IWC/50/OS JSTWA

A DECADE OF
DISAPPOINTMENT

Whaling vessel “Yasumaru No. 1” (courtesy: SHIMOMICHI Yoshiichi)

Japan and Small-type Coastal Whaling at the IWC:
People Matter Too!
A Decade of Disappointment
The whaling vessel sits beached. Although she holds
one of the nine currently valid licenses and has been
maintained, ready to go, she has not gone minke whaling since 1988.
For her owner, and for the holders of three otherwhaling licenses, the unused whaling vessels are very
expensive symbols. They represent their owners’ hopes
and their owners’ persistence to resume whaling. They
also represent the owners’ responsibilities to those whohave depended on the vessels, and on them, for theirliving, both directly and in their communities. They
want very much to resume operating these vessels, but
because they cannot take minke whales, to operate themwould cost more than they can possibly afford.
The owner of this vessel and so many, many others
in Japan’s four small-type coastal whaling communities
have tried, in good faith, for a decade now, to work with
the International Whaling Commission. They havesought to ease the tremendous burden the IWC’s commercial whaling moratorium has placed on Japan’s
small-type coastal whalers, and on their communities,
by working with IWC towards an interim relief allocation.
But to no avail. For the Japanese, it has indeed beena decade of disappointment.
The moratorium took effect at the end of 1987. The
decision which instituted the interruption in commercial
whaling was supposed to allow the IWC ScientificCommittee to undertake comprehensive stock assessments and to design a method of establishing safe andsustainable catch quotas. The Commission was supposed to implement it by 1990 at the latest. The IWC
Scientific Committee did complete its work, but theCommission continues to delay its implementation.

The whalers knew before the ban took effect thatlosing their minke whale catches would seriously
threaten their capabilities to keep their small-scale operations viable because now they would be entirely
dependent upon very low quotas of small cetaceans
which are not under IWC management. To maintaintheir operations, they did several things. They paired
eight of their nine vessels and laid off crew. They chose
one vessel from each pair to go whaling.
Some whale-boat owners tried to diversify into tunafishing or salmon farming, for example. Crew tried different forms of inshore fishing or diving for abalone.
Most of these endeavours were unsuccessful and someeven lost money because people were trying to do
things they were not familiar with.
Throughout all of this, the Government of Japan has,each year, continued to request an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales to reduce the negative impactsof the seemingly-endless moratorium on the whaling
communities. But all they have taken home is three resolutions (in 1993, 1995, and 1996), delaying tactics toaccompany the refusals.
The 49th IWC meeting in Monaco was the tenthrefusal of Japan’s modest request for an interim relief
allocation to alleviate the distress the moratorium hascaused to the small-type whaling communities. What
made this refusal especially hard to accept was that the
IWC did authorise a small quota to a group of
Americans which had not whaled for 70 years. While
Japanese small-type coastal whalers were pleased that
the IWC had recognised another coastal whaling community, it also further frustrated them that their case
based on cultural, socio-economic and dietary needs
was treated so differently.
So, Japanese whaling communities and the people
who live in them are increasingly at risk.

People and their Communities at Risk
The whalers’ and their communities’ attempts atdiversification (working as joint operations tuna fishing; salmon farming; and tourism, for example) havenot compensated for the deprivation of minke whaling.
These efforts have been at best, unevenly successful
and certainly not compensatory. Some whalers havefound other jobs, but these do not match the rewards ofwhaling economically, socially, or spiritually.
Impacts of the Minke Whaling Moratorium on
Whalers and their Families
The moratorium has hurt whalers and their families
at several levels. Whalers see their work firstly as a profession, secondly as a livelihood, and thirdly as a traditional occupation which they have inherited from theirancestors and learned from their elders and which they
have the obligation-and the desire-to teach to the next
generation.
Thus, with the continuation of the moratorium, thewhalers, and their families, have been deprived not onlyof their incomes, but also of their identities as community members. That this has come as a result of the arbitrary “criminalisation” of their traditionally honourable

sorts of problems because of the self-respect and community regard which historically had been the whalers’
birthrights.
Nor have social problems been the only ones whaling communities have faced as a result of the moratorium. With the dramatic drop in incomes resulting fromthe prohibition of small-type coastal minke whaling,
Fishery Cooperative Associations in the whaling communities have been seriously hurt. So have the communities’ secondary and tertiary businesses, for in a whaling town, no business survives if there is not whaling in
the first place.
Further, because whalers had, before the moratorium, made disproportionately larger contributions tocommunity tax revenues, the towns were doubly hit:families’ incomes and town government tax losses. This
problem, especially in Ayukawa, threatened community
viability at a time when community revenues were also
declining from decreased fishing revenues.
Some of the whalers have found less satisfactorywork. But for the communities, losing the social andcultural framework whaling had traditionallyprovided—catching, processing, distributing, eating,sharing, and celebrating whales—is the greatest loss.
Tragic, poignant and unnecessary.

Part of a picture scroll illustrating whaling in the Edo period (1603–1867) in Japan (courtesy: Shoko Museum of Arts)

profession by outsiders, makes their deprivation thatmuch more tragic.
Practically, this has meant an increase in stress-related health problems for the whalers. It has also caused
emotional stress between both husbands and wives andbetween parents and children.
In addition to their daily living concerns, for example, children have had to deal with financial worries
regarding their families’ abilities to pay for their continuing education. For many, this comes at times when,in order to succeed in the universally important
Japanese high school and university entrance examinations, they should be concentrating only on theirstudies.
Impacts of the Minke Whaling Moratorium ofWhaling Communities
Obviously, these family stresses have also beenreflected in community social problems. Until themoratorium, the whaling towns had been free of these

Japanese Concerns about Attacks on Japanese
CultureThe Japanese whalers know, as scientists also know,
North Pacific minke stocks are not declining. Why,then, has the reasonable and well-documented case(based on culture, socio-economic factors and diet) for
an interim relief allocation been rejected by the IWC for
ten years?! Japan has diligently, honestly, and clearlyaddressed, in a comprehensive way, all of the objections
to STCW which IWC Members have raised. This has
included studies by social scientists and a willingness ofthe communities to drastically reduce the commercial
elements of whaling operations. Yet the denial ofcoastal whaling as an integral part of Japan’s history
and its culture continues.
This decade-long denial by the IWC of cultural,socio-economic and dietary needs of small-type whaling communities in Japan, using arguments which areneither scientifically credible nor culturally responsible,
is an injustice.

(courtesy: Shoko Museum of Arts)

Nations that adamantly reject request by Japanese
STCW in the IWC seem to be obsessed with a notion
arising from their own past whaling practice in which
they threw away whale meat in order to gain yield of
oil out of the whales they hunted around the world.
This notion underlies their rejection, even though
STCW operates in contrast with other types of whaling;
STCW utilises all possible whale parts with minimum
waste. These opponents close their eyes to the cultural
significance of STCW as basis of communal unity.

Japan’s Decade of Good Faith STCW
Efforts at IWC
It is difficult to comprehend that Japan’s IWC opponents can still claim incomplete understanding of theimportance of STCW to Japan and its whaling communities. In the past decade, Japan has submitted morethan 40 papers on this subject. It has responded—frequently more than once—to questions, reservations,and alleged misunderstandings about the science andthe socio-economics of Japanese STCW and the justifications for an interim relief allocation (IRA), pending
the resumption of commercial whaling.
Evolution of Japan’s IRA Requests
Japan first requested an IRA in 1988. Since 1990,
Japan has specifically asked for 50 North Pacific minke
whales. But without success.
Some delegations allege that their opposition isbased on the commercial elements of Japanese STCW.
They argue that to grant the IRA would mean de facto
resumption of commercial whaling. Japan has sought toaddress these arguments and other arguments at IWC
meetings and elsewhere, year after year after year.
Japan has offered to reorganise JSTCW into community-based whaling (CBW) until commercial minke
whaling resumes, despite the economic losses thewhalers would bear by doing so. Under this CBW
Action Plan, whale products could be distributed andconsumed in the least commercial ways.
Japan first made this CBW offer in 1993. To havedone so reflected the Japanese coastal whaling communities’ fundamental need to resume minke whaling for
non-economic reasons, even though money has been an
integral part of their whaling culture since coastal whaling began.

But in 1997, after five years of Japanese offers andrevisions of the CBW Action Plan, the IWC opponents
still rejected Japan’s request.
The “Commercial” Debate
Given that there are clearly commercial elements of
the whaling operations of other groups allowed to continue whaling, the argument about commercialism inJapanese STCW is not a legitimate objection. Why
have the “commercial” aspects of Japan’s small-type
coastal whaling been an issue? Alaskan whalers buy
equipment to go whaling and sell handicrafts madefrom whales they take and Japan’s STCW is no morecommercial than the approved Greenland Inuit whaling
operations. After all, they sell whale products at local
supermarkets. In addition, the well-documented culturalneed of Japan’s whaling communities to resume whal-

Memorial Service for Whales in Taiji (courtesy: Taiji Town)

ing is no less than that of a group of American natives
who have not been whaling for 70 years but were given
a quota at the 1997 meeting.
Certainly, neither the debate about the commercial
elements of Japan’s STCW nor the earlier “concern”
opponents expressed regarding the “morality andethics” of Japan’s STCW have much to do with IWC
Members’ treaty responsibilities to manage whale
resources. Rather, they represent, for the Japanese, afrustrating decade of irresponsible political games,
hypocrisy and the application of double standards
which has caused severe hardships to Japan’s STCW
communities and resulted in a further erosion of the
IWC’s credibility as a responsible resource management organisation.

And Now?
Resolution, Resolution, Resolution: No Action
To answer questions and respond to objections to
its request for a 50-minke whale interim relief allocation, the Government of Japan has provided more than
40 papers addressing issues of socio-economics,
anthropology, science, and law. It has, in good faith,sought IWC Members’ understanding of these complex
issues by providing responsible documentation of all
aspects of community-based whaling. Although the
IWC has adopted three Resolutions, people in Japan’s
whaling communities cannot eat Resolutions, nor canthey use Resolutions to pay their bills, and certainly
Resolutions make no gifts for traditional community
celebration.
It is now 1998. Five years ago, in 1993—five years
after the GOJ and the communities had sought toaddress every point of objections raised—theCommission graciously resolved “...to work expeditiously to alleviate the distress to these communities....”
There were just a few questions, Japan was told, about
the “commercial” aspects of the Action Plan. Japananswered these questions in 1994. And in 1995. All thatthese efforts gave the whaling communities was another
Resolution. This one “[r]ecognise[d] the revised Action
Plan as constructive management elements in accordance with IWC regulations.” Still, the people inJapan’s STCW communities couldn’t eat it, or pay bills
with it, and certainly not celebrate with it.
Then, in 1996, after Japan had tried yet again, withyet more information, it got, in return, yet another
Resolution-this one calling for yet another workshop to“...review and identify commercial aspects and socioeconomic and cultural needs....” Again!?
Clearly, the response of the Commission to these
Resolutions has been lacking good faith. The
Commission has not “work[ed] expeditiously to alleviate the distress to these communities” and has not seriously considered the socio-economic and cultural needsof the people in Japan’s STCW communities.
ICRW: Protect and Delay or Conserve and Utilise?
Japan and a minority of other IWC Members havestressed that the International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is about conserving
and using whales, not about only protecting them. The
Convention is also about using science as the basis for
management. The so-called morality and ethics ofwhaling has nothing to do with science; it is anotherdelaying tactic.
But even if it were a legitimate concern, there is astandard and widely-agreed-upon ethical principle governing the use of living resources. Adopted by almost
all members of the United Nations, it declares resource
use is justified, provided it is sustainable and does notdamage biological diversity, and that such resource use
should be encouraged if it promotes social and economic benefit.
Both the 1980 World Conservation Strategy and the1992 United Nations Earth Summit’s Agenda 21
recognise the social and environmental benefits of sustainable resource use and urge implementation of this

Aerial view of Oshika Town (courtesy: Oshika Town)

principle as a responsible and desirable courses ofaction.
Japan is Committed to Restoring Small-type Coastal
Whaling
Five years ago, at the IWC meeting in Kyoto, thechairman of the Japan Small-type Whaling Association
said,...Our lives [in Japan’s small-type whaling communities] are culturally simpler and economically simpler
than the lives of those in Japan’s cities. But we too arepart of the history and the modern life of Japan.... Wein simpler communities also have responsibilities. We
provide food for the people who share our lives. In thisway we make our contribution to society. And we areproud that we make this contribution.
It is also our responsibility, our duty, and our wish
to pass on to the next generation this way of living andof contributing. Those who have nothing to do with our
way of life in local communities have no right to try todeny us this responsibility.
For the whalers and their communities this is how it
is. Their very great efforts to resume their traditional
community way of life continues. And will continue.
To the IWC, they say it is time to stop unfairness
and double standard toward Japan’s community-basedwhalers. Honour your treaty commitments and obligations. Japan and Japanese community-based whalers
have co-operated with the IWC. If the IWC continues
to ignore our cultural, socio-economic and dietaryneeds, Japan will be forced to take unilateral action to
defend and maintain its whaling communities and theirpeople.

Japan Small-type Whaling Association
4-5-10-506, Honcho, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0012, Japan
TEL: 03-5385-6121 FAX: 03-5385-6122
25 February 1998
Copyright 1998 Japan Small-type Whaling Association
All rights reserved.