David @ Tokyo

As with the western media, the IWC Future draft rose some eyebrows in Japan as well.

Yomiuri newspapers published editorials (offline now) welcoming the plan to an extent, at least so far as urging Japan to continue to with the negotiations for a compromise.

On the other hand, one Fisheries newspaper put together a detailed article cautioning strongly against it, ultimately urging Japan to get back to the basics of resource management based on compliance and science, and restore whale resource management functions.

Fortunately there was also media coverage of some of those who would be most directly effected by any compromise proposal. Up in north-eastern Honshu, the Sanriku Kahoku news paper ran a story at the beginning of February covering the thoughts of people related to coastal whaling in the region.

Report accepting coastal whaling released (2009.02.04)
IWC Small Working Group
Continued whaling not guaranteed - "Frankly not pleased" Katsushika, Ishinomaki

The article reports that the chair of the IWC's SWG, De Soto, released his report which suggests allowing coastal whaling that Japan has been requesting in exchange for Japan scaling back its special permit whaling in the Antarctic. It noted that this is a compromise plan to address the conflict between whaling and anti-whaling nations, however at the whaling town in Ishinomaki city's Katsushika area:

... the report's contents have been taken in with complicated feelings. "We're not able to throw both arms up in the air in delight about this".

The article mentions that the report notes that for 5 years, 4 Japanese whaling towns including the one in Katsushika would be permitted to take an as yet unspecified number of minke whales, under conditions such as the whaling involving day trips with less than 5 vessels engaged.

As for beyond the next 5 years, the report described two options of banning whaling or continuing it.

On the other hand, as for Antarctic special permit whaling, two plans were described including the gradual cessation of minke whale catches and the total ban of fin whale catches.

Keiichi Endo, the 51 year old president of Ishinomaki's "Ayukawa Hogei (Whaling)" company which was established last year in February, said "At the current time I can't say that I agree with the report. Will Japan be able to accept the total banning of research whaling in the Antarctic? The report doesn't guarantee research will be continued from the 6th year onwards", he points out.

Mayor of Ishinomaki city, Kimio Doi, expressed a cautious position, saying "I can't comment at this stage. I'll be following developments in the debate at the IWC".

Mayor Doi had attended the June 2007 meeting of the IWC in Anchorage. The next month in July Ishinomaki city held the first national whale forum, where the "Ishinomaki declaration" was adopted, requesting Japan to unilaterally allow a resumption of small-type coastal whaling.

To that extent, the region welcomes the resumption of coastal whaling, however there is dissatisfaction as well. "Since the 1988 commercial whaling moratorium, there has been no progress at the IWC towards resuming whaling."

In another article at the similarly named Kahoku news site (seems to be offline now, but the title was "「期待せず」「議論見守る」沿岸捕鯨再開ＩＷＣ報告書"), both were quoted again.

Keiichi Endo, president of "Ayukawa Hogei" based in Ayukawa port that owns two of the small-type coastal whaling vessels rejected the report, saying "I can't expect anything from it". He expressed concern that on top of either scaling back research whaling or stopping it in 5 years, from the 6th year onwards there was still the possibility of small-type coastal whaling being banned as well.

"I do agree with reducing the number of whales caught in research whaling and increasing the quota for small-type coastal whaling, but that's not to say I'm for reducing research whaling to zero. Continuing both is best", he asserts.

Mayor Doi is quoted here again saying similar things.


It doesn't bode well for the IWC discussions if even those in Japan such as Mr. Endo, who would possibly gain most from a compromise package, are not happy with it.

If free time eventuates I'd like to introduce the Fisheries newspaper article mentioned above, in a future post, but perhaps what develops in March will preclude my motivation to do this - let's see.


So what are the pictures included in this blog? On the weekend after this report was released by the IWC, I was on the snowy slopes of Mt. Zao bordering between Miyagi and Yamagata prefectures, and coincidentally a friend of mine was also in Sendai, Miyagi's capital at the same time. Originally from Hokkaido where they often eat whale at New Year's, she's one of a "whale eating" circle we started up a few years back.

Anyway, she spotted whale on the menu at a Sendai izakaya restaurant (Kochira Marutoku Gyogyobu) and sent me the pics and shop location.

They have a chain of restaurants centred in Miyagi, but they also have restaurants in Yamagata, Akita and Morioka (main cities of surrounding prefectures) as well.

On the web (Japanese)

Labels: Ishinomaki, IWC Normalization, Japanese media perspective, whale gourmet

Making the news both in Japan and abroad this week was a special sales promotion in central Japan.

Originally breaking the story was the Asahi newspaper's Kansai region edition, with the headline "Whale meat sold off at less than half-price Osaka - Hanshin department store".

"Blow away the recession!", starts the Asahi article.

The Yomiuri's online Osaka edition also ran the story with the headline, "Whale meat on sale at prices of 30 years ago"

"So as to make familiar the taste of whale meat, which sky-rocketed in price after the cessation of commercial whaling, Hanshin department store in Umeda, Osaka, commenced a sale at less than half the normal prices", says the Yomiuri. "Sale lasts until the 31st".

"It's precisely because of the economic gloom that we are selling the now-luxury foodstuff of whale meat at cheap prices", is the theme of the promotion. The store bought in a ton of Sei whale obtained through research whaling, and set prices at 248 yen / 100 g for red meat, and 420 yen for blubber, the same as about 30 years ago" (Yomiuri).

"From the 27th of January Hanshin department store started selling off Sei whale meat at less than half the normal price. Hanshin says it is precisely because of the bad economic situation that they want customers to eat whale meat at low prices , noting that whale has become a luxury food item. This was the first time that this store has run such a promotion. Prices are set to return to normal from the 1st of February".

"In Hanshin's sales area on the first floor below ground level, shoppers had their eyes fixed on the whale products. Items included meat (15 kg block, before being cut up), and long (90 cm) strips of blubber" (Asahi).

"As for the prices, they were said to be set at the same level as the early 1980's, before the cessation of commercial whaling and subsequent sky-rocket in prices."

The Asahi, like the Yomiuri, reports the precise price details.

A 65-year old housewife who bought whale for the first time in 10 years said "I'll enjoy the nostalgic taste" (Asahi). A similar customer, definitely the same lady, is quoted by the Yomiuri: "I often ate whale for school lunch, but recently it's become too expensive and I couldn't buy it. This evening I hope to enjoy this as sashimi."

The story later appeared in the Asahi's national edition online, and the picture of the sales area even made the "top picture" in the Asahi news headlines that automatically stream into my mobile phone every 30 minutes.


Later in the foreign media, an AFP story appeared.

Basically the story is the same as the Japanese version, although interestingly the AFP journalist comes at the matter from a different angle:

"Mr Matsui did not comment on whether the store had been losing money before starting the offer but said sales have more than doubled since the prices were cut on Tuesday."

It's not clear whether the journalist was referring the the sales of the store in general, or whale meat sales in particular, but if it were the latter and the journalist is wondering whether the whale meat sales were making money, it's hard to imagine why the store would do something like buy in a ton of extra of the product just so they could sell it off at less than half price! Sometimes it's a mystery what these foreign journalists are smoking.

But that was nothing - an Italian site also ran a story, but the original theme in the Japanese story is lost completely:

"Japan: Crisis, whale meat half price", reads the headline (the original site uses upper case letters, seemingly for "effect")

"The economic crisis is truly hitting all sectors, and even Japan's passion for whale meat has been effected."

Right from the outset the article is off the mark. The Japanese stories and even the AFP story report that the store operator is looking to use the limited offer whale meat promotion to brighten up their customers.

"The main shopping centre in Osaka has decided to put whale meat on sale at half price"

This much is correct...

... " in spite of criticisms from many countries who believe that Japan should respect the international ban on whale hunting."

There is no reason why domestic private sector retail promotions should take in to consideration the international situation with regards to whaling. Japanese people also eat beef without respect for what non-beef eating cultures think. It is strange that the Italian article author would expect Japanese retailers to behave as certain foreigners would wish, rather than as they the Japanese themselves wish to.

"Instead of adhering to the moratorium set by the International Whaling Commission, Japanese authorities continue to avoid it justifying whale hunting with a vague "scientific research" explanation. Now they have decided to cut prices, trying to increase consumption of the precious meat."

It wasn't the authorities that decided to sell the meat at cut prices, it was a private retail outlet operator, and the reason they bought in the ton of meat and put it on sale was to brighten (and probably lure) customers. The only link between "Japanese authorities" and Hanshin department store is that both are ... Japanese.

"A move that is in contrast to official reasoning, explaining that traditionally in Japan, whale meat is eaten by common people."

Despite getting the story wrong, the article spouts this nonsense as well. It's obvious to any calm thinking, rational person that normal trends in whale meat retail will not hold while Japan continues to abide by the IWC's commercial whaling moratorium.

"The manager of the Osaka shopping centre, Tadashi Matsui, has decided to sell 100 grams of whale meat for 248 yen, of just over 2 euro, compared to its full price of 630 yen or 5 euro. Greenpeace estimates that Japan hunts hundreds of whales per year, the rest are hunted by Norway and Iceland."

Greenpeace "estimate" the figures, which are publicly available at the IWC's website in through other public sources, to give the impression that Japan is conducts it's research programmes in secret. On the contrary, the quotas are announced and actual numbers taken are released as well. It hardly takes skill or special knowledge to estimate figures that are already in the public domain!

So welcome once again to the wacky world of the foreign anti-whaling media. It's amazing how far a story can be twisted when some journalists have been instilled with certain preconceptions and misinformation. The reference in the article to Greenpeace seems to be indicative of the reason for the gross inaccuracy of this article.

Labels: Japanese media perspective, whale meat market

Well, I've been a busy busy of late - who isn't in December? But I did have time to snap off some screenshots of an FNN (Fuji News Network) online news article with accompanying video in early December, which came up when Hollywood actress Daryl Hannah spent a couple of days on a Sea Shepherd cruise down the east coast of Australia (A Sankei newspaper journalist subsequently noted on his blog his surprise at the speed at which Hannah departed the crusade).

Unlike Greenpeace, who have been expending great efforts trying to gain sympathy for the arrest of the "Tokyo Two" (more aptly, the "Two Tokyo Thieves") following their committing acts of trespass and theft in pursuit of their anti-whaling propaganda agenda, the Sea Shepherd organization has actually been getting some media coverage here in Japan.

Not that it's been particularly good for them.

The FNN video gave some air time to Hannah's airhead nonsense about whale "assassinations" and so forth. Paul Watson himself gets a few words in at one point when staff member Taro Kimura is shown in a phone conversation with him:

As seen in the subtitle of the video, Kimura is saying to Watson: "You injured Japanese crew members".

Watson's response, shown in the image below is "No we didn't".

Kimura continues: "No, you did".

And that was it for Watson. Perhaps he'd get more airtime if he stopped telling porkies.

Young announcer Koji Oana continues the report with some comment from the Japanese side. Oana was apparently born in Nagano (an inland part of Japan) in 1982, the year the commercial moratorium was agreed to, and being of a young age and coming from a non-coastal part of Japan is unlikely to have had much chance to eat whale meat during his time on earth.

His report covers the negative impact on whale consumers from Sea Shepherd's obstruction - prices have gone up 6% and the Kyodo Senpaku antenna shop, Yushin, is likely to close in 2010 as a result of the obstruction.

A part of the caption in video reads "whale terrorism: the aim...".

Oana heads of to the Hatsumomiji restaurant in Shinjuku to find out more about whale meat:

And so here is a whale dish, says young Oana.

Can we get a closer look at that, please?

It was a couple of weeks ago that I watched the video, but I think this is the "kanako" part of the whale. It's meat from the lower jaw of the whale, and this cut is one of those that fetches a high price.

No doubt Oana was putting this one on FNN's bill. But it's not just for looking at. Oana tries it out:
That's right, dip it in some soy sauce...

As the video cuts away to show more close up shots of the meat, Oana comments that the whale is "delicious".

With respect to both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, it's hard to see how their actions are likely or even designed to bring about a change in the sustainable use policy of the government here. On the contrary their actions do often appear to be working against their purported aims.

Labels: Japanese media perspective, Koji Oana, Sea Shepherd, whale gourmet

Australia's behaviour surrounding matters relating to whaling has made the news twice in recent days, with one story making headline news here in Japan.

Word Conservation Congress Kerfuffle

Firstly, last week the BBC via Richard Black and various Australian media reported on events at a World Conservation Congress meeting held in Barcelona.

A unique consensus between environment groups and whaling nations ... was derailed by a last-minute Australian intervention.

That interpretation from the BBC.

Australia has been accused of bungling international whaling talks and setting back a campaign to save whales.

And that from Australia's own The Australian.

The articles note criticism from (self-proclaimed) "conservation groups", and the BBC article says that an anti-whaling country representative went so far as to describe what happened as "despicable".

The fuss was apparently surrounding the wording of a resolution, which was originally to include the words, "there is inadequate scientific information to support an assertion that controlling great whale populations can increase fisheries yields", but subsequently changed by Australia to read "that the great whales play no significant role in the current crisis affecting global fisheries". The former text was set to gain consensus adoption it seems, where as the latter and final text did not.

The "conservation groups" were complaining about Australia's change as they apparently saw the original wording as a victory - something the western media that reported the story seemed to concur with.

This begs the question that if this were the case, why would pro-sustainable use nations including Japan and Norway agree to such a text in the first place?

To my mind it seems the "conservation groups" and the media that reported the story have fallen into the trap of believing their own propaganda (excluding Richard Black who tends to be able to strike a good balance, but I think he missed part of the story here).

The original statement that the whaling nations were said to be prepared to agree with is in fact nothing spectacular. While it may at first glance seem like a vague way of saying the same thing as Australia's amended version, it's actually very different.

The statement that there is "inadequate scientific information" to draw a particular conclusion regarding a suggested hypothesis doesn't imply that the conclusion is actually false. And with regards to cetaceans and fisheries this does remain an open question.

Richard Black mentions in his article that some years back that,

the IWC's scientific committee had concluded there was no way of providing reliable advice on the impacts of cetaceans on fisheries

The IWC Scientific Committee reaffirmed this in it's 2008 report (see page 56). Again, this does not imply that cetaceans do have no impact on fisheries, only that our science isn't yet as advanced in this area to be able to say much about it reliably.

So the original wording seems to be quite compatible with the positions of the pro-sustainable use nations, that interactions between cetaceans and fisheries warrant scientific research (and indeed Japan's JARPN II programme in the western-north pacific has been being conducted in recent years for this reason, and Iceland too has been running a similar programme).

Yet the "conservation groups" who are still campaigning against whaling have attacked Australia's move at Barcelona, when Australia has to my mind done exactly what would be expected of a staunch anti-whaling nation - ignore whatever the IWC Scientific Committee says and just deny outright that there is any cetacean-fisheries interaction worth taking into consideration for the sake of maintaining one's populist anti-whaling stance.

Perhaps the criticism that Australia copped for this has something to do with their failure to back up their threats with actions since the new Rudd government came to power this time last year. Or maybe their anti-whaling allies are just getting sleepy.

Anti-Whaling Envoy Appointed

The other news that came out, perhaps in response to the criticism last week, was that Australia has finally confirmed that it has appointed former Sydney Olympics chief Sandy Hollway to it's new official anti-whaling crusader position. However, Mr Hollway himself is already sounding rather pessimistic as if to soften up the Australia public:

"I wouldn't want to hold out false hope for a cessation. I think we might be past the point where the definition of success is a complete halt."

Japan already agreed to freeze plans to start sampling Antarctic humpbacks last year with respect to the delicate situation at the IWC, and given Australia's continued behaviour I can't see them winning any additional concessions without being prepared to make some themselves.

But the reason I cover the story is to talk about the response to this news in Japan. The story was posted to the "2ch" message board site's news headline section, where it subsequently racked up a few hundred (largely critical) comments within the space of a couple of hours.

Meanwhile Yahoo! also has the story here. The Yahoo! story also includes many comments in response, and the comments there can be ranked. I'll translate off the top ranked comments, to give English readers an idea:

8: 2008/10/20 10:19
1,450 points

"This coming from the country where they massacre kangaroos..."

3: 2008/10/20 10:02
1,383 points

"I want them to understand other countries' cultures, eh."

6: 2008/10/20 10:13
1,240 points

"I want them to come here once they've gone and protested English fox hunting and Spanish bull fighting. If I were to be harsh I'd say they're creating a side show."

5: 2008/10/20 10:06
784 points

"Chinese poodle Rudd goes anti-Japan because of his failed policies"

4: 2008/10/20 10:05
780 points

"Let's ban tourists from going to Australia. Japanese should stop going to Australia".

22: 2008/10/20 10:30
449 points

"I want them to say this once they've stopped massacring kangaroos.
The Australians are the only people who kangaroo babies out of their mother's pouches, grab their legs and beat them against the ground to kill them.
They are running over kangaroos with cars for real.
I think that's more terrible than killing them for food.

Until recently, Australians were treating Aborigines as if they weren't humans because they are a coloured people. Whales more than people... that's white supremacist Australia for you.

And the reason why whale numbers decreased so much in the first place was the white people were massacring heaps of them for whale oil.

And what's more why is it that they send a special envoy to Japan only. (laugh)
Why don't you send a special envoy to Northern Europe?
Is it because the Japanese are a coloured race?"

"They have no consideration for the eco-system,
and this looks like nothing more than "Japan bashing".
If it were just a some profit making organizations...
But that it's a nation state is just pathetic"

14: 2008/10/20 10:23
281 points

"Well then, should Japan also appoint a kangaroo massacre problem special envoy?"

50: 2008/10/20 11:17
256 points

"Although they are happy enough killing kangaroos, to take a special view of cetaceans without rational reason is just as foolish an action as it is to think that white people are superior without rational reason.
There is no reason at all for Japan to listen to what Australia has to say"

7: 2008/10/20 10:15
236 points

"Personally I wouldn't be put out if I did not eat whale,
but what is the reason for the westerners to be so insistent about this?"

18: 2008/10/20 10:26
222 points

"Hey Australians! Don't eat Aussie Beef! Cows are cute aren't they?!"

Needless to say, I personally don't agree with all of the sentiments that you see expressed in the comments I translated above, but these comments are fairly typical of what I see when reading these discussions (can you tell that hypocrisy doesn't go down well here?). Other comments voiced surprise that Australia is more worried about people killing whales than it appears to be about it's currency crashing in the financial and economic turmoil right now.


All in all, through the recent news it seems to me that Australia is determined to continue to take actions with more consideration for domestic politics than for the future of the IWC as a serious international organization, or Australia's relevancy to it or international whaling management more generally. On that note, I will note that Japanese officials have been writing interesting things with regards to the "Safety Net" initiative, which I hope to introduce more of sometime in the not to distant future.

Labels: Japanese media perspective, Sandy Hollway

Japan's leading economic newspaper, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun (Nikkei) carried a report on wholesale whale meat prices yesterday:

Whale meat wholesale prices raised for the first time in 10 years

Whale meat wholesale prices have risen for the first time in 10 years. This
is due to a strong sense of stock shortage following a decrease in supply due to
a fire accident on a research whaling vessel, and a recovery in demand since the
latter half of last year. The percentage price rise for product categories such
as red meat and blubber was an average of 7%. At the current time the effect of
the price rise hasn't been observed in shop prices, but amongst retailers there
are concerned voices that "if wholesale prices rise further, it may throw cold
water on the recovery in whale meat popularity".

Whale meat is sold by the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research
foundation ("Geiken", Chuo, Tokyo) as a "by-product" of research whaling.
Research is mainly conducted twice a year, in the Antarctic Ocean and in the
western North Pacific. This year in February, the mother ship "Nisshin Maru"
suffered a fire outbreak while in the Antarctic. The research was cancelled and
the ship returned to Japan with approximately 2,100 tonnes of whale meat,
approximately 60% of what was scheduled. (19:01)

No surprises in this for regular readers of this blog (I suggested upward pressure on retail prices in my previous whale meat stockpile update), but it's worth noting that Japan's leading economic newspaper has picked up on the story.

One thing in the article that I don't agree with is the suggestion that whale popularity has only been increasing since the second half of last year. The 12-month moving average outgoing whale meat stock figures in the stockpile figures I have been covering indicates that consumption has been increasing since at least the beginning of 2005.

Furthermore, given that whale meat prices are still relatively high (even before this 7% price hike), I believe that limited supply has had a capping effect on consumption (as opposed to low demand). The report from an anti-whaling journalist last year of a whale meat "glut" was seemingly accepted by the media without any critical analysis.

Labels: Japanese media perspective, whale meat market

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 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

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

Y/H-san drew my attention to a Japanese article that appeared in the Yomiuri newspaper in relation to the IUCN Red List and the revised whale species classifications that are due to be published in the updated list (sometime) later this year. The High North Alliance was first on the net with this news, much earlier this year. But here's my translation of the Japanese article from the 27th of April:

Humpback and Minke, removed from "Endangered" list - New impetus for whaling resumption

It has been learnt that the IUCN, after confirming increases in the number of Humpback and Minke whales which had been threatened with extinction, has moved to down list these two species to a lower rank of extinction risk.

The downgrade is expected to be published shortly in the "Red List", which classifies animal species by different levels of extinction risk. Coming on the eve of the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Anchorage USA, the controversy surrounding the resumption of commercial whaling for these two species is likely to be heightened.

According to the Red List, the Humpback was "Endangered (Threatened)", and the Minke whale species, while not meeting the criteria of a Threatened species, had been classified in the "Near Threatened" category, requiring caution, due to a notable decreasing trend in their numbers.

The IUCN, in progressing their re-evaluation of the rankings for the world's mammal species, held a meeting of specialists in January this year, and confirmed that they would downgrade the Humpback and Minke whale species to "Least Concern", a ranking indicating a low risk of extinction, based on scientific data such as that provided by the research whaling conducted by Japan.

The research whaling is currently conducted with respect to Minke whales, and from this autumn will commence for Humpback whales. This downgrade will potentially provide the nations who are aiming for a resumption in commercial whaling, such as Japan, with a powerful reinforcement. Yoshio Kaneko of Iwate Prefectural University's Faculty of Policy Studies commented that "This is the result of an objective judgement of the status of whale abundance. With respect to these two species, anti-whaling advocates will lose any grounds they had to say that these whales are facing extinction".

(2007/4/27/ 3:10 Yomiuri Shinbun)

In real terms, the recovery of the humpback whale after more than 40 years of protection (i.e. since the 1960's - two decades before the unnecessary commercial whaling moratorium was rammed into effect) is great news.

But this report being published is also great news as well. Today many publications seem to prefer scandal and drama over gradually unravelling success stories, but the IUCN Red List downgrade of the humpback provides a nice conservation milestone for the media to pick up and run with...

... well, the Japanese media at least. You see, meanwhile, the "environmental editor" of a major British newspaper has today published an article referring to "50 endangered humpbacks".

I predict that this sort of reporting (either ignorant or intellectually dishonest) will continue even after the official Red List publication.

Labels: humpbacks, Japanese media perspective

Y/H-san pointed us to an NHK article, accompanied by a great cartoon (view it at the original link). The cartoon perhaps sums up the national broadcaster's take on the IWC normalization issue (no translation here... yet, who knows).

As readers can tell for themselves, the cartoon likens the IWC circus to a boxing ring, with Japan, Korea, Norway and Iceland representatives all standing in the red corner of the ring, which is emblazoned with a whale picture labelled "Commercial Whaling Resumption".

Meanwhile, in the blue corner, a sign is placed on the boxer's stool proclaiming the position of the other team: "Absolutely Opposed". Outside the ring, the blue team is a shambles, with the New Zealand representative is seen vigorously tut tutting those who are still willing to fight, the British rep sitting on his bum, the Aussie rep skipping rope, and the completely disinterested American rep is infatuated with a newspaper article about Iraq.

The Japanese rep is wishfully indicating to the blue team reps to get back in the ring, while the Iceland rep is crossing off another year of whaling in 2007.

A jaded looking ring girl is staggering back between the ropes to indicate that it's time for the 25th round...


There should be more in the media about the outcome of the IWC Normalization meeting tomorrow.

Labels: IWC Normalization, Japanese media perspective

A couple of brief reports regarding the moves by the UK to try to get additional nations to join the IWC have appeared in the Japanese media. As always, I'll give English readers my best effort translations.

From the Nihon Keizai Shinbun:

England aims to expand "anti-whaling group" at IWC

(London - Kazushige Yokota) - The United Kingdom Government is aiming to enlarge the "anti-whaling group" within in International Whaling Commission (IWC). It is urging around a dozen non-member European nations including Poland, Turkey, Greece to join the IWC, pleading that "by joining the IWC we can save the whales".

At last year's annual IWC meeting in June, for the first time ever a resolution supporting a resumption of commercial whaling was passed by a single vote majority, which has seen a sense of crisis rise amongst the "anti-whaling group". For an actual resumption of whaling, a three quarters majority agreement is required, and both whaling and anti-whaling sides are aiming to expand the size of their respective groups through recruitment of new member nations.

That's a typically tame piece which is to my mind representative of the general way in which the Japanese media view this issue - a bit of a storm in a teacup. Note that the "by joining the IWC we can save the whales" quote is a translation of a Japanese translation of the original English quote, so it's probably coming out differently due to the old "chinese whispers" problem.

This other article from Jiji Tsuushin seems slightly slanted towards the Japanese position:

2007/01/27-14:14 Constructing an anti-whaling majority = UK Environment Ministry soliciting IWC non-member nations

(London - 27th - Jiji) The UK's Environment, Food and Agriculture Ministry announced plans on the 27th aimed at increasing anti-whaling forces by strengthening their efforts to urge nations in Europe and Africa which are non-International Whaling Commission member nations to join. From next week, they plan to distribute materials pleading for the protection of whales, with the objective of boosting non-members to join the IWC.

The BBC has what I consider to be a rather good article on the issue here. Here's some bits of it:

The British government will publish a brochure this coming week aimed at encouraging nations opposed to whaling to join the Commission.

It says whales are "sensitive, social creatures", with some species risking extinction. Japan says these arguments are "old rhetoric and half-truths".

...

The UK's recruitment brochure ... says that protecting whales for future generations is a "global responsibility".

"Some whales are particularly at risk of extinction because their populations remain endangered following past exploitation from commercial whaling," it continues.

In two forewords, the distinguished natural history broadcaster David Attenborough writes, "There is no humane way to kill a whale at sea", while Tony Blair makes a direct call to arms.

"We urge your government to join the UK and the other anti-whaling nations in the IWC," writes the British Prime Minister, "to ensure that our generation meets its global responsibility to protect whales."

The arguments contained in the brochure were dismissed by Japan's deputy whaling commissioner Joji Morishita.

"It is always depressing to see the same old anti-whaling rhetoric," he told the BBC News website.

"Its basic position is that commercial whaling automatically means extinction. As we want everlasting whaling, which is totally different from the past industrial whaling of western countries which regarded whales only as an exhaustive industrial material, we would avoid extinction at any cost."

I think Joji Morishita sums it up very well. Perhaps another reference in there to the fact that the whalers support protection of species that are not recovering, or are still at very low levels of abundance, may also give a favourable impression.

Mr Morishita also warned that the IWC could break up without agreement on the eventual return to regulated commercial hunting.

I think this is probably something that will be made explicitly clear at the IWC Normalization meeting this month. The ongoing rhetoric from the anti-whaling nations gives the impression that they don't take the possibility seriously - or otherwise they are simply happy to be playing an "all or nothing" game, despite long term whale conservation being at stake here. If the IWC breaks down, I can't see that there would ever be any putting it back together again.

Japan is regularly accused by conservation campaigners of using fisheries aid to buy the votes of smaller countries in the IWC.

In reality, both pro- and anti-whaling blocs have sought to recruit like-minded members in recent years.

Very good from the BBC! Both sides of the argument basically presented evenly. My cap goes off to the article author Richard Black.


Greenpeace and Chris Carter have voiced support for the UK's pamphlet (here and here).

Labels: IWC Normalization, Japanese media perspective, Joji Morishita

Minami-nihon (Southern Japan) Broadcasting has a story about plans in Kagoshima (a city at the southern coast of Kyushu) to welcome home the JARPA fleet. The following is my translation:

Research whaling fleet welcome plans established [01/18 17:08]

The research fleet currently conducting research whaling in the Antarctic Ocean will visit the port of Kagoshima for the first time this April, and a committee to hold a welcome event was launched today.

The two vessels that are scheduled to visit Kagoshima port for the first time are the "Nisshin Maru (8030 tonnes) and the "Yushin Maru No. 2 (747 tonnes)", which left the port of Shimonoseki last November and are currently conducting whale research in the Antarctic Ocean. In the current research programme, 850 minke whales and 10 fin whales will be caught, and in mid-April the ships are scheduled to dock in Kagoshima, where a portion of the catch will be landed. Today the prefecture and city, along with related parties such as the chamber of commerce launched a committee, and discussions were held regarding an event to welcome the visit of the research vessels. The "Whale festival in Kagoshima" event will be held on the two days of April 21st and 22nd, with the research ships opened to the general public at Kagoshima City's waterfront park. 4000 portions of "kujira shiru" (whale soup) is set to be provided to the public free of charge.

The Nisshin Maru is the "research mother ship", while the Yushin Maru No. 2 is one of the sighting/sampling vessels (SSVs).

Kagoshima doesn't feature in the regional section of the official frozen stock figures for whale meat currently, but based on this report it seems we can expect to see Kagoshima appear when the figures for April are released later this year.

UPDATE 2007/01/19:
More articles appeared on this story in the Japanese media today. My translation from this article from 373 news:

...
Every year on it's return from the Antarctic Ocean, the research fleet is opened to the general public in several locations around the country to promote understanding of whaling. This occasion will be the 14th. In Kagoshima, the research mother ship "Nisshin Maru" and sighting/sampling vessel "Yushin Maru No. 2" will be on display, and at the "Whale festival in Kagoshima" event, 4,000 portions of kujira-shiru will be distributed free of charge, with shochu (Japanese spirits) using ice from the Antarctic also prepared for taste testing.

At the meeting of the event committee, the chair, Kagoshima city major Hiroyuki Mori greeted attendees, saying "I hope to make this an event that pleases city and prefectural citizens".

...
In April the fleet will return to Japan at Taniyama port, Kagoshima, where 1,500 tonnes of whale products will be unloaded and shipped across the country.

Kazuo Yamamura (59), president of Tokyo based Kyodo Senpaku, which is responsible for the operation of the research whaling vessels said "I hope the people take the chance to get to know the crew who will guide them around the vessels".

I think the bulk of the by-products will possibly be held in storage in Kagoshima until they are sold off in July.

Last year, judging by the regional stockpile figures, the meat was landed in the Tokyo area in addition to Kanazawa. This year the Tokyo stock levels appear to be being maintained at close to 1,000 tonnes, while the Kanazawa stockpile volume has dropped from 2,500 tonnes at the end of April to approx 500 tonnes at the end of November.

The e-kujira whale portal site has images from a similar festival held in Kagoshima last year (as well as images from other venues around the country, if you check the links at the bottom of the page).

Another page regarding the 2006 event in Kanazawa is here (lots of pictures if you are able to navigate your way through it)

Labels: Japanese media perspective, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, stockpile figures

The Yomiuri with a story on the visit of the Iceland foreign minister to Japan (my translation):

Iceland foreign minister: Commercial Whaling "based on science"

Iceland's Foreign Minister, Valgerdur Sverrisdottir (56) who is visiting Japan, responded to an interview with the Yomiuri newspaper in Tokyo on the 6th.

The Foreign Minister stressed the justness of the commercial whaling which Iceland resumed in October, saying that "the whaling has scientific basis". Furthermore, the Foreign Minister emphasised the importance of working together with Japan to increase understanding of whaling, noting that "it's important to co-operate together to broaden correct knowledge throughout the world".

Iceland is also an island nation like Japan, and is a fishing country. By August next year, they have plans to take 78 whales, including 39 for scientific research.

Regarding the resumption of commercial whaling, the Foreign Minister acknowledged huge receipt of emotional anti-whaling letters from mainly European countries and the USA, reading "I don't want to see any blood". However, the Foreign Minister said "We have a culture that is centred upon fisheries. These resources will not be depleted as the hunts will be limited and based upon scientific research".

(2006/12/7 01:39 Yomiuri Newspaper)

Labels: Iceland, Japanese media perspective, Whaling

Yesterday I voiced some initial suspicion over claims from groups such as Greenpeace that "Iceland has no market for whale meat".

In support of this claim they state the fact that "In Iceland only 1.1% of the population eat whale meat once a week and 82% of 16 to 24 year olds have never eaten it"

This doesn't really tell us much at all, in fact. An important question is whether whale meat is actually available to be eaten in the first place. We have to remember that Iceland stopped commercial whaling quite some years ago, and only recommenced scientific whaling in 2003. Only small numbers of whales have been taken during the time, meaning supply would be limited to a few hundred tonnes, anyway.

My suspicions seem to have even more solid ground, after I noticed a news report in the Japanese media (my translation):

"An Iceland Fisheries Ministry spokesperson said on the 18th in response to questions from Kyodo Tsushin that the whale meat supplied from Iceland's resumed commercial whaling operation "will be mostly consumed domestically", and acknowledged that there were no plans to export the products to Japan or other markets.

The spokesperson stated that "as a result of whaling groups employing marketing staff, domestic consumption of whale meat has increased by 4 times over the past 3 years", expressing the view that the meat could be sold domestically.

With regard to the quota for fin whales, which is classified as endangered by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the official stated that "In the North Atlantic the species numbers 25,800. The level of resources can be maintained".

I wonder if it is foolish to believe the Iceland Fisheries Ministry instead of Greenpeace on these matters?

UPDATE: November 8, 2006
Iceland and Japan are now reported to be in negotiations related to resuming trade in Fin whale products (source).

Labels: Iceland, Japanese media perspective, whale meat market, Whaling

A few days ago I looked at Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries statistics on frozen whale meat stocks.

Besides whale meat, stockpiles of other frozen marine products are also reported on the same monthly basis. Comparing the whale meat stockpile size with other marine products gives us some perspective about just how much (or little) the whale meat stockpile represents.

Here's the break-down of all frozen marine products for stocks held at the end of June 2006:

Product	Product Code	Stockpile (tonnes)	% of total frozen marine product stocks
Mackerel	20	83 336	8.10%
Salmon	13	78 668	7.65%
Shrimp	28	76 122	7.40%
Squid	29	73 947	7.20%
Tuna	6	60 293	5.86%
Sardine	16	54 362	5.29%
Pollock surimi	36	45 487	4.42%
Other marine products	34	44 543	4.33%
Shellfish	27	36 573	3.56%
Other surimi	37	36 199	3.52%
Bluefish	19	36 181	3.52%
Pacific saury	21	35 240	3.43%
Bonito	12	29 549	2.87%
Herring	15	27 918	2.71%
Octopus	33	23 434	2.28%
Flounder	22	21 336	2.07%
Trout	14	11 418	1.11%
Cod	23	9 067	0.88%
Whale	35	5 490	0.53%
Sea bream	25	5 461	0.53%
Sword Fish	11	3 465	0.34%
Pollock	24	3 463	0.34%
Other fish products	26	226 962	22.07%
Grand Total	3	1 028 514

The anti-whaling propaganda would have us believe that whale meat, with around 5,000 tonnes in stock in July (shortly after the completion of the first year of JARPA II), is apparently in over-supply and can't be sold due to sluggish demand.

In the context above we see that, even at it's then relatively high level, the stockpile represented just half a percent of the total frozen marine products stockpile (more than a million tonnes in total), whereas for more widely established products such as Tuna, there was more than 10 times as much in stock.

One wonders if the anti-whaling propaganda would also have the world believe that Tuna isn't popular in Japan anymore either.

J-CAST News recently contacted the Fisheries Agency in response to reports in the Japanese media about whale meat and was told (Japanese article linked) that "there is no over-supply" of whale meat.

The same article also quoted a medium-sized wholesaler as saying "We're stocking it so that we can sell it, so it's incorrect to characterize it as over-supply".

The basis for such statements is quite clear looking at the whale meat figures in context, as above.


Historically, Japan's production of whale products hit 226,000 tonnes in 1962, but then as the IWC took action to protect over-exploited stocks, production rapidly fell. By March 1980 the whale meat stockpile is reported to have stood at just 10% of that amount at 22,157 tonnes (TRAFFIC). As we see from the Ministry's recent statistics, the stockpile is markedly smaller today even by 1980 standards, with just 3,610 tonnes in stock at the end of March 2006 (16% of the 1980 stockpile figure, and just 1.6% of the massive production in 1962).

Labels: Japanese media perspective, stockpile figures, whale meat market, Whaling

In recent times the anti-whaling propaganda has started to focus on the size of the stockpiles of frozen whale meat in Japan.

Traditionally anti-whaling propaganda attacked whale meat for being a "luxury" enjoyed by rich Japanese businessmen in flash sushi bars. For some reason this criticism has been dropped. It certainly didn't have any effect.

Based on media reports, I did some crude analysis of stock pile movements to get an idea of actual consumption trends earlier this year (here). I came to the conclusion that consumption in 2004 was roughly 3,900 tonnes or thereabouts, based on reductions in the size of the stockpile during the year. This was also probably an underestimate, since I assumed that the only whale meat coming on to the stockpiles was from research programmes, where as in reality whales that are by-caught can also be marketed legally as well.

Back during the early days of JARPA I, only up to 330 minke whales were taken annually, meaning that supply was less than 2,000 tonnes annually. 3,900 tonnes thus actually represents an increase in actual consumption in recent times. There was not 3,900 tonnes of whale meat available to be eaten back in the early 90's.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries of Japan publishes monthly statistics on the amounts of frozen whale meat in storage (amongst statistics for various other products). For those who can read Japanese, these can be found here.

The latest statistics were released on September 9, for the month of July. This was the first full month after the IWC 58 meeting. I went back a few months to when the JARPA II fleet returned, and took a look at what is happening in stockpile land:

Month	Stockpile size at previous month end	Incoming stock	Outgoing stock	Stockpile size at current month end
March	2898	1539	827	3610
April	3610	2920	561	5969
May	5969	129	357	5741
June	5741	163	414	5490
July	5490	905	1723	4672

The months of March and April see a huge influx of supply as the JARPA II research fleet returns at this time, and the stockpile peaks at this time (almost 6,000 tonnes this year). Again in July, I assume the relatively large influx of 905 tonnes comes from the initial stage of the JARPN II research (?), and the months in between see only small amounts of supply which is probably the results of whale by-catch.

What's really interesting though is the huge jump in whale meat shipped in July - 1723 tonnes. I looked back through a year's worth of these reports, and couldn't see any such seasonal precedent. Were that pace annualized, consumption would completely outstrip demand.

Could it have anything to do with the extra media attention due to the adoption of the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration at IWC 58? Or perhaps the marketing efforts of the Geishoku Labo?

I'm not sure, but I'll certainly be looking out for the figures for August when they are published within the next couple of weeks.

It will also be interesting to see what the anti-whaling propaganda says (if anything) as any trend unfolds.

Labels: Japanese media perspective, stockpile figures, whale meat market, Whaling

In addition to the Asahi article on the whale meat market that I posted a few days back, the Yomiuri ran an article on whale meat in it's "gourmet" section on September the 5th. It also makes for interesting reading, again contrasting strongly with the information pushed in the English language media:

"Sell that whale meat!"

Whale upgraded to Izakaya regular / promoted in catered lunces

Food companies and restaurants dealing in whale meat are increasing. This is due to whaling interests getting serious about expanding consumption as whale meat stocks, marketed as food, have increased.

Whale meat sales are an essential source of revenue for research whaling. This is an urgent matter for interested parties, as further research whaling may be hindered if whale meat consumption is not increased.
(Takeo Miyazaki)

+ Health Food PR +

Whale meat eaten by consumers is mainly that of whales caught in research whaling which are subsequently processed and sold. The Foundation conducting research whaling, the Institute of Cetacean Research markets the meat through Kyodo Senpaku, the Tokyo-based company to which the actual whaling operations are contracted out to.

Recently Kyodo Senpaku and others have been strengthening their sales efforts, and instances of foodstuff companies and restaurants starting sales of whale meat are increasing.

Since March, Nippon Ham subsidiary company Hoko Co. Ltd. has been selling 3 types of new whale meat products, such as boiled retort and canned yakiniku. Hoko expects the products will be accepted if they are able to remind baby boomers of the flavour of the whale meat that they ate in the past.

Last November, Chimney Group added 7 whale meat items, including tatsuta-age and whale sashimi, to the menu at all of it's 200 "Hananomai" seafood izayaka-style restaurants. Previously these items had been seasonal offerings, but they have now had a "status upgrade" to regulars on the menu. The price of whale tatsuta-age is 50% higher than chicken kara-age, but it's said to be amongst the 10 most popular products in terms of earnings.

Elsewhere, major food retailer Maruetsu has had 10 products including whale sashimi on sale since June last year.

The Institute of Cetacean Research and others are also aiming to increase sales routes, and in May this year established a private company "Geishoku Labo" in Tokyo, which is selling whale meat to the catered lunch market including hospitals and universities.

Geishoku Labo representative Hiroshi Nakata promotes whale meat, saying "It's high in protein, and low in calories. The old image of it being a tough meat has been addressed through advances in freezing technology".

Glut of the "forgotten taste"

+ Stocks double in 10 years +

The reason for urgency in selling whale meat is because the supply of whale meat products has increased greatly, but consumption has been stagnant.

The Institute of Cetacean Research has increased the number of whale species taken subject for the purpose of detailed research into current population statuses, which has seen the supply of whale meat increase from 2450 tonnes in fiscal 2000 to 5560 tonnes in fiscal 2005.

However, consumption hasn't increased as expected. The International Whaling Commission decided on a temporary pause (moratorium) on commercial whaling in 1982, and as Japan ceased commercial whaling in 1988, average whale meat consumption per person has dropped from approximately 2000 grams 40 years ago to approximately 50 grams in 2005.

As a result, the annual average whale meat stocks stored in refrigeration increased by 45% on the previous year in 2005 to 3945 tonnes, approximately twice the size of 10 years ago.

Last year in December, the Institute of Cetacean Research which sets wholesale prices also reduced them by 20%, and this year from January through July, whale meat sales increased by 50% compared to last year, but stocks have not yet been reduced.

The Fisheries Agency Whaling Division sees a contributing factor as consumers having developed an image of whale meat being difficult to obtain, in a the phenomenon of the younger generation shying away from whale meat has also been identified.

Unsold stocks... problems for research whaling?

Of the 6 billion yen annual costs of research whaling, about 90% is paid for by whale meat sales. As such, if whale meat doesn't sell, this may have an impact on research whaling plans.

As the Institute of Cetacean Research also plans to increase the number of whales taken for research from fiscal 2007, forecasts are that supply of whale meat to the markets will increase to an annual 7,000 to 8,000 tonnnes. If consumption doesn't increase, and stocks build up further, there is a concern that funds may be insufficient to cover the research costs.

Additionally, Japan is pressing for a resumption in commercial whaling at the IWC. At this year's annual IWC meeting in June, a declaration sponsored by Japan and other whaling supporters was adopted with a 1 vote majority, including words to the effect that the temporary pause in commercial whaling is "unneccessary". However, if it seems that consumption isn't increasing smoothly, this may have repercussions in the international debate surrounding whaling.

(2006/09/05 Yomiuri Shinbun)

[UPDATED: 09/14] My translation is completed now, and having done so I realize that Yomiuri's English version already have their own translation. It's worth reading anyway to see the contrast with mine. Some interesting things to note:

• In the English version's headline they include the words "demand sluggish". The Japanese article says no such thing, and indeed the article notes that a range of outlets have introduced whale meat products, and notes that consumption is up by 50% year on year.
• Throughout the English version they talk about "demand" whereas the original Japanese version uses the word for "consumption". Perhaps Yomiuri has a "translator creativity" policy? Or perhaps it's just a case of telling their English readership what they think they want to hear.
  
• If you look at the URL's, the Japanese version of the article is posted in the gourmet section - the English version is posted under "national" news :-)

Labels: Hananomai, Japanese media perspective, Whaling