At Public Hearing of Committee on Fisheries, European Parliament (Brussels), November 24&25, 1997

(from "Japanese Position on Whaling and Anti-Whaling Campaign", The Institute of Cetacean Research, 1998)

Masayuki Komatsu,
Fisheries Agency, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Government of Japan

As Director for International Negotiations in the Fisheries Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and as the Alternate Commissioner of the Government of Japan to the International Whaling Commission it is an honour for me to be here today. I very much welcome the opportunity to present the views of the Government of Japan on the issue of whaling for your consideration.

As you know, the IWC was established by a 1946 international treaty called the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. This treaty was initially signed by 15 whaling countries who decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.

Much has changed since 1946. Whale species which were over-harvested have been protected. The level of scientific knowledge about whales and the status of whale stocks has been greatly increased, and a risk averse method of calculating catch quotas has been developed and tested.

Historically, whale oil was the object of whaling and over-harvesting of whale stocks was primarily caused by competition amongst the whaling fleets of many nations. This time has gone. If commercial whaling were to be reopened today, it would be very limited and closely regulated. The product would be the traditional and sustainable use of meat. The limited market for whale meat in relatively few counties combined with newly developed management procedures ensures that the over-harvesting of the past cannot be repeated.

Membership of the IWC has also changed since 1946, however, Contracting Governments have, by their accession, expressed their agreement with the ordinary meaning of the object and purpose of the convention which is that the convention aims at permitting harvesting from whale stocks that will sustain such a catch while maintaining abundance at a level that does not threaten or endanger them.

Today, the IWC is comprised of 32 voting members, the majority of whom support the protection of all whales irrespective of their population and biological status and irrespective of their legal obligations as sovereign states signatory to an international treaty.

Ignoring the issue of treaty obligation and the object and purpose of the Convention by the majority of members within the IWC has caused a serious division amongst the members which threatens the Commission's viability and is unacceptable to many Governments respectful of international institutions including the Government of Japan.

Evolutionary interpretation of constitutive instruments may in some cases contribute to the effective operation of an agreement over time and, this concept may provide greater scope or different emphasis to the operations of an organization or body such as the IWC, however, such an approach is not appropriate when it subverts the purpose of the treaty.

Even the broadest of treaty interpretation cannot, under the general rules of international law, change the intent of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling from a treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilization of whales into a treaty solely for the protection of whales irrespective of their population status.

Madam Chairman, let me give you some specific examples.

In 1982, the IWC adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling. This moratorium was adopted by the addition of a sufficient number of new members to achieve the 3/4 majority vote required and in spite of the lack of a recommendation from the Commission's Scientific Committee that such a measure was required.

Further, the paragraph of the IWC's schedule implementing the moratorium specifically notes that, and I quote, "This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits." end quote.

Madam Chairman, this paragraph obliges the Commission to consider the establishment of other catch limits. However, even with advice from the Scientific Committee that certain stocks could sustain a harvest and that quotas could be set with all the required safety factors, no action has been taken to establish such catch limits. Indeed, contrary to scientific advice and the Convention itself, the majority of the IWC's members are committed to maintaining the moratorium.

It was precisely this issue, the failure of the Commission to adopt and implement the Revised Management Procedure that led to the resignation of the Chairman of the Scientific Committee in 1993. His comments concerning the Commission's ignoring the advice of its Scientific Committee are a matter of public record however, I want to emphasize that the behavior of the Commission in this regard provides a clear example of how our international fisheries affairs should not be conducted.

Another example is the establishment of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary but I will come back to this issue later.

Madam Chairman, it is a matter of fact that under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, harvesting of abundant stocks in a sustainable manner is permissible and that the IWC's regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources must be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of the convention and must be based on scientific findings.

We are committed to the principle that the management of whales and all marine resources be based on scientific findings and believe strongly that the institutional and scientific credibility of the IWC has been seriously compromised by the continuing disregard of treaty obligations and the disregard of the Commission's Scientific Committee advice.

The issue of treaty obligations is a serious matter. Indeed, at least one legal expert on these matters has suggested that those member States of the IWC who cannot meet their treaty obligations by supporting the sustainable utilization of whales should withdraw their membership.

Again, by their accession, Contracting Governments have expressed their agreement with the object and purpose of the Convention. Unfortunately, the actions of the majority of Contracting Governments belies such agreement.

It should also be noted that the majority of countries attending the recent meeting of CITES supported the sustainable use of wildlife including whales. For those who had the opportunity to participate in this meeting in Harare it was a clear sign that the attempt by the so-called developed world to prolong its colonialist attitude by imposing its views on the developing world is no longer acceptable. Unfortunately, the IWC is another forum where western European nations, along with several other member States, are imposing their views in an unacceptable manner.

Further, the misuse and abuse of what is offered as public opinion has also been a significant factor in both CITES and the IWC. For example, contrary to the position of the Government of the United States in the IWC, a recent survey commissioned by the IWMC World Conservation Trust clearly showed that the majority of Americans, when able to make informed choices with accurate information, support a regulated whale harvest for producing food.

In this regard, I would emphasize that the scientific advice is unequivocal that some stocks of whales, specifically minke whales in the North Atlantic and the Antarctic can sustain a harvest and that it is possible to set quotas that will ensure such harvests would not threaten these stocks.

Furthermore, the Revised Management Procedure which has been agreed by the IWC as a basis for setting catch limits, and which would allow catches from these stocks, is nevertheless so conservative that were comparable criteria and formulae applied to fisheries off the coasts of Europe, hardly any would escape a ruling of immediate closure. These particular whale stocks are amongst the healthiest of any of the world's marine resource populations.

Madam Chairman, clearly, continuation of the current situation within the IWC is not in the best interests of the IWC itself since most whaling now occurs outside of the direct control of the IWC.

Nor is it in the interests of responsible management of our environment and its resources since it sets a dangerous precedent for international cooperation related to other environmental and resource conservation agreements which should be based on trust, cooperation and the best available scientific advice.

The IWC has been hijacked by special interest groups and has become dysfunctional. Its agenda is no longer related to the object and purpose of the convention. Legitimizing the IWC is not only in Japan's interest but in the interest of all member States.

Madam Chairman, I would now like to briefly explain the position of the Government of Japan on a number of specific issues dealt with by the IWC at its recently completed 49th Annual Meeting. Since the statements of the Government of Japan to the Commission on these and other matters are a matter of public record I will only address the major issues in summary form.

I feel it necessary to explain our position on these issues not only so they are part of the record of this hearing but also because collectively, the manner in which these issues have been dealt with by the IWC demonstrates clearly the dysfunctional nature of the Commission and, in respect of the title of Part II of this hearing provides lessons for the management of other resources.

Unfortunately, they are negative lessons. They are lessons about double standards, they are lessons about ignoring scientific advice and legal obligations and, they are lessons on how not to do things.

Firstly, I would like to come back to the issue of scientific research and specifically, the resolutions adopted by the IWC urging that the Government of Japan refrain from conducting lethal research in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and to reconsider and restructure its research program in the North Pacific.

Madam Chairman, under the terms of the Convention, it is the sovereign right of Contracting Parties to issue permits for the killing of whales for scientific research. Further, the Convention clearly states that the taking of whales under this provision is exempt from the operation of the Convention.

The resolutions adopted by the IWC pertaining to Japanese whale research programs are an infringement on our sovereign rights as a Contracting Party to the Convention. The issue of sovereign rights is a fundamental principle in international relations but it is ignored in the IWC when it suits the interests of the majority.

Further, the resolution related to our research in the Antarctic adopted by the IWC at its recent meeting in Monaco is inconsistent with and contradicts the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Committee which have noted that the Japanese research program in the Antarctic has provided considerable data reflecting the status of whale stocks which have produced many valuable results which could be directly relevant for management. Further, the Scientific Committee noted that nonlethal means to obtain some of this information are unlikely to be successful in the Antarctic.

Clearly, it is perverse and makes a mockery of the convention that while the conclusions of the Scientific Committee support the continuation of our research programs which will continue to produce results directly relevant for management of whale resources, the Commission itself urges that we end this program.

Madam Chairman, these comments apply equally to the resolution requesting the Government of Japan to reconsider its research program in the North Pacific and I will therefore not repeat them.

Our research programs in both the Antarctic and the North Pacific involve both sighting surveys and lethal research. The objectives of these programs have been clearly stated and are consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention and its Articles. We have endeavored to take account of the legitimate scientific issues raised by others related to these programs and will continue to do so but, we will not be deterred by resolutions such as these that infringe on our sovereign rights and which are contradictory to the Convention.

I would now briefly like to summarize the position of the Government of Japan on the legality of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.

In 1994, the Government of Japan voted against the sanctuary proposal and then filed an objection to the Schedule amendment because it is our strongly held view that the designation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was contradictory to the terms of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and that it could not be justified on scientific grounds.

Specificauy, the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is not necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of the Convention to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of whale resources, is not based on scientific findings, and does not take into account the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry as required by Article V.

In summary, Madam Chairman, it is the strong conviction of the Government of Japan that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary does not conform to the requirements of Article V of the ICRW, that continuation of the sanctuary "irrespective of the conservation status..." of whales in the Antarctic is contrary to the convention and that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is unnecessary since the implementation of the RMS would ensure that any commercial whaling operations would be conducted at safe levels.

We believe that this matter should be addressed by the Commission in good faith and in accordance with the spirit and terms of the Convention and other relevant international law.

We are convinced that such discussions and a resolution of this issue will restore some of the IWC's credibility as a resource management organization.

Madam Chairman, I would like to explain the position of the Government of Japan on one other issue dealt with by the IWC before summarizing our views on the future of the IWC by providing our response to what has been called the "Irish Proposal". This issue is Japan's small type coastal whaling.

Since 1986, the Government of Japan has worked diligently to convey to the IWC, an understanding of the social, cultural, and economic importance of small-type whaling to four small coastal communities in Japan. More than thirty papers based on extensive social science research have been submitted to the Commission over the last 10 years.

In 1993, the Commission adopted a resolution which recognized the adverse impacts of the commercial whaling moratorium and expressed the Commission's resolve to work expeditiously to relieve the distress of the four small coastal communities concerned.

Each year since 1987, the Government of Japan has requested an interim relief allocation which has been continually denied by the IWC.

Again, at the most recent meeting of the IWC in Monaco, the IWC refused our request for a modest harvest to meet the well documented cultural, social, dietary and economic needs of four communities. In our view this is an injustice. An injustice based on artificially classifying Japanese small type whaling as "commercial whaling" and the other whaling as "aboriginal subsistence whaling". In fact, there is little substantive difference. Some commerciality is common to all of them as is the cultural and nutritional need.

Apparently however, the sale of whale meat in coastal communities in Japan to satisfy cultural and dietary need is unacceptable to the majority of IWC members while the sale of handicrafts made from whales caught in Alaska to foreign tourists is acceptable.

This is indeed not only an injustice but the application of a double standard. On the one hand, the Commission, with the support of European countries, provided an increased quota for Greenland Inuit where the commercial nature of their whale meat distribution system has been well documented, and scientific information on the resources they utilize is very poor compared to that available for many other whale stocks, such as minke whales in the Antarctic for which these same European countries considered a sanctuary to be necessary.

The Commission also provided an increased quota for the take of bowhead whales by aboriginal people of the United States and the Russian Federation.

On the other hand, notwithstanding the well documented social and cultural needs of the people in four coastal communities in Japan, our request has been consistently denied.

Two years ago at the opening of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Commission in Dublin, Ireland the Minister for Arts and Culture on behalf of the Government of Ireland stated that Ireland recognizes the right of other nations which have depended on whales for generations to follow their cultural traditions. Clearly, this is a case where other members of the Commission should do likewise.

The manifest lack of good faith and good will by so many government representatives to the IWC to address the matter of alleviating the suffering and distress to these communities as was resolved by the Commission in 1993 increases the Government of Japan's concern about the future of the IWC. In this regard, I must emphasize that the Government of Japan remains committed to seeing a restoration of small type coastal whaling in these communities.

Unfortunately, the double standard approach that I referred to also pervades the discussion related to a number of other issues with which the Commission deals including that of humane killing where much of the debate has focused on the supposed intelligence of whales and the cruelty associated with killing them.

The issue of humane killing is outside the competence of the Commission and should not be a subject of debate therein however, humane killing is not about the intelligence of whales or cows or anything else, it is simply a matter of time to death. In this context, the record clearly shows the consistent effort of the Government of Japan to reduce the time to death in whaling operations. It is absurd that representatives of IWC member countries opposed to any killing of whales participate so loudly in discussions on humane killing.

Finally, I would like to summarize the position of the Government of Japan on what has been referred to as the "Irish Proposal". Our response to this proposal will indicate to you, our view of the direction that future discussions within the IWC should take with the aim of normalizing its operations and ensuring the effective conservation and management of whale stocks.

As Japan noted, in its intervention to the IWC, the Government of Japan welcomes any new initiative or compromise proposal to find common ground among IWC members to resolve what we view as critical issues facing the Commission. We appreciate the effort represented by the so-called "Irish proposal".

Some of items that are components of the proposal were already included on the agenda for the meeting and we participated fully in all of the discussions on these matters.

Japan also expressed the view that new initiatives and proposed compromises must respect the fundamental principles enshrined in the International Convention for the Regulation for Whaling, including the principle of sustainable use based on the best available scientific evidence.

In this regard, further development of the proposal presented by Ireland should include a reaffirmation by Contracting Governments that conservation and management measures be based on the best available scientific advice, completion and implementation of the RMS, a review of the appropriateness of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary based on scientific criteria, an acknowledgment that scientific research is contributing to management and conservation of whale resources and a reaffirmation of the competence and authority of CITES to control international trade in whale products.

Madam Chairman, we also believe that further discussion of the proposal by the Government of Ireland should recognize that it is estimated that over 5 hundred million tons of marine resources are consumed annually by cetaceans and that this means that whales are consuming 5 times more fish resources than humans consume.

I am sure that this Fisheries Committee wishes it had some of these 5 hundred million tons to allocate to the fishermen in European countries. I am also sure this Committee will appreciate that we would also like to see further discussions on whaling issues reflect the conclusions and recommendations of the 1995 International Conference on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security organized by the Government of Japan in collaboration with the United Nations FAO.

Madam Chairman, 95 States, including the European Union adopted by consensus the Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action which supports the principle of sustainable use of marine resources and calls for an increase in the respect and understanding of social, economic and cultural differences among States and regions in the use of living aquatic resources, especially cultural diversity in dietary habits.

Madam Chairman, in closing, I would briefly like to make 3 points.

Firstly, I would reiterate that it is not only in the interests of Japan that the operations of the IWC be normalized. It is in the interest of all those concerned with the management of natural resources.

Secondly, at the recent meeting of the IWC in Monaco, Greenpeace, IFAW and WWF issued a joint statement concerning the future of whale management within the IWC. A representative of one of these organizations also made an intervention to this Public Hearing. I am fully aware that their extreme position on matters related to whaling has been the basis of highly successful fundraising campaigns but I must point out that their statement to the IWC represents the extreme of the protectionist view that will only exacerbate the current problems within the IWC with possible serious consequences.

Finally, Madam Chairman, almost 1/3 of the IWC's current voting membership is made up of countries who are members of the European Union. Clearly, you have an important role in this matter. We are pleased that the Parliament has dedicated the time to discuss these matters and hope that the dialogue will continue.

Thank you Madam Chairman.

_