BRIEFING NOTEBRIEFING NOTE
IWC 60Briefing Note: Joji Morishita, Delegation of Japan
Introduction
Japan’s objective is to resume sustainable whaling for abundant species underinternational control including science-based harvest quota and effective enforcement
measures. At the same time we are committed to conservation and the protection ofendangered species. This is 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 principleof sustainable use is the paradigm for the management of living resources accepted
worldwide 2 . Emotionalism is unhelpful in resolving difficult international negotiations
and has led to the current dysfunctional nature of the IWC. Japan has been working hard
to normalize the functioning of the IWC. That is, to make the IWC an example of theinternational 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.
Much of this is based on misunderstanding and misinformation. The following are
responses to the most commonly raised/misunderstood points:
1.
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 recoveringfrom past over-harvesting. The IWC’s website (http://www.iwcoffice.org/), which
provides population figures agreed by its Scientific Committee confirms this (see attachedtable). 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 estimateshows a lower abundance there is still a large number of minke whales which can beutilized sustainably. The Scientific Committee also agrees that humpback whales are
increasing at about 10% per year. These estimates of abundance clearly show thatwhaling under strict quotas would be sustainable.
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

1

The purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling as defined in the Convention is“to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of
the whaling 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.

60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

quotas and this was adopted by the IWC in 1994. This method called the “revised
management procedure” (RMP) 3 together with a monitoring and inspection scheme
would provide a regime to ensure that commercial whaling would be sustainable and that
regulations are followed. Further, past commercial whaling was for a worldwide oilmarket when whales were regarded as industrial material resulting in over-harvesting tosupport industrial developments. However, whaling now is for food with limited markets
and therefore much less demand. Over-harvesting will not be repeated.
2.

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 toensure that whaling is sustainable. Consistent with the objective of the IWC, Japansupports sustainable whaling under international control.
Unfortunately, many members of the IWC ignore these facts. These members of the IWC
are opposed 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 of whale stocks, they should withdraw their membership and leave the IWC.
3.

Japan’s whaling is contrary to world opinion.

Response: In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) heldin 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 ofanti-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 theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), more than half thecountries present supported the controlled use of minke whales.
Anti-whaling is therefore not “world opinion”. In fact, people in many countries aroundthe world 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 principleof sustainable use of resources, including whales. China, Russia, Norway, Iceland andmany developing countries support sustainable utilization of whales. Anti-whaling is a
predominantly western phenomenon in developed countries amplified by the western
media.

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

60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

4.
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). However, since the 1960’s, thesupply of whale meat gradually declined because of restrictions on whaling andconsumption has reduced accordingly. We didn’t make whale meat an expensive luxury
by our own decision. The restrictions which include abundant species transformed theinexpensive and nutritional daily food into a luxury.
Japanese dietary habits, which are deeply rooted in history, show that whale meat has
been a protein 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 irrespectiveof 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 to Japanese 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 occasionof the International Conference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food
Security. Among other things, the Declaration specifically “Call(s) for an increase in therespect and understanding of social, economic and cultural differences among States andregions in the use of living resources, especially cultural diversity in dietary habits,
consistent with management objectives”. Sustainable whaling and the consumption ofwhale meat in Japan are fully supported by this Declaration.
5.

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
specific issues. 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 ofsustainable use of all marine resources including whales.
No one should be surprised that nations dependant on the resources of the sea would votein a similar 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
use of whales because they use cetacean resources as food themselves. Accusations that
their votes have been bought are an insult to the sovereignty of these nations to vote as
they wish within the IWC.
6.
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 and60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

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 on common sense, not to waste the meat.
More than 100 data items and samples are taken from each whale including ear plugs forage 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 andquantity of data from Japan’s research programs have been commended by the ScientificCommittee. 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 ofthese 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 thisinformation are unlikely to be successful particularly in the Antarctic 4 .

7.
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 politicalstatements that have nothing to do with science. Furthermore, they are often inconsistent4

See for example: IWC document 49/4 Report of the Scientific Committee, 1997, which is the source ofthe following quotes:“The information produced by JARPA (Japan’s Antarctic Research Program) has set the stage foranswering many questions about long term population changes regarding minke whales in Antarctic Areas
IV and V.”“…JARPA has already made a major contribution to understanding of certain biological parameters.”“The Committee noted that JARPA is at the half-way point and has provided substantial improvement in
the understanding of stock structure.”“…there was general agreement that the stock structure data were of value to management.”“…the meeting noted that there were non-lethal methods available…but that logistics and the abundance ofminke whales in the relevant Area probably precluded their successful application.”
See also, IWC document: Report of the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Programme
under Special Permit for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), Tokyo, 7-10 February 2000 from which
the following quotes are taken: “the Workshop noted that … information obtained during JARPN had been
and will continue to be used in the refinement of Implementation Simulation Trials for the North PacificMinke whales, and consequently were relevant to their management.”

60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

with Article VIII of the ICRW. Such resolutions have usually been passed by the IWC by
only a small number of votes, meaning that generally half of the IWC has opposed such
resolutions. On the other hand, the IWC’s Scientific Committee has highly evaluatedJapan’s research programs.
8.

It is not necessary to kill whales to study them.

Response: Japan’s research programs involve both lethal and non-lethal researchtechniques, such as sighting surveys and biopsy sampling. While certain information canbe obtained through non-lethal means, other information requires sampling of internalorgans, such as ovaries, ear plugs and stomachs.
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 and ovaries to establish reproductive rates. Similarly, to study theinteractions of 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 is that for pollution studies, tissue samples from various internal organs
are required.
Lethal studies are a standard research approach for other species and there is no scientificreason to exempt whales from this standard approach.
9.

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

Response: This is incorrect. See comments from the IWC’s Scientific Committee infootnote 4 above.
10.

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 (asecond 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 todeath of less than two minutes for whales is far better than the killing of most otherwildlife.
11.
Japan is whaling in the “IWC Antarctic Sanctuary” and in waters claimed byAustralia and designated as a sanctuary under Australian domestic law.

60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

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 5 . In
regards to Australia’s designated sanctuary, many countries including the U.S. and Japando not recognize Australia’s Antarctic claim. The Antarctic Treaty, to which Australia isa 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 andtherefore no effect.
12.
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
have shown evidence that the Antarctic ecosystem is changing so it is necessary tocontinue monitoring and sampling in order to understand the dynamics of whale species
interactions. This will contribute to the conservation, management and sustainableutilization 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 theecosystem. By collecting data on these species we will be able to test hypotheses
concerning changes in the 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 theirview but you need to ask more than one person. The number you need to ask increases
when the size of the population is large and the degree of accuracy required is high.
13.
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 the same goal of keeping healthy and abundant whale populations for theirperpetual existence.
5

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

60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES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 methodology 6 .
14.
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
a change in its whaling policy. The difference of views on the whaling issue has notaffected 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 shouldchange 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 this difficult issue.
15.
Japan has refused to accept an open and transparent monitoring scheme as partof the RMS 7 .
Response: This criticism is blatantly false. Japan is willing to accept a practical, effective
and cost efficient monitoring and inspection scheme including national inspectors andinternational observers to verify catches, a conservative harvesting quota, and a fairsharing of the costs. Japan’s commitment to secure the implementation of a reasonable
RMS is demonstrated by the substantial compromises and proposals we have made.
On the other hand however, IWC members with extreme anti-whaling positions havefailed to make any substantive compromises and have delayed negotiations for over 10
years by insisting on an always-increasing list of unnecessary, duplicative and excessively
costly measures for controlling whaling operations. It is also the anti-whaling membersof 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 wellmanaged 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
is nothing 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 to6

A Bioeconomic and Socio-economic Analysis of Whale-Watching, with Attention given to AssociatedDirect and Indirect Costs.
By Dr Brendan J. Moyle (Massey University, New Zealand), and Dr Mike Evans (University of Alberta,
Canada). Submitted for publication.
7

RMS includes the RMP (see footnote 3), an inspection and observation scheme, guidelines for surveys
used to estimate abundance and specification of minimum data requirements.

60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

have to give up a fundamental right provided by the Convention (the right of all Parties toissue permits for the conduct of research whaling) in order to resume what is the primary
purpose of the same Convention – sustainable commercial whaling.
16.
Japan and some other members are talking about “Normalizing” the IWC. What
does that mean?
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
conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of thewhaling 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 so that whale stocks will not be threatened. The Convention is not aboutprotecting 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 convincedthat the IWC can only be saved from its current crisis by respect for and good faithinterpretation of the ICRW. This means protecting endangered and depleted species
while allowing the sustainable utilization of abundant species under a controlled,transparent and science-based management regime.
Further details concerning the need for and process to normalize the IWC are contained inJapan’s opening statement to the 58th Annual Meeting and a document submitted to the
IWC by Japan and other members who support the sustainable use of whale resources.

For more information contact
Japan Delegation Media Office in Chile:

Glenn Inwood+56-99-787-1758

日本から呼び出す場合：国際識別番号+569234-5687（鈴木 亮太郎 外務省経済局漁業室長）
9234-5741（桐生 大輔 外務省経済局漁業室）
日本から呼び出す場合：国際識別番号+56
Download this document at:
www.icrwhale.org/eng/60BriefingNote.pdf
www.icrwhale.org/eng/60BriefingNote.doc

En español por favor llame al 808-990-1894
60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCESWHALE POPULATION ESTIMATES
The International Whaling Commission's most recent information on estimatedabundance
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm

60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES

60th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission - 23-27 June 2008, SANTIAGO, CHILE

FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF WHALE RESOURCES