David @ Tokyo

Chojin Tairiku has released another series of videos featuring people in the know about the results of IWC 59 from Japan's perspective. The videos are all in Japanese of course.

IWC 59 wasn't evaluated entirely pessimistically, with happiness expressed that the IWC was able to adopt the resolution criticising Sea Shepherd by consensus. This is presumably what led the Netherlands to strike the Sea Shepherd vessels off their register (although I'm still to see an explicit confirmation of this).

Still, the speakers were basically unhappy with the results (although this wasn't unexpected).

There was no great enthusiasm expressed for actually withdrawing from the IWC (Japan still hopes to see the IWC "normalized", but none of the speakers expressed optimism for the future).

Nonetheless Joji Morishita stated in relation to Japan's approach to the IWC, words that I would translate as "make no mistake that IWC 59 will mark a turning point".

The question for the strategists is how best to achieve something positive for the principle of sustainable use without abandoning the IWC altogether. This shouldn't be impossible - Iceland and Norway are both whaling commercially already, after all. There were no IWC resolutions forced through in relation to the commercial whaling hunts of either of those two nations.

If Japanese commercial whaling of species under the IWC's jurisdiction does begin in the near future, my guess is that it will come first with minke whaling within Japan's EEZ, and second in relation to the Western North Pacific Bryde's whale, for which the IWC Scientific Committee recently completed it's RMP implementation work.

Labels: Chojin Tairiku, IWC 59

There was a flurry of media activity in Japan during and after the IWC 59 meeting.

With the Japanese mass media over excited about the comments made by Akira Nakamae of Japan's Fisheries Agency Japan's representative during the IWC meeting (reported widely here as being the first time Japan had threatened to leave the IWC during the actual meeting) Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki explained the statement during a June 1st press conference, saying that "as the anti-whaling nations showed no signs of dealing with this issue sincerely, we announced that there is a possibility that we will fundamentally revise our approach to the IWC".

On June 4th, the new Minister of Agriculture Forests and Fisheries, Norihiko Akagi answered questions in relation to the IWC meeting, with his comments including a statement that "it is rather clear that there is no possibility of the normalization of the IWC, as we have been seeking".

The Minister elaborated that possible options that Japan might consider included withdrawing from the IWC, seeking the establishment of a new international organization in harmony with UNCLOS, and unilaterally resuming commercial whaling within Japan's EEZ. He said that these options would be considered not only amongst the delegation to the IWC, but other domestic stakeholders and other countries that support sustainable use.

On June the 7th, Jiji Tsushin also reported that a fisheries related meeting within the ruling LDP party was held. The LDP has apparently been in favour of withdrawing from the IWC in the past. The Jiji report noted that while Japan's "firm" stance at the IWC received praised, others also said that developments should be observed and actions taken carefully, warning against brash actions leading to nowhere. The possibility of a Japanese product boycott in the case of Japan withdrawing from the IWC was identified as a possible consideration.


Besides these news reports, various editorials related to the IWC situation were published by newspapers across the country.

On May 24, in the lead up to the main meeting an editorial appeared at Kumanichi.com, based in the southern island of Kyushu, but offered no real suggestion on how Japan should proceed.

May 25 saw the Nishi Nippon newspaper, also apparently based in Kyushu, with another editorial but taking a decisive position on the issue. Entitled "Strategy reconsideration necessary", the piece noted that hopes of normalization at the IWC were unlikely. In conclusion, it said "Japan has requested catch quotas but been rejected by anti-whaling nations for almost 20 years. As long as negotiations are conducted at the IWC, the results are certain to be the same in future. If Japan is serious about obtaining catch quotas, we should probably consider revising our strategy".

On May 28th, an editorial appearing in both the Chunichi Shimbun and Tokyo Shimbun suggested that "Japan should work with the likes of Norway, Denmark and Russia to bring about the normalization of the IWC", noting it's mandated purpose of both conserving and making for the sustainable use of whale resources. The editorial praised Japan's plans to not put every issue to a vote and seek to build trust among contracting governments to the extent possible, evaluating that "it is correct to place emphasis on discussions". "Japan should continue to argue persistently for sustainable whaling, and also seek assistance from nations such as the US and Australia in suppressing extreme obstructive actions against the research whaling fleet".

With the IWC meeting drawing to a close, the Kochi Newspaper (from the other southern island of Shikoku, also renowned for whaling and now also whale-watching) published this editorial. They expressed the view that "the reason why the IWC is dysfunctional is because the anti-whaling nations stress only wild animal protection, and won't change their stance of not accepting scientific data". Anti-whaling nations were also criticised for arguing that a new international monitoring scheme was required before catch limits could be set for the Antarctic minke whale, but then last year aborting talks as such a system would lead to a commercial whaling resumption. While recognising that the path to a commercial whaling resumption via the IWC is a long way off, the Kochi Newspaper nonetheless suggests that "the risks for a resource dependant nation such as Japan withdrawing from the IWC are large, and Japan thus has no choice but to take time and continue attempts to persuade the IWC on a scientific basis".

On the 3rd of June the Shinano Daily's editorial suggested that "in order to gain understanding for Japan's position, it's important for Japan to increase the transparency of our research, and make our analyses more persuasive".

The 5th of June saw an editorial from the Sanyo Shimbun, which offered the view that "more important than anything is for Japan to calmly and persistently discuss the matter with IWC contracting governments".

Finally the 6th of June brought the last editorial I have seen on the issue, from the Hokkaido Shimbun Press. Considering the possibilities available through quitting the IWC, the paper suggested that such an action might lead to retaliation in the form of further restrictions on Japan's tuna fishery. While acknowledging the IWC's treatment of Japan's coastal whaling request as a double-standard, the paper notes that Norway resumed commercial whaling in 1993 while still an IWC member, and that Iceland too resumed commercial whaling last year after quiting the IWC in 1992, then rejoining ten years later. "There is the scope for Japan to aim at a commercial whaling resumption while remaining within the IWC". Finally the paper also cautions that whaling doesn't command a great level of interest amongst the Japanese citizenship.


Amongst the general Internet populace, two huge threads of comments (more than 2,000 responses in each) were posted in response to firstly, Japan's suggestion of possible IWC withdrawal, and secondly the subsequent remark from Australia's Malcolm Turnbull, likening Japan's hinting at possible withdrawal to a baby spitting out it's dummy. The two threads are here and here. A huge number of comments were posted in favour of withdrawing from the IWC altogether, with a fairly low proportion of dissenting anti-whaling voices.

I also got an email from a Japanese friend of mine (my translation):

"I think even knowing that there could be various issues with withdrawing, withdrawing would be nice and clean. The IWC was originally a club set up because of a fear of whales being driven to extinction, but now it's opposed to whaling on the basis of "oh the poor whales!" The Japanese joined up with the desire to go on eating whales all our lives. "We hope to eat whale!" "No, that's mean to the whales, so you must not!" Discussions will never be possible like this. Normally, people are anti because they have a low awareness of whale eating. They probably don't feel thankful. First of all, they need to eat Japan's whale cuisine, and understand Japanese people's way of thinking, otherwise I feel talking is just a waste of time.

Withdraw! Withdraw! "

The e-kujira blog also has an entry from Joji Morishita, in which he explained Japan's approach at IWC 59, and how the situation led to their decision to make a statement on the JFA's options during the IWC meeting.

"I think 'at last' we have started to move in a new direction", he wrote, which again leads me to recall his statements earlier in the year - "Something will happen this summer".


Despite what some optimistic editorial writers may believe about the IWC, the whaling issue is not one that will ever be resolved through patient and persistent discussions. Indeed I imagine the fundamental disagreement will still remain with us, regardless of what happens to the IWC over the next few years.

Scientific arguments illustrating the potential of various whale stocks to sustain certain levels of harvest are also irrelevant, as far as resolving the issue goes. While 20 years ago anti-whalers sought to disguise their true objections to whaling in arguments of scientific uncertainty, or concerns about enforcement, today the hard-core amongst them are completely open in their refusal to consider the lifting of the "commercial whaling moratorium" under any set of circumstances.

Hypothetically even if all of the world's sovereign states were IWC contracting governments, it seems likely that neither camp would be able to command the 75% super-majority that the IWC requires to be able to function at all (let alone in accordance with the object and purpose of it's convention).

Akira Nakamae said during his address that, "we are particularly interested in holding preparatory talks to establish an alternative international organisation to manage and conserve cetacean resources".

As a management organization, with the two camps having incompatible aims, the IWC is a failure and is already largely irrelevant. Norway sets it's own catch limits, as does Iceland, and even Japan has commercial whaling operations in relation to whale species that it regards as out of the IWC's management competence. Other whaling states such Canada and Indonesia aren't even IWC members.

But from the perspective of an international gathering to discuss conservation or protection related issues such as ship strike, entanglement in fishing gear, etc, there's reason to believe the IWC might still have a future (albeit with a reduced budget).

Rather than seek to establish a complete duplicate of the IWC, perhaps the focus will be on a new organization with the setting of sustainable catch limits for cetaceans as it's fundamental aim. This much would fill the void in the international management area that has been created by the polarized IWC. How to bring this to fruition is another issue entirely.

Lots to speculate and ponder at the current time - I'm looking forward to the summer.

Labels: IWC 59, Japanese media perspective

A bit of a gap in the blogging, but I'm sure readers will be aware of what happened at IWC 59.

I've got some things to cover as time permits over the coming week or so:

1) An overview of Japanese media coverage of IWC 59, particularly in response to Akira Nakamae's statement

2) The details of the sale of whale meat from JARPA was announced

3) Chilled / Frozen marine product stockpile figures for April will be announced on June 12

Details of each, later....

Labels: IWC 59

[06:30 JST] The IWC has apparently approved the USA whaling quota, as well as the Russian whaling quota (by consensus).

I didn't listen to the proceedings, but obviously the big blow up that was reported by so many in the western media was totally off the mark.

After lunch, will the good faith showed by the supporters of sustainable use such as Denmark, Japan, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Iceland, and Norway etc be reciprocated?

[07:25 JST] A brief discussion on the term "aboriginal". St. Kitts and Nevis notes that the term was not a name chosen by the whalers themselves, but imposed upon them, like collonialism. Like collonialism, St. Kitts and Nevis beleives the terms should go.

The US had problems with this.

The item remains open.

[07:30 JST] RMS / RMP issues now.

I should note that the IWC Scientific Committee report is now available.

Labels: IWC 59

[22:30 JST] IWC 59 is set to start a few hours from now at 3 AM JST, but if I feel able I will do a little "live blogging" as with last year, from sometime in the morning.

The proceedings can be viewed live thanks to the ICR's broadcast which can be accessed here.

Some media packages have come out - the High North Alliance's media kit is here, and the Japanese delegation's is here (both much the same as last year's). The IWMC haven't got anything on their homepage about the meeting yet, but another page to check once the meeting gets underway is the IWC homepage - I am assuming that some time on Day 1 the Secretariat will upload the Scientific Committee report, which should provide lots of talking points.

And with that, I leave comment section open. If you are watching the proceedings live, and something significant happens, by all means please drop in a comment so the rest of us can get up to speed when we come online!

See you all later...

[03:30 JST] Formalities underway now, with local representatives welcoming attendants to Alaska and urging participants to vote in favour of bowhead whale quotas for Alaskan people.

[03:40 JST] Coffee break until 11:10 or 04:10 JST.

[04:55 JST] Agenda has been adopted by consensus. Next is the Whale Stocks item 3.1 from the Scientific Committee chair

[05:00 JST] No agreed abundance estimates for Antarctic minke whales again this year, but they will look to hold an intersessional workshop to finalize abundance estimates.

[05:05 JST] Apparently further work has been identified in relation to the catch-at-age analyses (based upon commercial and JARPA catch data).

[05:10 JST] New Zealand speaking in a rather grumpy tone, supporting further work of the Scientific Committee in the abundance estimate work. Japan speaking next.

Japan notes that the biggest changes in estimates were in Area II and Area V, but changes in other areas were not statistically significant. Japan suggests focus on these areas. Japan noting that the Scientific Committee has not concluded that there has been a decline in real abundance (described by New Zealand as "catastrophic"). Japan suggesting caution is required in reporting the Scientific Committee's work.

Australia speaking now, ignoring Japan's comments, and sharing New Zealand's view. Australia is apparently to collaborate with Japan in a further study in 2008.

[05:20] SC Chair on common minke whale abundance in western North Pacific. Japan and Korea provided new studies in relation to stock structure. The committee hopes to make conclusions about the Sea of Japan minke stock structure at next year's meeting, then look to consider structure in stocks east of Japan.

On abundance, new work has been undertaken, and the committee will look to further this work. Additional surveys are planned this and next year by Japan and Korea. China and Korea also requested to collaborate on this work.

The US is worried about J-stock by-catch, and notes the reported under reporting of by-catch in Korea. US also concerned about the O-stock as well, hopes Russia will allow biopsy sampling in it's waters to help with these issues.

The UK shares the US's concern. UK hopes Korea will establish a DNA register to monitor their market.

Austria, Mexico speak.

Japan thanks Korea for organizing a recent minke whale workshop. Japan welcomes the progress made, and notes the substantial additional information provided by Japan in this area. Japan also thanks the Russian government for allowing the Japanese to conduct a sightings survey in their EEZ. Japan too would also like approval for biopsy sampling. Regarding by-catch, Japan collects DNA samples from by-caught animals. Japan notes fishing effort has been stable in recent times, but by-catch has been increasing.

Korea hoping to cooperate with North Korea and China on sightings surveys. Another Korean speaker, Mr An. on by-catch. Korea says that the paper on by-catch reported used a similar methodology to that of a paper in 2005, which had already been discussed. Korea regrets that the statistical accuracy of the paper was relatively high, and isn't happy with the way this paper has been used against them.

[05:35 JST] They are going to break for lunch now, and come back at 2 PM, or 7 AM JST.
(This may be all from me for today.)

Labels: IWC 59

A handful of Japanese media shops are running stories on the IWC 59 meeting today.

Here's my quick translation of today's Tokyo Shinbun Editorial:

IWC meeting - Argue for science-based whaling

2007/5/28

At the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) annual plenary in Anchorage, USA beginning on the 28th, the offensive from the anti-whaling nations who have increased through new recruits looks likely to intensify. Japan should calmly and persistently argue for a whaling resumption on scientific grounds.

Last years meeting in June was an epoch-making new for the nations arguing in favour of sustainable whaling. "The commercial whaling ban is no longer necessary. We must normalize the IWC, which has become dysfunctional", said a resolution adopted by a single vote. Taking this on board, this spring Japan held an IWC Normalization meeting in Tokyo.

However, the anti-whaling nations haven't taken this sitting down. In addition to holding their own meeting of mainly western nations, they also moved to acquire new recruits to the commission. So far Cyprus, Croatia, Slovenia, Ecuador, and Greece have all joined "under U.S. and European influence" (government source). Through their increase in number, the anti-whaling nations are poised to take control of the IWC meeting.

At this year's meeting, in addition to the approval of aboriginal subsistence whaling by people such as the Inuit, the anti-whaling nations will propose the creation of a new whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic. For it's part, Japan is set to put forward a request for a small-scale coastal whaling quota in the western North Pacific, in order to revive traditional whaling practices. Neither side has the 3/4's voting majority required for the proposals to be approved, so the result looks likely to be a stalemate.

The greatest reason for the continuing confrontation is the rigidness of the anti-whaling nations. In reflection of past over-exploitation, the IWC agreed to completely ban commercial whaling in 1982. Ten years later, the IWC's Scientific Committee established the Revised Management Procedure (RMP). This development showed that if the procedure were applied to minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean, the species would not be depleted through the annual catch of 2,000 minke whales for the next 100 years.

However, before this was implemented, the anti-whaling nations argued that an international observer system and other measures were required, and demanded the establishment of a Revised Management Scheme (RMS). Then with discussions in their final stages last year, they moved to stop the discussions themselves, saying that "the completion of the RMS would lead to a resumption of commercial whaling".

The anti-whaling nations, led by the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand have a policy of wild animal conservation. Once recoveries in these resources is recognized, there is no reason to deny discussions. The IWC was originally established in 1948 as an organization with the aim of conserving whale resources and making for their sustainable use. Japan should endeavour towards the normalization in co-operation with other nations such as Norway, Denmark, and Russia.

Regarding the operation of the meeting, Japan is aiming "avoid holding votes on every issue, but seek to secure mutual trust as much as possible amongst contracting governments". The direction of stressing discussions is correct. Japan should be persistent in arguing for sustainable whaling. Additionally, Japan should seek to receive co-operation from the US, Australia and others with regards to deterring extreme obstructive actions towards the research whaling fleet.

The Nikkei business daily also ran a brief story:

Japan to propose commercial whaling resumption - rough sailing in discussions at IWC meeting

The International Whaling Commission (IWC)'s annual meeting will open in Anchorage, USA from the 28th (29th, Japan time), running for 4 days. Japan will put forward a proposal asking for the resumption of commercial whaling on minke whales within Japan's coastal waters. At last years' meeting, a declaration saying that the pause in commercial whaling was not necessary was adopted by a single vote majority, but with the number of anti-whaling voices increasing once again this year, discussions on the resumption look likely to make little headway.

Japan has been putting whaling resumption proposals to the IWC for 20 years, since 1988. It is emphasizing the similarity of the proposal to those of the aboriginal whalers of places such as the USA, which even the anti-whaling nations recognise, by including provisions that the meat of the whales hunted be limited to local consumption.

Labels: IWC 59, Japanese media perspective

The media is now full of news on the IWC meeting, due to start just 6 or so hours from now.

One of the interesting issues will be Greenland and Japan's whaling quota proposals. The US bowhead quota is likely to be approved, if we are to go on reports in the media, but the Greenland hunt has been more controversial over the years, as they distribute their whale meat through those modern "supermarket" things. Japan, also being a modern nation, uses supermarkets as a distribution point for whale meat, but hasn't been able to have it's whaling classified as "aboriginal subsistence whaling" in the past, because of the commercial elements. So, it's been one rule for Greenland and one for Japan (there are commercial elements in the Alaska hunt as well, it seems), but the anti-whalers may choose to attack the Greenland quota this time, to take revenge on the Danes, who last year supported the St. Kitts and Nevis declaration, and made their sustainable use position very clear.

Reports suggest that Denmark will take a similar position this time around. Furthermore, while the Institute of Cetacean Research's planned inclusion of humpback whales in the JARPA II programme has made a lot of news, Greenland is also apparently going to request a small quota of humpbacks for their people as well. An interesting part of that story:

A group of North Atlantic MPs wrote recently to the Parliamentary Committee on Planning and Environment in the Danish Parliament that "we would rather catch the whales commercially, like we catch shrimps and halibut, than being reduced to cultural weirdos, who most gratefully are allowed to slaughter a couple of sacred cows...This would make our whaling a normal industry instead of an ethnic alm" they wrote.

Item 5.5 on the meeting agenda indicates that the appropriateness of the term "aboriginal" will come up for debate.

Meanwhile, Joji Morishita concisely summed up the argument for the recognition of Japan's coastal whaling:

"We expect the same treatment to be given to any proposal from Japan for a quota for our traditional coastal whaling communities, where the whales would be caught locally, processed locally, distributed locally and consumed locally"

"People need to ask themselves the question: does it matter whether a whale is hunted under the US's so-called Aboriginal Subsistence, or Iceland or Norway's commercial whaling or Japan's traditional coastal whaling?"

"Of course not. What is of the utmost importance is that the practice is sustainable. And it is"

-- Joji Morishita

Of course, how many of the IWC delegates see it that way is the big question for which we must await an answer.

More on this issue here.


Meanwhile, some in the New Zealand media are still not even on the same page:

Quotas that allow isolated tribes in Alaska and Greenland to hunt using traditional methods are up for renewal. New Zealand supports the quotas, however Japan has said it will veto them, unless the IWC allows wider coastal whaling.

-- New Zealand's Newstalk ZB/One News

Completely wrong information, as I noted a few days ago. Wake up guys - where are you getting your story?


From Australia, all sorts of stuff, but amongst it all is a call from Steven Freeland for compromise from the anti-whalers. Freeland gets some basic facts wrong (I'll not go into this), but despite that his basic push is in the right direction. Always good to see signs of common sense expressed in the Australian media.


Norway's delegate has had some typically frank words for the anti-whalers:

"Those of us who are in favour of very limited whaling are willing to reach a compromise and to give them probably the best (whaling) management scheme for any marine species at all, the most strictest one with the lowest quotas but this doesn't seem to be enough for them," Mr Klepsvik said.

"And accordingly, they seem to be happy by continuing to insist on zero quotas and insisting that the moratorium should be maintained."

Finally however, BBC correspondent Richard Black has an article on the situation covering the above aboriginal subsistence quota issues, but also commentary on the feeling at the meeting so far:

Preliminary exchanges here have been in a much more conciliatory spirit, with delegates on both sides talking of finding common ground.

However...

Many environment groups are deeply unhappy about the message of compromise and conciliation, and about any notion that anti-whaling countries would settle for less than enforcing and enhancing the current global ban on all scientific and commercial whaling.

Black also has some details on the IWC's response to the Sea Shepherd organization's extremist tactics:

[Japan's delegation] will also seek a strong resolution against the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which disrupted Japan's 2006-7 Antarctic hunt, holing one of the Japanese vessels.

In the first concrete sign of a new rapprochement, Japan is working on a joint resolution with New Zealand, one of the fiercest critics of Tokyo's scientific whaling.

Nothing particular new in that - Resolution 2006-2 from last year's meeting concerning the safety of whaling and whale research vessels was also co-sponsored by Japan, New Zealand, the US, and maybe the Dutch and one other nation, as I recall.

Still the news of a perhaps less confrontational meeting from a reporter there at the scene is welcome news. The only ones who benefit from a controversial IWC meeting are those seeking to profit from the kafuffle.

Labels: IWC 59

To date there hasn't been a very noticeable amount of news in relation to the upcoming IWC meeting in the Japanese media as far as I have seen (only a very brief article from Jiji Tsushin), although a couple of reports from traditional whaling areas have appeared.

Below is my translation of one from a Wakayama news website which came out today.

International Whaling Commission - Annual Meeting in US from 28th

The annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) will be held from the 28th to 31st of May in the American state of Alaska, at Anchorage. From Wakayama, a group from the town of Taiji, known as the birth place of old style whaling in Japan, will be led by the town mayor, Kazutaka Sangen. Japan has declared a policy of "aiming for a resumption of commercial whaling", but at the present time member nations taking an anti-whaling stance outnumber those nations that agree with whaling, and Mayor Sangen believes that "the annual meeting is likely to be severe".

According to Taiji officials, also from Wakayama prefecture, 4 others besides Mayor Sangen will participate as part of Japan's delegation, including town council chairman Katsutoshi Mihara and the former prefectural head of education, Yoji Ozeki. It is Mayor Sangen's third IWC meeting. Ozeki's participation was requested, as "he has been assisting in the spread of whale meat school lunches, and in the inheritance of whale culture".

At last year's annual IWC meeting in June, the "St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration", which asserted that the temporary pause in commercial whaling (moratorium) that had been passed in 1982 was "no longer necessary", and supporting a resumption was adopted by a narrow margin with 33 votes in favour, 32 against, and one abstention. However, the declaration was not binding, and important decisions such as resuming commercial whaling require a 3/4's majority. Furthermore, since last year's meeting a progression of nations believed to be anti-whaling have joined the organization.

According to the Fisheries Agency, to 36 nations in favour of whaling, there are 40 nations against at the current time, and making for a resumption in commercial whaling is "as difficult as ever".

At this year's meeting, the Japanese delegation plans to request regulated minke whale catches for towns such as Taiji where small scale coastal whaling is conducted. Mayor Sangen says "This is an extremely important annual meeting for whaling regions. I'll be participating as a government committee member, so I'll do my best to appeal our case".

The IWC was established based upon the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which was promulgated in 1948. Japan joined the convention in 1951. According to the Fisheries Agency, there are a total of 76 member nations (as of the 23rd).

I've refreshed my browser to double check, but the IWC membership page still only lists 75 nations as of today, so that 76 figure is either a mistake or the IWC page hasn't been updated. Tanzania was also reported to be planning to join earlier in the year in a Japanese news report, although this hasn't eventuated as of yet. With neither side able to muster a 3/4's majority to impose their will on the remainder, the voting numbers aren't especially significant in real terms, and at least if we go on the Tokyo Normalization meeting recommendations, the pro-sustainable use nations will recommend avoiding divisive voting procedures.

Another of the Japanese media reports was from Ishinomaki. I don't have it on me right now, but as I recall, Mayor Kimio Doi will also apparently be attending the meeting.

It seems like seeking a coastal whaling quota is Japan's primary policy objective this year, but the wider issue of whether the IWC can ever be normalized to fulfil it's clearly stated mandate is another focus from a medium-long term perspective. If it is still apparent after this meeting that it can't, then in my opinion it's time to get out.


UPDATE: Found the Ishinomaki article that I was talking about, for readers who are Japanese enabled. Like his Taiji counterpart, Mayor Doi looks to be hoping for the opportunity to express the importance of coastal whaling to the community of Ayukawa.

Labels: IWC 59, Japanese media perspective, Wakayama

Here are some statements from Japanese officials in recent times:

Last year:

"These whole [IWC] meetings are a waste of time"

-- Joji Morishita

That's a pretty frank comment, but completely on the money. After a quarter of a century of endless shenanigans, it's now more than clear that a significant number of nations have no intention of ever acting in accordance with the ordinary meaning, or object and purpose of the ICRW, upon which the IWC is supposed to be based. The situation means that the IWC can not function as it was intended.

Further comments from Earlier this year -
This one in response to the "boycott" of the Tokyo Normalization meeting by the hard-core anti-whaling nations:

"It's really a shame if that occurs, and would make it very hard to see how the IWC proceeds from here on ... We're saying that we want to normalise, but if [the boycott] is true our opponents have chosen confrontation over conversation, and the meaning of the IWC is lost"

-- Hideki Moronuki

Following on from that:

"I think this is a final attempt on our side to save this organisation..."

"If this fails we need to think about other measures very seriously..."

"I cannot see any point to continue or to go back to the same structure or the same mindset as before the normalisation meeting..."

"Whatever is decided by the Anchorage meeting will probably trigger the next step"

"Something will happen this summer"

-- Joji Morishita

Bad faith

With many nations completely open in their intention of never accepting any form of commercial whaling ever again, irrespective of the scientific advice that the IWC Scientific Committee is capable of providing through the Revised Management Procedure and all the other issues used as a justification for their position, it's clear that the ICRW has not been adhered to in good faith.

This parting of views is not the result of a genuinely held difference of interpretation of the ICRW. Everyone knows exactly what the ICRW means, and exactly what it was intended for. Yet nations that do not support it's content remain signatory to it, and actively seek to recruit other mutineer governments to support their obstructive actions.

This has long been evident - consider this from the records of British parliament (*) in 1991:

It is clear that the Japanese, the Norwegians and the Icelanders are members of the International Whaling Commission so as to achieve an agreed international rule for resumed whaling of the minke and the fin whale stock. We are not fools. We know that that is the purpose. In a sense, that is what the constitution of the organisation says, so that is a legitimate expectation on their part.

Over the years Japan's newspapers have tended to produce what I would suggest are naive editorials, suggesting that remaining at the IWC negotiation table is in Japan's interest (see the Nikkei last year as one example). Maybe this is so, but only if something at the IWC changes. Anti-whaling NGO driven media coverage in the lead up to the meeting this year suggests that nothing will.

If we judge by the western media, it appears that the anti-whaling nations appear to have forgotten that they need to keep some carrots on the table, or the whaling nations may simply walk away and establish a new international body. Some have suggested that Japan is not unhappy with the current situation, with whaling still continuing under scientific permit. My impression is quite different. There are many in Japan appealing to the Government to set coastal whaling catch limits.

If Japan does walk away from the IWC (one would assume with the backing of a group of other nations) relations between Japan and the anti-whaling nations are still generally very good. Setting a small commercial catch quota would be met by yet another diplomatic outburst, but if the initial scale of a hunt is limited, and strictly regulated, there should only be limited side-effects.

If my memory serves me correctly, neither Iceland or Norway have ever had official trade sanctions leveled against them, making a potential trade war with the world's second largest economy of Japan even more unlikely to be seriously considered (especially just over the whaling issue). The world's most vociferous anti-whaling nations, Australia and New Zealand are heavily trade dependant on Japan, and stand to lose more than Japan in such a battle. Furthermore, Australia is currently trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with Japan. Meanwhile, the USA is currently trying to convince Japan to loosen it's restrictions on US beef imports (**).

In the west, there will always be a sector of society sympathetic to the fundraising campaigns of the anti-whaling groups. These groups will never fall silent, but they may be counterbalanced, if incentives are created.

Japan should have faith that the policy of allowing for utilization of abundant resources on a sustainable and regulated basis, while protecting depleted resources, is one that will find tolerance amongst the silent and unaffected, who I suspect are in the majority. This is particularly likely to be the case if it is in the western North Pacific where Japan starts to re-introduce commercial whaling. The JARPN II fleet, including a repaired Nisshin Maru left Japan weeks ago - it has hardly been mentioned in the western media or by the protest groups.


* This whole episode is interesting reading, if you feel like warping back 16 years in time - start on this page from "commercial whaling"

** I have wondered whether the Japanese government couldn't look to create political incentives for policy change in the west by linking whaling with issues such as these, where groups and individuals within nations like Australia stand to gain, balancing the fringe anti-whaling segment.

Labels: IWC 59, IWC Normalization

The usual pre-IWC plenary anti-whaling propaganda has been flying thick and fast through the western media, with various groups whose web pages bear "donate now" banners issuing a range of statements vilifying the IWC's pro-sustainable use nations, particularly Japan, despite of everything that has been said and done in recent times.

It's almost as if these groups are rooting for noisy confrontations, rather than subdued and dignified proceedings...


The IWC's Conservation Mandate

One NGO representative recently repeated a suggestion that the pro-sustainable use camp would seek to "strip the IWC of its conservation mandate" were they to have enough votes to do so (a simple majority).

The suggestion is presumably in reference to the IWC's "Conservation Committee", controversially established in 2003, and feared by sustainable use advocates as being another ruse by the anti-sustainable use camp to subvert the IWC from it's dual mandate to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" (ICRW).

New Zealand Prime Minister Clark has been employing similar rhetoric, suggesting that New Zealand's ultra-protectionist position is "for conservation", and anything else is not.

Indeed, the pro-sustainable use camp are most certainly for conservation - they simply believe that conservation is not inconsistent with conservative levels of consumptive utilisation.

Joji Morishita has clearly stated Japan's stance on the IWC Conservation Committee matter previously:

"The conservation committee, if it works, is not bad for us, actually. And as we said at the time, if they can include both sustainable use and the protection, we have no problem."

It's also a matter of record (see the IWC 59 meeting's Annotated Agenda) that Japan won't propose the deletion of the Conservation Committee, or other agenda items which Japan believes to be inappropriate:

"Japan indicated that in keeping with its attempt to reduce conflict within the IWC and as part of its efforts to normalise the organisation, it will not propose the deletion of these or any other agenda item at the 59th Annual Meeting"

The "Aboriginal subsistence" quota issue

Previously in 2002, the pro-sustainable use lobby tried a tactic of illustrating the USA's double standards on whaling by opposing the renewal of the Alaskan people's bowhead whale quota.

This issue has a long history - even in 1982 when the IWC agreed to a commercial whaling moratorium, bowhead quotas were still granted at a time when the stock was estimated to number only between 3,390 and 4,325. After the imposition of the moratorium, the IWC Scientific Committee later in 1990 estimated the Antarctic minke whale population at around 760,000. Still, the IWC was not prepared to permit the taking of even a single Antarctic minke whale.

In 2002, the pro-sustainable use bloc ultimately didn't get any concessions out of the US, and at a subsequent special meeting, quotas were granted anyway.

Still, NGO representatives and politicians have suggested that Japan may once again try to "blackmail" the USA into supporting Japan's coastal whaling permit request.

Once again, Joji Morishita on the issue:

"As long as (the science supports the bowhead hunt), we will just say yes to their proposal."

What the remainder of the pro-sustainable use nations decide to do is up to them. However, with the Tokyo normalization meeting calling for attempts to reduce conflict, and the fact that exposing the USA's double standards didn't gain the pro-sustainable use camp much sympathy in 2002, they too may not be such a big issue. I'm picking the decision to come down to a simple matter of the IWC Scientific Committee's advice on the stock.


While they are busy trying to stir up donating attracting publicity, I wonder if the fund-raising industry hasn't taken their eyes off the ball - if they actually care about it at all...

Labels: IWC 59, IWC Normalization