The Government of Japan
1993
This short paper will review important distinctions between the Japanese STCW and LTCW fisheries (before the latter was totally disbanded in 1987). There is an extensive scientific literature on this topic, so only a summary is presented here, though references to the more detailed reports are also provided.
The rationalization occurring in Japanese STCW and LTCW operations following WWII have been presented in Ohsumi 1975, and the various differences between Japanese STCW and LTCW are explicitly addressed in IWC documents TC/41/STW2 [subsequently published as Takahashi et al. 1989], TC/42/SEST3, and Kalland and Moeran 1990 [distributed to delegations at IWC42 by the Government of Japan, and subsequently published as: Kalland and Moeran 1992, see pp. 79-133].
Detailed relevant information on Japanese STCW is provided in IWC documents, e.g. IWC/40/23, TC/41/STW1, and TC/42/SEST9.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISTINCTIONS
According to the Schedule of the International Convention for the Regulation
of Whaling (ICRW), no definition of LTCW is provided. However, small-type
whaling is defined as:
"Catching operations using powered vessels with mounted harpoon guns hunting exclusively for minke, bottlenose, beaked, pilot or killer whales."
Government of Japan regulations strictly control this fishery within Japanese nearshore waters. STCW constitutes a limited-access fishery with no more than ten STCW licences issued since 1968, though at the present time only nine STCW licences are issued annually. The catching of sperm whales and baleen whales (except minke) is forbidden.
Additional operational regulations, e.g. limit the calibre of the harpoon gun, specify that only government-licensed whaling stations may process whales, prohibit killing females with calves, limit the whaling season to a six-month period defined by species and areas, prohibit towing a carcass caught by another catcher boat, and require that all whales caught must be completely utilised.
Monthly and annual reports on whaling operations must be submitted to the Government of Japan; such reports shall specify, e.g., date and location of whales caught; whale sightings; name of catcher boat and harpooner; time leaving and returning to port; prevailing sea conditions; species, sex, length, stomach content of whales caught, whether a foetus is present, etc. Additional operational data required to be submitted annually includes quantity and value of catch (as meat, oil, other products), payments to crew, and revenues and expenditures from each whaling operation.
Under Japanese government regulations LTCW boats were prohibited from hunting minke whales (or pilot and beaked whales), which are species exclusively reserved for STCW operations in Japan's coastal waters.
THE SCALE AND NATURE OF JAPANESE COASTAL WHALING OPERATIONS
Principal differences between STCW and LTCW relate to the scale of operations
in each of these two forms of fishery, reflected in the technology and
manpower requirements, as well as the quite different ownership, financial and
management dimensions of the operations and distribution patterns for the
harvested product.
Technology. Given the size difference between the sperm and baleen whales caught in the former LTCW fishery, compared to the pilot, beaked and minke whales taken in the STCW fishery, it is to be expected that catcher boats will be markedly different in size. Thus STCW boats average 36 tons (range: 15-49 tons), compared to LTCW catcher boats ranging from 600 to >750 tons.
The STCW boats have a maximum range of ca. 150 miles and for safety reasons return to port each night; LTCW vessels are oceangoing, capable of transoceanic voyages and operating at sea for more than one month without refuelling or returning to port.
Consequent to these size differences, there are significant operational distinctions between the STCW and LTCW fisheries. The distance from shore whales are caught in these two fisheries are significantly different: whereas >95% of STCW takes occur within 40 miles of shore, fewer than 23% of LTCW catches occurs within that range, with the majority taken twice as far offshore as STCW boats can operate (TC/42/SEST3: Table 5).
These differences between STCW and LTCW catching practices, expressed both as mean distances from shore of whale harvested and as harvest-distance frequency distributions, are statistically different at >0.0001 probability levels in each case (i.e. there is a >99.99% probability that differences in these harvesting patterns could not have occurred by chance).
The slow speed (9 knots) of STCW boats compared to LTCW boats (16 knots) precludes the use of sonar (to detect whales) by the slower STCW boats: sonar emissions cause the whale to flee at too great a distance to allow the STCW boats to catch up with the whale. Consequently visual sighting is carried out by crew members from the masthead or wheelhouse roof on STCW boats, though an acoustic transmitter (without a receiver) is used to cause whales to surface. This non-locating device is necessary to ensure that female-calf pairs are not inadvertently hunted and to greatly reduce the time between sighting and harpooning of the whales.
Despite the skill of the whalers once whales have been sighted, about 37% of minke whale hunts are unsuccessful due to limited sighting range under frequently prevailing sea conditions (TC/42/SEST3: Figure 5). On the other hand, LTCW vessels can remain at sea and hunt effectively with sonar under weather conditions that will keep STCW boats in port.
Manpower. The eight Japanese STCW companies are mostly small family-owned businesses that employ few workers; before lay-offs caused by the zero-catch quotas, the average number of paid workers per STCW operation [in 1987] was 10, which includes the boat owners' wives, sons and their spouses (TC/42/SEST3: Table 1). In most cases these workers are residents of the same whaling village as the boat owner (ibid: 6).
The LTCW operations were markedly different: LTCW operations formed part of large national (as opposed to small local community-based) companies, and LTCW workers were recruited from locations throughout Japan (ibid: Table 2). The last season LTCW operated [1987], and despite the progressive shrinkage of LTCW operations in the immediately preceding years, the average number of salaried workers was still about 100 fulltime and 25 part-time per LTCW company (ibid: 8).
The qualifications of crew members are also markedly different. Crew members on STCW boats do not require formal training (except for the captain), and they are generally recruited locally and obtain their skills on the boat itself.
In the case of LTCW operations, crew members were recruited through national advertising or through the colleges where they received their formal training. The large-sized LTCW crews (22-25 men) include many specialized positions due to the need to service these oceangoing ships and their complex electronic and mechanical equipment whilst on extended voyages. Whereas on STCW boats most crew members can fill most positions (except harpooner and engineer), this is not the case on the LTCW boats where distinct and highly specialized roles (requiring specialized training) exist for most functions and are strictly maintained at all times.
Ownership and Management. Six of the eight STCW companies are owner operated; one company is a wholly owned subsidiary of a now-disbanded LTCW company (though all management decisions are made by the local boat operator); the eighth STCW operation is managed by a local fisheries cooperative. Seven of the eight companies own a single STCW boat, and one company operates two boats.
Since the imposition of a minke whale zero-catch quota in 1988, these local operators have attempted to diversify their local businesses, including e.g. fish-farming, set-net operations, etc. (TC/42/SEST2). In contrast, large-scale diversification was a normal part of the LTCW parent companies operations. These national diversified companies, with head offices in Tokyo, were engaged in various national and overseas fisheries, as well as fish product processing and marketing, fish-farming, fertilizer and pharmaceutical manufacture, and various overseas joint venture operations.
The LTCW companies were public companies, with elected boards, publicly traded shares, and large numbers of shareholders' financial interests to consider. The STCW operations, on the other hand, are family run, without public boards, annual meetings or shareholders to satisfy (except in the single, small-scale case of the community-based fishery cooperative-managed STCW operation).
Distribution of Whalemeat. The critical differences between distribution of whale product in STCW and LTCW was also addressed last year (in IWC/44/SEST3).
The principal reasons for the critical distinctions existing between STCW and LTCW whale product distribution systems are:
In brief, due to the small and irregular supply of whale meat landed at the designated STCW landing ports, only local buyers (serving local/prefectural customers) were ordinarily present to undertake commercial distribution. STCW consumers preferred fresh meat and this was quickly distributed through an efficient network of buyers as well as through a widespread gifting network within and adjacent to the producing community (see below).
This STCW distribution system is in contrast to the LTCW situation which operated in some of these same communities, where the large quantities of meat produced on a daily basis by the LTCW operation was too great for local consumption needs. To handle the large volume of product, LTCW landing stations could freeze, cook and can, salt, and otherwise process the edible whale products, which in that form could be marketed nationally in areas not served by the STCW fresh minke meat market.
The principal difference between STCW and LTCW product distribution however, results from the manner by which this commercial distribution was controlled. LTCW companies undertake capture, processing, distributing and wholesale marketing of the whale product and control each phase of the operation thus excluding various local and non-local middlemen. In order to control market forces affecting the profitability of the operation, all decisions were made at corporate headquarters at a distance from the landing or processing site (IWC/44/SEST3).
In contrast, the STCW operators merely produce the meat (and in some cases may flense the whale); however, they do not engage in processing, distributing or marketing the products, phases of the operation carried out by local processors and distributors who have their own networks leading to the local consumers. The STCW producers have no direct influence over factors affecting market prices (see, e.g. IWC/40/23: 89, where for the beaked whale STCW fishery, the selling price was set by the producer at the very start of the whaling season and did not change during the season).
FURTHER CRITICAL ASPECTS OF STCW AND LTCW DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS
Additional features of the distinctive STCW distribution system, including
important gifting and exchange institutions, have been fully described in
earlier reports, e.g., IWC/4O/23: 32-51; IWC/41/SE1; IWC/41/SE3; TC/41/STW1;
TC/42/SEST7; TC/42/SEST8; TC/42/SEST9; see also Kalland and Moeran 1992:
141-45.
The important socio-cultural distinctions flowing from the localized distribution of whale products in the STCW case in contrast to the centralized distribution in the LTCW case are summarized below.
The Local Food Culture. In the STCW case, the local food culture in the vicinity of the whaling communities is significantly based upon the STCW fresh-meat fishery for a large part of the year. Indeed, despite the seasonal consumption of other types of whale meat, the exacting requirements of the local food culture provide one of the most important reasons why STCW continued to co-exist in some of the same communities as LTCW fisheries. For whereas LTCW operations provided cheaper and more plentiful supplies of whale meat, this meat did not provide suitable ingredients for the locally valued traditional food culture based upon STCW production.
The relationship between the availability of culturally appropriate whale meat and this locally centred distribution system has been emphasized elsewhere (Takahashi et al. 1989: 128). The reasons for linking the availability of the appropriate foods to the social and religious wellbeing of the STCW communities has been documented by social scientists at successive IWC meetings (e.g. IWC/40/23: 66-74; IWC/41/SE3: 14-25, 27-31, 38-39; TC/41/STW1: 8-9, 21-27; TC/42/SEST8: 6-7, 25-33); see also Glass and England 1988; Kalland and Moeran 1992: 145-49; Ashkenazi and Jacob l992.
In TC/43/SEST1 and IWC/44/SEST2, social scientists' understanding of the critical role of everyday (whale meat) food use [documented quantitatively for one STCW community in TC/42/SEST8], is thoroughly presented. It is apparent that everyday food use critically influences such important aspects of social development, family life and community solidarity as, e.g. socialization and role differentiation, moral ordering and cultural identity (TC/43/SEST1; IWC/44/SEST4).
Cultural Identity. Culturally appropriate means of using local food resources over time provides one of the most enduring means of fashioning a distinctive local or regional identity.
The historic movement of Japanese whalers from western Japan to eastern and northern Japan (particularly during this century) has enabled individuals to continue their family occupations as whalers (IWC/40/23: 16), and has allowed the spread and ensured the continuity of whale-based cuisines having considerable antiquity yet local distinctiveness (ibid: 66-73). The relationship between this locally based distinctiveness and cultural identity has been emphasized in several studies (e.g. IWC/42/SE3: 29-36; Kalland and Moeran 1992: 156).
Gift Exchange in Whaling Communities. Whale meat, being a traditionally valued food item is used extensively in gift giving and occurs in both the STCW and LTCW context. However, it is particularly instructive to note the significant differences occurring between the STCW and LTCW situation.
As has been stated elsewhere (e.g. TC/42/SEST3: 22) the quantity of meat gifted is not the most important consideration when trying to understand the significance of the gift. Nor does it matter if items are purchased for the purpose of being given as a gift.
What is significant however, is the community-wide extent of the exchanges that occur between STCW boat owners and crew members to their relatives, neighbors, friends and associates, and then from these gift receivers out further to yet others in the community. This extensive community-wide activity occurs not just occasionally, but every time a whale is landed in the STCW community, and frequently involves exchanges between local residents and shrines and temples, consequently having enormous social, religious and cultural importance (e.g. IWC/41/SE1: 10-14; IWC/43/SE3: 21-24; Takahashi et al. 1989: 128).
This extensive and frequent system in STCW is in marked contrast to the quite limited and infrequent gift giving occurring in the LTCW fishery. In the LTCW situation only certain people (ordinarily the flensing station owner and a few neighboring households) receive gifts of meat from the boat operator, and these gifts do not occur each time a whale is landed, but rather, about once a month while the station operates (TC/42/SEST3: 22).
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE OPERATIONAL DIFFERENCES?
Clearly, from a whale-fishery management perspective these significant
differences between STCW and LTCW operations indicate that quite different
management regimes may be appropriate in each case.
The difference of scale is significant, because small boats and small crews mean smaller capital and operating costs, no shareholders' dividends or directors' fees to be paid, and therefore the likelihood that economic viability can be assured with a relatively small catch quota as was the case in the immediate past. For example, STCW companies landed an average 106 tons of edible whale product annually (1982-87 data) in comparison with 1,489 tons annually for one LTCW company (1983-87 data; TC/42/SEST3: 10).
Second, the small range of the STCW boats ties them closely to designated landing ports. The slow speed of the boat and the requirement that the whale be quickly processed to ensure a high quality product reaches market (STCW minke whale consumers expect fresh, not frozen meat, to be available) results, in most cases, in a single whale being taken per trip (TC/42/SEST3: Table 6). Under these circumstances, given the public nature of the flensing operations (open shed or slipway flensing), inspection of the catch and enforcement of catch limits is easily insured.
Third, given the irregular availability and relatively small quantities of whale meat available on any given day at the designated STCW landing ports, distribution of the edible products could be restricted to traditional whale meat-dependent communities, in most cases within the prefecture of the landing port.
Indeed, a STCW Management Plan which anticipates cooperation between IWC, national and local management bodies has already been tabled at IWC by the Government of Japan (TC/42/SEST7). This plan aims to:
A quantitative assessment of the cultural need for minke whale meat in the Ayukawa-based STCW fishery has also been completed (TC/42/SEST8) based upon a methodology accepted by IWC for the Alaskan bowhead fishery and appropriately adapted to the cultural circumstances prevailing in Ayukawa.
The above text summarizes five years research and considerable subsequent discussion of these tabled research reports at Technical Committee Sub-Committee and Working Group meetings.
It is hoped this present review of the extensive relevant documentation will provide an accepted basis at this time for a just decision to be made in respect to meeting the documented cultural and community needs in the STCW communities.
REFERENCES CITED
_