BRIEFING NOTEBRIEFING NOTE
Briefing Note on the Whaling Issue:
Joji Morishita, Japan’s Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission(IWC)
Introduction
Japan and many countries of the world regard whales as one of the marine living resources that canbe utilized as a source of food and nutrition in a sustainable manner. We recognize that there arealso many countries that choose not to support whaling under any circumstances. However, the
IWC Scientific Committee has demonstrated that many species of whales are abundant and thatsustainable harvest quotas can be implemented. At the same time we emphasize that we arecommitted to the conservation of all marine living species and do not harvest species of whales
that are endangered, such as the blue whale. Japan’s ultimate objective is to establish whale
fisheries as a legitimate, well-regulated and carefully managed economic activity. This would
allow fishermen in Japan to resume sustainable whale fisheries, but only for abundant species ofwhales under international control including science-based harvest quotas and effective
enforcement measures.
The objective of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) 1, confirmed
as valid and effective by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2014 2, is the conservation andsustainable use of whales. Conservation and sustainable use are compatible.
Japan recognizes the fundamental differences in the positions of IWC members regarding whales
and whaling. Because of that, the discussions and decisions of the organization should be based on
science, international law and respect for cultural diversity, not intolerance. Consistent applicationof science based policy and rule making together with the principle of sustainable use is theparadigm for the management of living resources accepted worldwide 3 . Imposition of one’s
position on others is unhelpful in resolving difficult international negotiations and has led to thecurrent impasse in the IWC.
Japan’s policy on whaling and its position in the IWC have been subject to criticism. We believethat much of this is based on misunderstanding and misinformation. The following questions are
the most commonly raised/misunderstood points. Our answers follow on subsequent pages.

1.

Whales are endangered and should not be hunted. Past commercial whaling resulted inover-harvesting and proved uncontrollable.

2.

The commercial whaling moratorium prohibits whaling. It is against international law to
conduct or attempt to resume whaling.

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 the whaling
industry”.
2
The ICJ judgment, paragraph 56 (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18136.pdf)
3
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 ofFisheries to Food Security and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Oct. 31, 1995, and the Convention
on Biological Diversity.

BRIEFING NOTE
3.

Japan is undermining the conservation objectives of the IWC.

4.

The ICJ Judgment prohibited research whaling. Japan’s research whaling is therefore
illegal.

5.

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

6.

Japan’s whaling is contrary to world opinion.

7.

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

8.

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

9.

Japan is using a “loophole” in the Convention to conduct it research whaling. Japan’s
whale research programs are “commercial whaling in disguise”.

10. The IWC has passed numerous resolutions urging Japan to stop its whale research
programs but Japan has ignored these.
11. It is not necessary to kill whales to study them.
12. It is not possible to kill whales humanely.
13. Japan is whaling in the “IWC Antarctic Sanctuary” and in waters claimed by Australia anddesignated as a sanctuary under Australian domestic law.
14. Japan must respond to the political pressure from its major trading partners and otherwise
friendly countries.

BRIEFING NOTE
1. Whales are endangered and should not be hunted. Past commercial whaling resulted in overharvesting and proved uncontrollable.
Response: Industrial-scale whaling has not taken place since the 1970s and demand for whale oil –which drove commercial whaling in previous centuries – barely exists. Today, the market forwhale products is entirely different – it is based on food, with limited markets and therefore muchless demand. Many species and stocks of whales are now abundant. The IWC’s website(https://iwc.int/status, https://iwc.int/estimate) that provides stock status of whales and population
estimates agreed by its Scientific Committee confirms this. The website includes the following
statements; “Thankfully, in most areas for which there are good data, humpback whales haveshown evidence of strong recovery towards their unexploited size (which may have been 75,000100,000 in total), with annual increase rates of about 10% being recorded in a number of areas
including off Australia, Southern Africa and South America”, “There are several hundred thousand
Antarctic minke whales and thus they are clearly not endangered” and “Assessments of the
population status (of fin whales) in the central North Atlantic and off West Greenland have shown
populations there to be in a healthy state.”
Past commercial whaling did result in over-harvesting. However, much has been learnt about thescience of whales and the science of resource management since that time. The IWC’s ScientificCommittee has developed a risk-averse method of calculating catch quotas and this was adopted by
the IWC in 1994. This method called the “revised management procedure” (RMP) 4 together witha monitoring and inspection scheme provide a regime to ensure that future commercial whaling issustainable and that regulations are followed. Over-harvesting will not be repeated.

2. The commercial whaling moratorium prohibits whaling. It is against international law to
conduct or attempt to resume whaling.
Response: Contrary to what is often reported in the media, the commercial whaling moratorium
does not deny commercial whaling per se and only suspended commercial whaling when it was
adopted in 1982. The main reason for the suspension was the lack of good scientific data for theestablishment of sustainable catch quotas. Schedule paragraph 10(e), which is the so-called
commercial whaling moratorium adopted, is as follows:“Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph10, catch limits for the killing forcommercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86
pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review,
based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will
undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks andconsider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits.”

4

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 most conservative and robust system everdeveloped for the management of any wildlife species.

BRIEFING NOTE
The first sentence of this provision sets zero catch limits for commercial whaling, but it does notprohibit commercial whaling permanently. The second sentence prescribes a comprehensive
scientific assessment of whale stocks and consideration of the establishment of catch limits otherthan zero. In other words, paragraph 10(e) is a provision which describes a procedure for the
resumption of commercial whaling. Therefore it is legal to pursue the resumption of whaling under
Schedule paragraph 10(e).

3. Japan is undermining the conservation objectives of the IWC.
Response: The purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling as stated in
the Convention (ICRW) is “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus makepossible the orderly development of the whaling industry”. This was confirmed as valid by the ICJ
judgment in 2014. The ICRW requires that regulations adopted by the IWC be based on scientificfindings to ensure that whaling is sustainable. Consistent with the objective of the IWC, Japansupports sustainable whaling under international control.
Unfortunately, many members of the IWC choose to oppose any whaling irrespective of thescience and status of the stocks. Such a position cannot be justified by science and internationallaw, including the ICRW and the ICJ Judgment.

4. The ICJ Judgment prohibited research whaling. Japan’s research whaling is therefore illegal.
Response: The ICJ Judgment ruled against the Second Phase of its Japanese Whale Research
Programme under Special Permit in the Antarctic (“JARPA II”) but it does not prohibit researchwhaling. Indeed, the Judgment stated that “it is to be expected that Japan will take account of thereasoning and conclusions contained in this Judgment as it evaluates the possibility of granting any
future permits under Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention” (para. 246). This paragraphshows that the ICJ accepts the legitimacy of a new research project that follows its conditions(“reasoning and conclusions”). Japan’s course of action in submitting a new research proposal(NEWREP-A; New Scientific Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean) is specificallyconsistent with the Judgment.
The Court also found that the use of lethal sampling per se was not unreasonable in relation to theresearch objectives of JARPA II (para. 224) but that Japan had not done enough research on theuse of non-lethal means. The Judgment further noted that resolutions and guidelines adopted by the
IWC do not establish a requirement that lethal methods be used only when other methods are notavailable (para. 83) and the fact that a programme that involves the sale of whale meat and the useof proceeds to fund research is not sufficient, taken alone, to cause a special permit to fall outside
Article VIII (para. 94).

5. Japan’s research is not providing useful or necessary information.
Response: This is incorrect. Japan believes that an effective international regulatory regime forwhale fisheries should be established because we along with many other nations regard whales as
marine living resources that can be harvested in a sustainable manner. For such a regime to be
developed and work effectively, it needs to have reliable data on which to base calculations andquotas. NEWREP-A will provide this essential information and the IWC can also draw on theextensive information collected from Japan’s previous program, JARPA II.

BRIEFING NOTE
See comments from the IWC’s Scientific Committee in footnote 5 and comments from the expert
panel that reviewed JARPN II in footnote 6.
Japan’s research programs have produced a large number of scientific outputs. For JARPA and
JARPA II, in the period 1988-2014 a total of 257 documents were presented to annual andintersessional meetings of the IWC Scientific Committee and other meetings. The number of peerreviewed papers made in the same period is 133, The number of oral presentations at scientificsymposia in the period 1988-2014 is 212. (http://www.icrwhale.org/scJARPA.html)
For JARPN and JARPN II, in the period 1994-2014 a total of 233 documents were presented toannual and intersessional meetings of the IWC Scientific Committee and other meetings. The
number of peer-reviewed papers made in the period 1994-2014 is 99. The number of oralpresentations at scientific symposia in the period 1994-2014 is 175.
(http://www.icrwhale.org/scJARPN.html)
See also list of publications here:
www.icrwhale.org/JARPApaper.htm www.icrwhale.org/JARPNpaper.htm
More than 100 data items and samples are taken from each whale in the research programmes ofJapan 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 with valuable 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 of data fromJapan’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 bedirectly 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 nonlethal means to obtain some of this information are unlikely to be successful particularly in the
Antarctic. 5, 6
5

See for example: IWC document SC/59/REP. 1, Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Resultsfrom Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo 4-8 December 2006), which is the source ofthe 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 workin 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 the Southern
Hemisphere”.
6

See also, IWC 2009 document: SC/61/Rep 1, Report of the Expert Workshop to review the ongoing JARPN II
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 inanalysis 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 a broad range of
topics, not all directly related to the JARPN II programme objectives.”

BRIEFING NOTE
6. Japan’s whaling is contrary to world opinion.
Response: General references to “world opinion” are highly subjective. It should be recalled that,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 anti-whaling nations to exclude
whales from the list of resources open to sustainable use and development. 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 harvest of minke
whales.
People in many countries around the world use whales and small cetaceans (dolphins andporpoises) for food. Even among populations that do not use whales for food there is widespread
support for the principle of sustainable use of resources, including whales. China, Russia, Norway,
Iceland and many developing countries support sustainable utilization of whales. Anti-whaling
appears to be a predominantly western phenomenon in developed countries, many of which wereformerly whaling nations and contributed to the large reductions of whale stocks.

7. There is no need to hunt whales for food. Whale meat is only a high priced menu item in
expensive restaurants.
Response: The Japanese have been eating whale meat and utilizing whalebones, blubber and oil for
more than 9,000 years (Hiraguchi, 2003). Traditionally, whale meat in Japan is associated withlower and middle income families because it provides greater nutritional values than other similar“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 fordeveloping 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 draw evengeneral conclusions and certainly cannot be used to reliably inform management advice. Nevertheless, they compriseda substantial and laudable effort, and an encouraging start to the necessary process of synthesising the data collectedduring the programme.”“The Panel concludes that the JARPN II pollutant studies represent a valuable contribution to our knowledge in thisarea and acknowledged the considerable amount of work presented.”“The Panel acknowledged the substantial scope of the genetic analyses undertaken under JARPN II, which provides auniquely 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
characteristics while conducting the whale and prey surveys, recognising the practical challenges of coordinating thesesampling methods on the same ship at the same time. The Panel welcomes these analyses as a good initial attempt at
investigating relations with oceanographic features and they encourage the analyses to be 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 and thatscientific 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.”
7
Article VIII of the ICRW begins with the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Convention…..”

BRIEFING NOTE
foods. However, since the 1960’s, the supply of whale meat gradually declined because ofrestrictions on whaling and consumption has reduced accordingly. Today’s prices for whale meat
reflect the market distortions that unnecessarily restrict supply.
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 rights
organizations is exclusive of other views and ways of living. It is contradictory to Japanesecultural values where whale meat is still eaten and where whales are still revered through religious
ceremonies and festivals.
In December 1995, 95 States agreed to a Declaration and Plan of Action on the occasion of theInternational Conference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security. Amongother things, the Declaration specifically “Call(s) for an increase in the respect and understandingof social, economic and cultural differences among States and regions in the use of living resources,
especially cultural diversity in dietary habits, consistent with management objectives”. Sustainablewhaling and the consumption of whale meat in Japan are fully supported by this Declaration.
In an interview with CNN in January 2014, Japan’s Prime Minister Abe said: “In every country
and region, there are practices and ways of living and culture that have been handed down fromancestors. Naturally, I feel that these should be respected.”

8. Japan is buying votes at the IWC with its foreign aid.
Response: This accusation is false. Japan’s foreign aid is not conditional on receiving supportive
votes at international meetings. Japan is one of the world’s largest donors, providing aid to over
150 countries including a number of countries that are opposed to whaling like Argentina, Brazil,
India and Mexico.
Japan views these accusations as part of a campaign of threats and intimidation by animal rights
groups against nations that support the principle of sustainable use of all marine resources
including whales. The intimidation campaign is designed to reduce the number of votes at the IWC
supporting sustainable whaling.
No one should be surprised that nations dependent on the resources of the sea would vote in asimilar manner to Japan in the IWC. Contrary to the claims of anti-whaling interests, some of the
Caribbean countries that support sustainable use of whales are also whaling nations. They havevoted in support of sustainable use of whales because they use cetacean resources as foodthemselves. Accusations that their votes have been bought are an insult to the sovereignty of thesenations to vote as they wish within the IWC.

9. 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 as confirmed by the ICJ Judgment. It is therefore not a “loophole” in theConvention. Further, Article VIII. 2 requires that research by-products (meat) be processed andsold. This is a legally binding obligation, based on common sense, not to waste the meat.

BRIEFING NOTE
10. 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. Japan considers the past
resolutions adopted by the IWC against Japan’s whale research programs to have been based onpolitical perspectives rather than science. Furthermore, they were often inconsistent with Article
VIII of the ICRW. Such resolutions usually passed by only a small number of votes, meaning thatgenerally half of the IWC opposed them. By contrast, the IWC’s Scientific Committee has
provided detailed evaluations of Japan’s research programs. (See footnotes 5 and 6).

11. It is not necessary to kill whales to study them.
Response: NEWREP-A will involve both lethal and non-lethal research techniques, such assighting surveys and biopsy sampling. While certain information can be obtained through nonlethal means, other information requires sampling of internal organs, such as ovaries, ear plugs andstomachs.
For example, while the population age structure and reproductive rates of land mammals can be
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 andovaries to establish reproductive rates. Similarly, to study the interactions of whales and otherparts 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 is that 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.”
Lethal studies are a standard research approach for other species and there is no scientific reason to
exempt whales from this standard approach.

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 orhigh caliber rifle) ensures that the time to death is as rapid as possible. These two methods wereintroduced 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 thehumaneness of the hunt have been made.
It is not appropriate to compare the data of whaling with that of a slaughterhouse where killing is
conducted in a controlled factory-like manner. Comparison with wildlife hunting such as deer andkangaroo is more appropriate. Instantaneous death and time to death of less than two minutes forwhales is far better than the killing of most other wildlife.

BRIEFING NOTE
13. Japan is whaling in the “IWC Antarctic Sanctuary” and in waters claimed by Australia anddesignated 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 ICRW 7. In regards to Australia’s
designated sanctuary, many countries including the U.S. and Japan do not recognize 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 ininternational law and therefore no effect.

14. Japan must respond to the political pressure from its major trading partners and otherwise
friendly countries.
Response: Japan has received political representations from a number of countries urging a change
in its whaling policy. The difference of views on the whaling issue has not affected and should notaffect the overall good relationship Japan has with these countries. However, the fact that we havea difference of view does not mean that Japan should change its position. Japan is not insistingthat 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 fordifferences, not political coercion, is the solution to this difficult issue.

7

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