ’s judgment in March 2014, thethen Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
Yoshimasa Hayashi, made clear in his statement on April
18 the Japanese Government’s basic policy of pursuing
the resumption of commercial whaling, by conducting
research whaling based upon international law andscientific evidence in order to gather scientific data thatis essential for the management of whale resources. The
Minister further stated that the government will submit
a new research program for the research whaling in the
Antarctic from fiscal 2015 (April 2015-March 2016), which
will reflect the criteria mentioned in the ICJ judgment,
and will continue its research in the northwestern
Pacific making minor adjustments in the program taking
also account of the judgment. In accordance with the
Minister’s statement, the Japanese government developed
a draft plan of a new Antarctic research whaling program,and submitted it to the Scientific Committee of theInternational Whaling Commission (IWC) on November
18, 2014.
The new research program will be finalized, afterrevisions and modifications as necessary, through thelegitimate review process by the IWC Scientific Committee,
and the research whaling in the Antarctic for fiscal 2015
will be carried out under the new research program.
I hope the readers understand that the recent judgmentof the ICJ, though it was disappointing when only seenfrom its conclusion, provides useful advice regarding thefuture state of Japan’s research whaling. In the years tocome, the Japanese government will implement researchwhaling both in the Antarctic and the northwestern Pacificunder programs adequately taking account of the ICJ’s
judgment and will continue the collection of scientificinformation necessary for the resumption of commercial
whaling with the view to realize the actual resumption ofsustainable commercial whaling at the earliest possible
time.

Page 4