BRIEFING NOTEBRIEFING NOTE
IWC 63
Briefing Note: Joji Morishita, Alternate Commissioner, Delegation of Japan
Introduction
Japan’s objective is to resume sustainable whaling for abundant species under international
control including science-based harvest quota and effective enforcement measures. At thesame time we are committed to conservation and the protection of endangered species. Thisis the purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW)1.
Decisions in the IWC should respect science, international law and cultural diversity.
Consistent application of science based policy and rule making together with the principle ofsustainable use is the paradigm for the management of living resources accepted worldwide2.
Emotionalism is unhelpful in resolving difficult international negotiations and has led to thecurrent dysfunctional nature of the IWC. Japan has been working hard to normalize thefunctioning of the IWC. That is, to make the IWC an example of the international
community working under a set of sensible rules and sharing common resources.
Japan’s policy on whaling and its position in the IWC have been subject to criticism. Muchof this is based on misunderstanding and misinformation. The following questions are themost commonly raised/misunderstood points. Our answers follow on subsequent pages.
1.

What is Japan’s position re “Future of IWC” ?

2.
Japan and some other members are talking about “Normalizing” the IWC. What
does that mean?
3.
Whales are endangered and should not be hunted. Past commercial whaling
resulted in over-harvesting and proved uncontrollable.
4.

Japan is undermining the conservation objectives of the IWC.

5.

Japan’s whaling is contrary to world opinion.

6.
There is no need to hunt whales for food. Whale meat is only a high priced menu
item in expensive restaurants.
7.

Japan is buying votes at the IWC with its foreign aid.

1

The purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling as defined in the Convention is “toprovide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of thewhaling industry”.
2

These principles are included for example in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10,
1982, Agenda 21, June 14, 1992; the FAO Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action on the Sustainable
Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Oct. 31,
1995, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

8.
Japan is using a “loophole” in the Convention to conduct it research whaling.
Japan’s whale research programs are “commercial whaling in disguise”.
9.
The IWC has passed numerous resolutions urging Japan to stop its whale research
programs but Japan has ignored these.
10.

It is not necessary to kill whales to study them.

11.

Japan’s research is not providing useful or necessary information.

12.

It is not possible to kill whales humanely.

13.
Japan is whaling in the “IWC Antarctic Sanctuary” and in waters claimed byAustralia and designated as a sanctuary under Australian domestic law.
14.
There is no need to expand Japan’s whale research catch in the Antarctic byincreasing the number and taking additional species such as fin and humpback whales.
15.
Taking of humpback whales for research will have a negative impact on whale
watching operations in Australia and New Zealand. Whales are worth more alive than
dead.
16.
Japan must respond to the political pressure from its major trading partners andotherwise friendly countries.
17.
Japan has refused to accept an open and transparent monitoring scheme as part of
the RMS.

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

1. What is Japan’s position re “Future of IWC” ?
Response: Japan offered substantial compromises in discussions on the future of IWC. Japanis disappointed that discussions on the future of the IWC did not come to a successful
conclusion at IWC 62 but we are hopeful that constructive dialogue to resolve the issues the
IWC is facing will continue. See Japan’s Opening Statement to the 62nd Annual Meeting andthis 63rd Annual Meeting for a better understanding of Japan’s firm commitment to bringback the IWC to its mandated functions.
2. Japan and some other members are talking about “Normalizing” the IWC. What doesthat mean?
Response: At its meeting in Cambridge from February 28 to March 2, 2006, the IWC’s RMS
Working Group agreed to postpone further discussions on completing an RMS. Thisdecision was the culmination of 14 years of discussion and negotiations and an admissionthat the IWC has failed to carry out its functions (“… to provide for the proper conservationof whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.”)
mandated by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
It must be remembered that the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
is about properly managing the whaling industry, that is, regulating catch quotas at levels sothat whale stocks will not be threatened. The Convention is not about protecting all whales
irrespective of their abundance.
Therefore Japan, together with other members supporting the sustainable use of whale
resources, have expressed their commitment to normalizing the IWC. We are convinced that
the IWC can only be saved from its current crisis by respect for and good faith interpretationof the ICRW. This means protecting endangered and depleted species while allowing thesustainable utilization of abundant species under a controlled, transparent and science-based
management regime.
3. Whales are endangered and should not be hunted. Past commercial whaling resulted
in over-harvesting and proved uncontrollable.
Response: Many species and stocks of whales are abundant, increasing and recovering frompast over-harvesting. The IWC’s website ( http://www.iwcoffice.org/ ), which provides
population figures agreed by its Scientific Committee confirms this (see attached table). In
1990, the Scientific Committee agreed that there were 760,000 minke whales in the Antarctic.
This estimate is currently being reconsidered. Even if a new estimate shows a lower
abundance there is still a large number of minke whales which can be utilized sustainably.
The Scientific Committee also agrees that humpback whales are increasing at about 10% per
year. These estimates of abundance clearly show that whaling under strict quotas would besustainable.
Past commercial whaling did result in over-harvesting. However, much has been learnt about
the science of whales and the science of resource management since that time. The IWC’s
Scientific Committee has developed a risk-averse method of calculating catch quotas and thiswas adopted by the IWC in 1994. This method called the “revised management procedure”

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

(RMP)3 together with a monitoring and inspection scheme would provide a regime to ensurethat commercial whaling would be sustainable and that regulations are followed. Further,past commercial whaling was for a worldwide oil market when whales were regarded asindustrial material resulting in over-harvesting to support industrial developments. However,whaling now is for food with limited markets and therefore much less demand. Overharvesting will not be repeated.
4. Japan is undermining the conservation objectives of the IWC.
Response: The purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling asstated in the Convention (ICRW) is “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks
and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”. The ICRW
requires that regulations adopted by the IWC be based on scientific findings to ensure thatwhaling is sustainable. Consistent with the objective of the IWC, Japan supports sustainablewhaling under international control.
Unfortunately, many members of the IWC ignore these facts. These members of the IWC areopposed to any whaling irrespective of the science and status of the stocks. Their“conservation” is total prohibition of whaling and their position cannot be justified byscience and international law, including the ICRW. If they cannot agree with the purpose of
the ICRW, which is sustainable utilization of whales through the proper conservation ofwhale stocks, they should withdraw their membership and leave the IWC.
5. Japan’s whaling is contrary to world opinion.
Response: In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in
Rio de Janeiro, reaffirmed the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, an
agreement that permits whaling on the high seas, and explicitly rejected the efforts of antiwhaling nations to exclude whales from the list of resources open to sustainable use anddevelopment. Also, at both the 1997 and 2000 Conferences of the Parties to the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), more than half the countries present
supported the controlled use of minke whales.
Anti-whaling is therefore not “world opinion”. In fact, people in many countries around theworld use whales and small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) for food. Even among
populations that do not use whales for food there is widespread support for the principle ofsustainable use of resources, including whales. China, Russia, Norway, Iceland and many
developing countries support sustainable utilization of whales.
Anti-whaling is a
predominantly western phenomenon in developed countries amplified by the western media.
6. There is no need to hunt whales for food. Whale meat is only a high priced menu item
in expensive restaurants.

3

RMP is a risk-averse method of calculating quotas for abundant stocks of baleen whales developed by the
IWC Scientific Committee and adopted by the Commission in 1994 by consensus. The RMP would allow
harvesting only for abundant stocks, has been tested with thousands of simulation trials over a period of 100
years, has built in safety factors to take account of uncertainty (including the impacts of possible environmental
changes) and is a feedback system requiring new abundance estimates every 5 years. The RMP is the mostconservative and robust system ever developed for the management of any wildlife species.

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

Response: The Japanese have been eating whale meat and utilizing whalebones, blubber andoil for more than 9,000 years (Hiraguchi, 2003). However, since the 1960’s, the supply of
whale meat gradually declined because of restrictions on whaling and consumption has
reduced accordingly. We didn’t make whale meat an expensive luxury by our own decision.
The restrictions which include abundant species transformed the inexpensive and nutritional
daily food into a luxury.
Japanese dietary habits, which are deeply rooted in history, show that whale meat has been aprotein source as ordinary, everyday food but it also has been treated as a special food with
regional and social significance. The total protection of all whales irrespective of their stock
status as promoted by some members of the IWC and some environmental and animal
welfare organizations is exclusive of other views and ways of living. It is contradictory toJapanese cultural values where whale meat is still eaten and where whales are still revered
through religious ceremonies and festivals.
A more inclusive approach is supported by the following Declaration:
In December 1995, 95 States agreed to a Declaration and Plan of Action on the occasion of
the International Conference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security.
Among other things, the Declaration specifically “Call(s) for an increase in the respect andunderstanding of social, economic and cultural differences among States and regions in theuse of living resources, especially cultural diversity in dietary habits, consistent withmanagement objectives”. Sustainable whaling and the consumption of whale meat in Japanare fully supported by this Declaration.
7. Japan is buying votes at the IWC with its foreign aid.
Response: This accusation is false. Japan is one of the world’s largest donors, providing aid
to over 150 countries. This aid is not linked to the policies of recipient nations on specificissues. In fact, Japanese aid is provided to a number of countries including Argentina, Brazil,
India and Mexico that are opposed to whaling.
Accusations of vote buying are part of a campaign of threats and intimidation by extremist
NGOs against Caribbean nations that have supported the principle of sustainable use of all
marine resources including whales.
No one should be surprised that nations dependant on the resources of the sea would vote in asimilar manner to Japan in the IWC. Contrary to the claims of anti-whaling interests,
Caribbean countries are also whaling nations. They have voted in support of sustainable useof whales because they use cetacean resources as food themselves. Accusations that theirvotes have been bought are an insult to the sovereignty of these nations to vote as they wish
within the IWC.
8. Japan is using a “loophole” in the Convention to conduct it research whaling. Japan’s
whale research programs are “commercial whaling in disguise”.
Response: Research whaling is a fundamental right of every member of the IWC according
to Article VIII of the ICRW. It is not a “loophole” in the Convention and Japan’s whale
research programs are therefore perfectly legal. Further, Article VIII. 2 requires that research
by-products (meat) be processed and sold. This is a legally binding obligation, based oncommon sense, not to waste the meat.
63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

More than 100 data items and samples are taken from each whale including ear plugs for age
determination studies, reproductive organs for examination of maturation, reproductive
cycles and reproductive rates, stomachs for analysis of food consumption and blubber
thickness as a measure of condition. These data and the analyses of the data provide us withvaluable scientific information on whales and the ecosystem of which they are a part.
Japan submits the results from its research to the IWC Scientific Committee for review every
year, again, contrary to the claims of anti-whaling interests. Both the quality and quantity ofdata from Japan’s research programs have been commended by the Scientific Committee.
The IWC’s Scientific Committee has noted that the programs have provided considerable
data that could be directly relevant for management and that the results of these programs
have the potential to improve the management of minke whales. The Scientific Committee
has also noted that non-lethal means to obtain some of this information are unlikely to be
successful particularly in the Antarctic4, 5.
4

See for example: IWC document SC/59/REP. 1, Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data andResults from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo 4-8 December 2006), which isthe source of the following quotes:“the dataset provides a valuable resource to allow investigation of some aspects of the role of whales within themarine ecosystem and that this has the potential to make an important contribution to the Scientific Committee's
work in this regard as well as the work of other relevant bodies such as the Convention for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources” and,“the results from the research program have the potential to improve management of minke whales in theSouthern Hemisphere”.

5

See also, IWC 2009 document: SC/61/Rep 1, Report of the Expert Workshop to review the ongoing JARPNII Programme, which is the source of the following quotes:“The Panel recognises that an enormous amount of scientific work has been undertaken in the field, laboratory
and in analysis during the first six years of the programme.”“The Panel appreciates the notable amount of effort undertaken and the generally high quality of the sampling
programme, resultant data and information from JARPN II studies on whale food habits and prey preferences.
These efforts have resulted in valuable datasets that have great potential for concerted analytical work on abroad range of topics, not all directly related to the JARPN II programme objectives.”“The Panel agrees that resultant diet data have the potential to be of great value in determining whale prey
preferences, for developing functional response curves when accompanied by simultaneous assessments of prey
abundance, and for developing estimates of the impacts of whales on their prey.”“The Panel agrees that the models as developed thus far are not yet at the stage where they can be used to draweven general conclusions and certainly cannot be used to reliably inform management advice. Nevertheless,they comprised a substantial and laudable effort, and an encouraging start to the necessary process ofsynthesising the data collected during the programme.”“The Panel concludes that the JARPN II pollutant studies represent a valuable contribution to our knowledge inthis area and acknowledged the considerable amount of work presented.”“The Panel acknowledged the substantial scope of the genetic analyses undertaken under JARPN II, which
provides a uniquely large data set for testing hypotheses regarding stock structure in the target species.”“The Panel congratulates the Proponents for simultaneously collecting in situ sea surface and water column
63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

9. The IWC has passed numerous resolutions urging Japan to stop its whale research
programs but Japan has ignored these.
Response: Resolutions are adopted by the IWC by a simple majority vote. Unlike the IWC’s“regulations”, which require a ¾ majority, “resolutions” are not binding. Resolutions
adopted by the IWC against Japan’s whale research programs are political statements thathave nothing to do with science. Furthermore, they are often inconsistent with Article VIIIof the ICRW. Such resolutions have usually been passed by the IWC by only a small numberof votes, meaning that generally half of the IWC has opposed such resolutions. On the other
hand, the IWC’s Scientific Committee has highly evaluated Japan’s research programs. (Seefootnotes 4 and 5).
10. It is not necessary to kill whales to study them.
Response: Japan’s research programs involve both lethal and non-lethal research techniques,
such as sighting surveys and biopsy sampling. While certain information can be obtained
through non-lethal means, other information requires sampling of internal organs, such as
ovaries, ear plugs and stomachs.
For example, while the population age structure and reproductive rates of land mammals canbe determined by observation over a period of time, such is not the case for whales because
they spend most of their time underwater. In this case, we need ear plugs for age
determination and ovaries to establish reproductive rates. Similarly, to study the interactionsof whales and other parts of the marine ecosystem we need to know what, how much, where
and when they are eating. This is done by examining stomach contents. DNA analysis only
reveals what they have eaten, at most not when, where and how much. Another example isthat for pollution studies, tissue samples from various internal organs are required.
The expert panel that reviewed JARPN II in January 2009 said:“The Panel recognises that at present, certain data, primarily stomach content data, are only
available via lethal sampling.”
See also: www.icrwhale.org/JARPNSCpaper.htm and www.icrwhale.org/JARPNpaper.htm
Lethal studies are a standard research approach for other species and there is no scientificreason to exempt whales from this standard approach.

characteristics while conducting the whale and prey surveys, recognising the practical challenges ofcoordinating these sampling methods on the same ship at the same time. The Panel welcomes these analyses asa good initial attempt at investigating relations with oceanographic features and they encourage the analyses tobe continued and expanded. The programme is addressing its objectives and continued work is recommended.”“The Panel agrees that many of the objectives of JARPN II are relevant to Resolutions of the Commission andthat scientific results have been submitted to the Scientific Committee, as requested in several of the
Resolutions.”“The Panel recognises that at present, certain data, primarily stomach content data, are only available via lethal
sampling.”

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

11. Japan’s research is not providing useful or necessary information.
Response: This is incorrect. See comments from the IWC’s Scientific Committee in footnote
4 and comments from the expert panel that reviewed JARPN II in footnote 5 above. See also
list of publications here:
www.icrwhale.org/JARPApaper.htm, www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.htm;
www.icrwhale.org/JARPNSCpaper.htm, and www.icrwhale.org/JARPNpaper.htm
12. It is not possible to kill whales humanely.
Response: In fact, a large proportion of the whales taken are killed instantly by an explosive
harpoon and for those cases when they are not, a secondary killing method (a second harpoon
or high caliber rifle) ensures that the time to death is as rapid as possible. These two methods
were introduced to ensure the most efficient and humane killing. The IWC has said that the
explosive harpoon is the most effective method for killing whales and significant
improvements to the humaneness of the hunt have been made.
It is not appropriate to compare the data of whaling with that of a slaughterhouse wherekilling is conducted in a controlled factory-like manner. Comparison with wildlife hunting
such as deer and kangaroo is more appropriate. Instantaneous death and time to death of lessthan two minutes for whales is far better than the killing of most other wildlife.
13. Japan is whaling in the “IWC Antarctic Sanctuary” and in waters claimed by Australia
and designated as a sanctuary under Australian domestic law.
Response: The IWC sanctuary in the Antarctic applies to commercial whaling only. It does
not apply to research whaling conducted under Article VIII of the ICRW6. In regards toAustralia’s designated sanctuary, many countries including the U.S. and Japan do notrecognize Australia’s Antarctic claim. The Antarctic Treaty, to which Australia is a member,freezes all Antarctic claims. From the perspective of the international community therefore,
Australia’s claim and its sanctuary in Antarctic waters, which it has declared under its
domestic legislation, has no legal standing in international law and therefore no effect.
14. There is no need to expand Japan’s whale research catch in the Antarctic byincreasing the number and taking additional species such as fin and humpback whales.
Response: The expansion of the research is based on genuine scientific needs described indetail in Japan’s research plan submitted to the IWC. The previous 18 years of research haveshown evidence that the Antarctic ecosystem is changing so it is necessary to continue
monitoring and sampling in order to understand the dynamics of whale species interactions.
This will contribute to the conservation, management and sustainable utilization of whales in
the Antarctic Ocean.
The research area has been expanded and fin and humpback whales have been added because
they are showing rapid increases in the area and have a large role in the ecosystem. Bycollecting data on these species we will be able to test hypotheses concerning changes in the6

Article VIII of the ICRW begins with the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention….”

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

Antarctic ecosystem, as well as develop an ecosystem-based management scheme for whale
resources.
Sample sizes have been calculated as the minimum number required to obtain statisticallysignificant data and will not have any detrimental effect on the stocks. This is similar to
doing public opinion polls – you don’t ask everyone in the entire population for their view
but you need to ask more than one person. The number you need to ask increases when thesize of the population is large and the degree of accuracy required is high.
15. Taking of humpback whales for research will have a negative impact on whale
watching operations in Australia and New Zealand. Whales are worth more alive thandead.
Response: The IWC Scientific Committee and even Australian scientists agree that
humpback whales are increasing at approximately 10% per year. The small catches of
humpback whales will have no impact on whale watching opportunities. Claims to thecontrary are an emotional response without scientific foundation.
There are enough whales for those who want to watch them and for those who want to eat
them. It is unfortunate that anti-whaling interests promote a perception of conflict between
whale watching and whale eating. The situation is not different from a farm tour with a BBQ
lunch. Whaling and whale watching are not mutually exclusive. In Japan, Norway and
Iceland, both whale watching and whale eating are accepted and these activities share thesame goal of keeping healthy and abundant whale populations for their perpetual existence.
A detailed study of the estimated value of whale watching has shown that the commonly
quoted values of whale watching are grossly inflated estimates because they were derived
using faulty methodology7.
16. Japan must respond to the political pressure from its major trading partners andotherwise friendly countries.
Response: Japan has received political representations from a number of countries urging achange in its whaling policy. The difference of views on the whaling issue has not affected
and should not affect the overall good relationship Japan has with these countries. However,the fact that we have a difference of view does not mean that Japan should change its position.
Japan is not insisting that Australians or Americans eat whale meat, but these countries do
not have the right to impose their ethical or moral values on Japanese as long as whales are
sustainably utilized. Japan’s position in the IWC is fully consistent with international law
and science. Mutual respect for differences, not political coercion, is the solution to thisdifficult issue.

7

A Bioeconomic and Socio-economic Analysis of Whale-Watching, with Attention given to Associated Direct
and Indirect Costs.
By Dr Brendan J. Moyle (Massey University, New Zealand), and Dr Mike Evans (University of Alberta,
Canada). Submitted for publication.

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

17. Japan has refused to accept an open and transparent monitoring scheme as part of the
RMS8.
Response: This criticism is blatantly false. Japan is willing to accept a practical, effective andcost efficient monitoring and inspection scheme including national inspectors andinternational observers to verify catches, a conservative harvesting quota, and a fair sharingof the costs. Japan’s commitment to secure the implementation of a reasonable RMS isdemonstrated by the substantial compromises and proposals we have made.
On the other hand however, IWC members with extreme anti-whaling positions have failed
to make any substantive compromises and have delayed negotiations for over 10 years byinsisting on an always-increasing list of unnecessary, duplicative and excessively costly
measures for controlling whaling operations. It is also the anti-whaling members of IWC
that rejected the Chair’s initiative to complete an RMS at IWC 56 meeting. This is not
surprising because extreme anti-whaling members are opposed to whaling under any
circumstances and the completion of an RMS, which means a resumption of well-managed
whaling, is contrary to their position.
We are also particularly disturbed that anti-whaling members of the IWC have also added
another condition to the completion of any RMS namely, that the right of IWC members to
conduct research whaling under Article VIII of the ICRW be abolished. This demand isnothing but a further attempt to prevent the completion of an RMS. Japan and othermembers of the IWC who support the principle of sustainable utilization cannot accept any
such condition for legal and scientific reasons. Further, it is simply not logical to have togive up a fundamental right provided by the Convention (the right of all Parties to issue
permits for the conduct of research whaling) in order to resume what is the primary purposeof the same Convention – sustainable commercial whaling.

8

RMS includes the RMP (see footnote 3), an inspection and observation scheme, guidelines for surveys used toestimate abundance and specification of minimum data requirements.
63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCESWHALE POPULATION ESTIMATES
The IWC's figures for estimated whale populations
At present, these are the best estimates (and associated confidence intervals) for somespecies and areas.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
Population

Year(s) to which
estimate applies

Approximate point
estimate

Approximate 95%
confidence limits

1982/83 – 1988/89

761,000

510,000 - 1,140,000

Current

The Commission is unable to provide reliable estimatesat the present time. A major review is underway by the
Scientific Committee.

North Atlantic(Central & Northeastern)

1996-2001

174,000

125,000 - 245,000West Greenland2005

10,8003,600 - 32,400

North West Pacific andOkhotsk Sea

1989-90

25,00012,800 - 48,600

1997/98

2,300

1,150 - 4,500

MINKE WHALESSouthern HemisphereBLUE WHALESSouthern Hemisphere(excluding pygmy blue)

The estimated rate of increase is 8.2% (95% confidence interval 3.8-12.5%) per year between 1978/79 and2003/04

FIN WHALES
North Atlantic(Central & Northeastern)

1996-2001

30,00023,000 - 39,000West Greenland

2005

3,200

1,400 - 7,200

1997/98

26,30021,900 - 32,400

GRAY WHALES
Eastern North Pacific

The population was increasing at a rate of 3.2% (95% confidence interval 2.4% - 4.3%) over the period
1967/68 - 1987/88 with an average annual catch of 174 whales.
Western North Pacific

2007

121

112 - 1302001

10,5008,200 - 13,500

BOWHEAD WHALES
Bering-Chukchi- Beaufort
Seas stock

The net rate of increase of this population since 1978 has been estimated as about 3.2% per year (95%
confidence interval 1.4% - 5.1%).

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

Off West Greenland

2006

1,230

490 - 2,940

1992/93

11,60010,100 - 13,200

HUMPBACK WHALES
Western North Atlantic

A rate of population increase of 3.1% (SE=0.005) was obtained from the Gulf of Maine for the period 19791993
Southern Hemisphere southof 60S in summer (i.e.
incomplete)

1997/98

42,00034,000 - 52,000

Rates of increase. East Australia: 1981-96 12.4% (95%CI 10.1-14.4%). West Australia: 1977-91 10.9% (7.913.9%)
North Pacific2007

at least 10,000

not yet available

Rates of increase of about 7% have been reported for the eastern North Pacific, 1990-2002.
RIGHT WHALES
Western North Atlantic

2001

about 300

not available

Southern Hemisphere1997

about 7,500

not available

There is evidence of increase rates of 7-8% for populations of Argentina, Australia and South Africa
BRYDE'S WHALES
Western North Pacific1998-2002

20,501 (CV=0.337)

not available

1989

780,000

440,000 - 1,370,000

PILOT WHALES
Central & Eastern North
Atlantic

63th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 11-14 July 2011, ST. HELIER, JERSEY, UK

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES