The International Whaling Commission and the Commercial Whaling Moratorium. Background and Issues Briefing

Transcription

1 1 The International Whaling Commission and the Commercial Whaling Moratorium Background and Issues Briefing I. Background: A. Current State of Play The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is the implementing body for the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). From 15 original signatories, the ICRW has grown to 73 members, with Croatia (1/07) and Cyprus (2/07) the most recent. As a result of arrearages in dues, not all of these members have current voting rights. Approximately 22 members have been recruited by Japan to support the pro-whaling agenda. With the accession of these countries, Japan was able to secure a 51% voting majority on a single vote at IWC 58 in St. Kitts. With recent adherences, payments of arrears and Nicaragua s announcement last week that it will not vote for whaling, we estimate the like-minded countries (LMCs) that support the commercial moratorium have a 4 vote majority going into the Anchorage meeting. This figure is likely to change (and narrow) in the next few weeks: the pro-whaling countries typically add two to three new members to their bloc in the weeks or days right before a meeting, and we know Japan has been actively courting new members. B. History The ICRW was adopted at Washington D.C. in December, 1946 as a response to the historic mismanagement and ongoing collapse of global whale stocks. The Parties to the ICRW clearly recognised that whaling was difficult to regulate, noting in the Convention preamble that: [T]he history of whaling has seen over-fishing of one area after another and of one species of whale after another to such a degree that it is essential to protect all species of whales from further over-fishing; The first four decades of the Convention were characterized by continued mismanagement of whales stocks and the near extinction of many whale populations. The IWC s initial management attempts, based on the Blue Whale Unit, failed to protect Antarctic blue whales from heavy depletion and ultimately ended in a total ban on their catching. Forty years after that ban, the Antarctic blue whales show little sign of recovery and only about 1% of their original population remains. A more science-based approach, the New Management Plan also failed. Whaling conducted under the authority of the IWC also depleted populations of fin, sei and humpback whales in the Antarctic (which were at high abundance when the ICRW was agreed) so heavily that a complete ban on their catching had to be imposed. These failures resulted in large part from structural weaknesses in the ICRW itself, which incorporates an objection procedure that allows any Party to exempt itself from any quota decision, along with a separate provision (Article 8), that permits whaling carried out for scientific purposes (which are not defined) to be completely exempt from all other provisions of the Convention. The United States first called for a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1972, under then President Richard Nixon. Although the international community immediately endorsed the moratorium proposal at the landmark Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment of 1972, it took another ten years of effort, led by the U.S., to win the moratorium within the IWC. In 1982, the IWC agreed a moratorium on commercial whaling to take effect in 1986 and most observers expected whaling to fade quietly into history. The governments of Norway and Japan took reservations to

2 2 the moratorium. Japan carried on whaling under reservation for two years before withdrawing the reservation under US pressure and incentives. Soon thereafter, Japan began unilaterally issuing permits to its whaling vessels, under Article 8, to conduct scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean, taking 330 minke whales a year under the name of JARPA. In 1994, the IWC voted 23-1 to establish a whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean, pursuant to Article V of the Convention. That same year, however, Japan began another research project in the western North Pacific (JARPN), near Japan, catching minke whales with the same catchers and factory ship used in the Antarctic. In 2000, Japan launched a new hunt (JARPN II), expanding the hunt to include brydes, sei and sperm whales, and increasing its total take to 380 whales a year. The Antarctic program has also expanded and in 2007/08 is expected to catch 1035 whales (935 minkes, 50 fin and 50 humpback). Japan s projected catch for the 2007/08 Antarctic and 2008 North Pacific season is 1415 whales of 7 species (northern hemisphere minkes and southern hemisphere minkes are separate species). Norway has never withdrawn its reservation; and resumed commercial whaling in In 2007, its selfissued quota rose to 1052 whales. Iceland, which had previously withdrawn from the IWC, rejoined the Convention with a reservation to the moratorium in Iceland resumed commercial whaling for minkes and, in 2006, extended its hunt to include endangered fin whales. In all, roughly 25,000 whales have been commercially harvested since the moratorium on commercial whaling took effect. II. Issues: A. Whaling Operations, Impacts and Economics Japan s whaling is done by the Institute of Cetacean Research, an NGO which was created by the whaling industry and receives an annual subsidy of about 8-9 million US dollars from the Japanese government (as of 2003/04, the most recent balance sheet for the ICR we have on hand). The ICR sells all whale meat taken in the research hunts (as it is entitled to do under the Convention) and in 2003/04 had a total income of about 70 million US dollars a year, including subsidies. 2. A review of the JARPA program conducted last December under the auspices of the IWC s Scientific Committee, found that after 18 years JARPA has failed to reach any of its four research goals. The IWC has frequently asked for this program to be called off, pointing out that the information it is supposed to provide is not needed. In any case, the improved management it seeks to deliver is simply increased quotas without an increased risk of depletion higher commercial quotas. 3. The supply of minke whales in Japan today is about the same as when commercial whaling for this species ended. Catches then were about 330 a year. Catches now are 220 a year, plus another 100 are caught in nets and marketed. These catches are said to be incidental but every other country records only a few whales a year caught in this way, except Korea in which marketing of the whales is also permitted. In addition, Japan has regularly claimed that the whaling moratorium has caused distress to 4 small coastal communities which depended on whaling, and has called for an emergency relief quota of 50 whales to be assigned to these towns. Japan has now assigned 120 whales from the scientific program to be caught by small type catchers based in these towns. Although any distress they experience has now been relieved, Japan continues to push for a commercial quota. 4. Market demand for whale meat continues to fall both within and outside Japan. Prior to the start of the 2006/2007 whaling season, Japan had a standing stockpile of more than 4000 tons of whale meat. Similarly, roughly 100 tons of meat from Iceland s recent fin whale hunt ended up in cold storage. Another 179 tons, representing roughly half the total weight of the seven fin whales killed, was discarded in a municipal dump.

3 3 B. Whale Populations and Sanctuaries 1. Japan s scientific whaling takes 7 species, two of which, fin whales and sei whales, are listed as endangered by the IUCN. Japan claims that the have new data which shows these listings are wrong but their population estimates have not been agreed and IUCN has not changed the listings. Three species fin, sei and sperm whales are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and Japan plans to hunt endangered humpbacks beginning next winter. Japan s new Antarctic research program, JARPA II, will take fin whales and humpback whales in 2007/08. But Japan has agreed that Southern Ocean whale sanctuary applies to all species except minkes (Japan s reservation to the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary applies only to minkes). So Japan is catching fin and humpback whales to gather data to be used to regulate a commercial hunt which it is not permitted to undertake. 2. Claims by the whaling industry that whales have recovered so strongly that they now need to be culled to maintain a balance in the oceans are absurd and unscientific, as are the closely related claims that whales eat too many fish and are impacting human fisheries. The moratorium has been in effect for only twenty years, much too short a time to permit substantial recovery among the most heavily affected whale species, which grown and reproduce slowly. The North Pacific right whale, for example, which was hunted to near extinction at the dawn of the commercial whaling boom, remains on the edge of extinction even though whaling for the species has been banned since A hundred years ago, when most populations of whales were near full abundance, fish populations were in far better condition than they are now. It is possible that healthy populations of whales actually benefit fisheries. The cause of declining fish populations is overfishing, not whales. 3. Japan objects to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, arguing that it is in conflict with Article V(2) of the Convention because the sanctuary applies irrespective of the conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary. However, Article V(1) clearly empowers the Commission to designate sanctuary areas, and does not require that a population be depleted before it can be protected. A scientific finding that as population is healthy provides an equally valid basis for creating a sanctuary as a finding of depletion. Indeed the IWC s first sanctuary (which it inherited from a predecessor organization and maintained until 1955) was set up protect a reserve population of whales at full abundance. C. IWC Membership and Voting 1. Since a Japanese official announced in 1999 that Japan would work to increase its friends at the IWC, a well-resourced recruitment drive has brought countries flooding into the IWC. Since 2000, Guinea, Morocco, Benin, Gabon, Palau, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Cote d'ivore, Mauritania, Suriname, Tuvalu, Mali, Kiribati, Gambia, Nauru, Cameroon, Togo, Cambodia and Marshall Islands have all joined and have all voted solidly with Japan and in opposition to the US position. 2. Japan denies 'vote buying' but it is widely believed that Japan pays all costs of IWC membership and travel and accommodation to attend the meeting for these countries. There is substantial evidence to support this belief. When questioned about the source of the country s membership dues, for example, a minister from Dominica responded: Put it like this, we make no allocation for it in our national budget The Observer, 13 May 2001, Save the Whales? Not if Japan s bribes pay off, by Anthony Browne. (Quoted in Third Millenium Foundation (2006), Japan s Vote Consolidation Operation at the International Whaling Commission Available at. 2_Publications/Whales/IWC/VB_REPORT_2006_FINAL_VERSION.pdf)

4 4 Similarly, a former Permanent Secretary for Fisheries and IWC Commissioner for the Solomon Islands was asked by an interviewer: Did the Japanese pay the IWC membership fees every year? He replied: yes, the Japanese pay the government s subscriptions. They support the delegations to the meetings, in terms of meeting airfares and per diem Fisheries grant aid is also used in many cases as part of the recruitment process. Of 33 countries that voted for the St. Kitts & Nevis Declaration at IWC 58, 22 nations have received overseas development assistance from Japan. (See attached analysis from Greenpeace Japan.) These linkages are more than coincidence. In a July 2001 radio interview, longtime Japanese Commission Masayuki Komatsu stated that: Japanese means is simply diplomatic communication and ODAs. So, in order to get appreciation of Japan s position, of course you know that it is natural that we must do, resort to those two major tools. So, I think there is nothing wrong. 3 The matter was put more explicitly in two earlier statements by Japanese officials. In October 1987, the report of a symposium for Pacific Island states, held in Tokyo, recorded the following statement by the representative of the Fisheries Agency of Japan: When the Japanese Government selects the countries to which it provides fisheries grants, criteria include that the recipient country must have a fisheries agreement with Japan and it must take a supportive position to Japan in various international organisations. 4 In an earlier, still more explicit letter, written following Seychelles entrance into the IWC and vote in support of the whaling moratorium, the Japanese Ambassador to Kenya advised Seychelles: I have the honour to refer to your letter dated October 23, 1980, in which you inquired as to whether the Japanese Government is prepared to finance a fisheries research/training vessel project in Seychelles.However, the fact of the matter is that my Government is having difficulties in coordinating divergent views concerning the extension of such a grant to your country. In particular, the fishery industries in Japan strongly oppose the grant in view of your country s stand at IWC. Therefore, in view of this, all I can say at this time is that if in future your Government should change its attitude at IWC towards Japan, there would be a possibility of my Government extending the grant to Seychelles. 5 These are but isolated examples of a policy and practice that has continued in effect for many years and, by all accounts, remains an important and ongoing component of Japan s lobbying strategy within the IWC. Additional, consistent evidence of this strategy may be found in the attached analysis by Greenpeace Japan, and in the report by the Third Millenium Project referenced in the endnotes. 2 (Quoted in Third Millenium Foundation, supra.) 3 Interview broadcast on 18 July (Quoted in Third Millenium Foundation, supra.) 4 Conference Report, Symposium on South Pacific Fisheries Development, Tokyo, 28 September 3 October 1987, Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foundation, cited in Japan s Aid Diplomacy and the Pacific Islands, Sandra Tarte, jointly published by National Centre for Development Studies (Australian National University) and the Institute of Pacific Studies (University of the South Pacific), Correspondence reprinted in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), 4 June 1982, BLACKMAIL! Japan s Last Desperate Tactic by Peter Humphrey. (Quoted in Third Millenium Foundation, supra.)

5 5 D. Japanese Polling Data A nationwide opinion poll by the Nippon Research Center commissioned by Greenpeace Japan in June 2006 collected the views of the Japanese public on whaling. It found that while 34.5% of the respondents support a resumption of commercial whaling by Japan, 69% are either against it or have no opinion on the issue this means that almost 2/3 of respondents did not support the resumption of commercial whaling. When asked which image came to mind when they heard the word whale, the image chosen most often (by 77% of the respondents) was whale watching. Over 90% of respondents did not know that the Japanese government subsidizes its annual research whaling program at a rate of 500 million yen per annum (USD 4 million). Out of the group of respondents, those most inclined towards the resumption of commercial whaling were males between the ages of 40 and 59. For both male and female respondents aged between 15 and 39, whaling and whale meat were not familiar. Most in this age group had never eaten whale meat before, did not know that whale meat obtained from scientific whaling was marketed and sold in Japan, and did not consider whaling as an aspect of Japanese culture. There was a clear lack of knowledge about Japan s whaling practices and the IWC. Close to 80% of those surveyed did not know that the Southern Ocean was a whale sanctuary and over 90% did not know that Japan hunts for more than 850 whales in the Southern Ocean. Finally, 97% had no familiarity with the findings of Japan s whaling research from their scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean.

6 6 Feb.12 th 2007, Greenpeace Briefing Paper Attachment 1 How To Influence Countries for Whaling Japan s Fisheries Aid and St.Kitts Declaration From Feb 13 th to 15 th in Tokyo, Japanese government is hosting a so-called Normalization Meeting. It is very necessary to point out that how Japanese government has been possibly used its Grant Aid for Fisheries (Fisheries Aid) to recruit the countries to IWC and maintain their votes for Japan at this stage, so it gives the clear indication of whether if the Normalization meeting by Japan is appropriate way to normalize the IWC or not. We can not conclude with 100% confidence that Japanese government has used the money to get votes in the IWC, however there is a strong link between the votes for Japan and the money some of the members in IWC received. The chart below is the list of the 33 countries voted for the St Kitts Declaration in the IWC We added the column of whaling countries, the total amount of the Fisheries Aid provided by Japanese government from the FY1994 till today, and the opinion poll data towards the resumption of the commercial whaling where the data is available. We also made extra columns for the observers of the Normalization meeting to be able to easily check which countries participate in this meeting. Please use this chart to see whether you the money is influencing the votes or not. No. Region List of the countries voted for St.Kitts Declaration Whaling Nations Fisheries Aid <FY Today>(*1 ) Agree to commercial whaling Participate d In this Meeting? Memo 1 Japan 34.5(*2) 2 Cambodia 3 Korea 4 Asia Mongolia 5 Benin 1,431 Afri ca 6 Cameroon 400

7 7 7 Côte d'ivoire 1,230 8 Gabon 1,503 9 Gambia 1, Guinea 3, Mali 12 Mauritania 4, Morocco 6, Senegal 3, Togo 16 Denmark 17 Iceland Europe 18 Norway 19 Russia 20 Tuvalu 1,444 28(*3) Paci fic 21 Kiribati 3, Marshall Islands Nauru 24 Palau 1,929 13

8 8 25 Solomon Islands 1, Antigua and Barbuda 3, Dominica 4, Grenada 2, Nicaragua 1, St Kitts and Nevis 1, St Lucia 4, Central and South America St Vincent and the 2,817 Grenadines 33 Suriname 1,111 Whaling nations Aboriginal whaling nations Whale meat from by-catches distributed to the market Fisheries Aid and the votes for the resumption of commercial whaling 53 countries with the total amount of 98.4 billion yen (about US$ 820 million) received the Fisheries Aid during the period of the FY 1994 till today. To receive this aid, the receiver is required to have strong friendship relationship with Japan on fisheries issues. (*4) 22 countries out of the 53 countries that received Fisheries Aid from the FY1994 have received total amount of 56.4 billion yen (about US$ 470 million ) and voted for the St Kitts Declaration. Only 33 countries have voted for the St Kitts Declaration in total, so this means that two thirds of the countries who voted for the St Kitts Declaration had received the Fisheries aid from Japanese government. On January 24 th 2007, Japanese government decided to provide 1,285 million yen of Fisheries Aid to the Republic of Kiribati on the project for Improvement of Fisheries-related Roads in South Tarawa. One week later, the Prime Minister of Kiribati showed his will to support Japan on the whaling stance to Japanese Prime Minister Abe during his visit in Japan(*5). Also, the survey conducted by WWF shows that the majority of the people in the Pacific and Caribbean countries don t support the resumption of commercial whaling. This shows how some of the representatives to this Normalization meeting do not reflect the opinion of the people in their countries but money. There are too many countries who have a vested interest in this meeting, and it is hard to believe that these countries can have a meaningful discussion towards real Normalization of the IWC.

9 9 These countries have never received the Fisheries Aid. However, these are the countries that have received other Grant Aid from Japanese government in the FY2006. For example, Cambodia has joined IWC in June 2006, and voted for St Kitts declaration. Then, Cambodia has received 927 million yen from Japan 2 months later. Sources: (*1) Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan, ODA section Third Millennium Foundation Inc. JAPAN S VOTE CONSOLIDATION OPERATION AT THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSIONJune, RSION.pdf (*2) Nippon Research Center Ltd. Opinion Poll on Scientific Whaling June, (*3) WWF survey on attitudes towards commercial whaling in the Caribbean and the Pacific, (*4) Ministry of Foreign Affairs in JapanGrant Aid for Fisheries, Overview and History tm (*5)Prime Minster of Japan and his cabinet HP

10 10 Attachment 2 EDITORIALS NATURE Vol March 2007 Not saving the whale Japan s professed interest in whale research rings rather hollow. As the world s biggest consumer of whale meat, Japan has a special interest in whale conservation. While fighting tenaciously to protect its whaling industry, it publicly supports the need for conservation. In a statement released last June, for example, it called on the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to protect endangered and depleted species, while allowing the sustainable utilization of abundant species under a controlled, transparent and science-based management regime. Japan has placed considerable emphasis on research into whaling. It spends about  830 million (US$7 million) each year to establish whether there are enough whales to support whaling (and in the case of the minke, at least, it finds that there are). And it works hard to get support in the IWC, sometimes from member nations that have no obvious interest in whaling. Two weeks ago, many of these countries sent representatives to a meeting in Tokyo boycotted by the Western nations most strongly opposed to whaling at which Japan reaffirmed its commitment to the goal of sustainable whaling. When it comes to events on the high seas, however, Japan s actions leave much to be desired. Lately, for example, there have been repeated cases of western grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus) being caught in Japanese fishing nets. Only about 120 of these whales, which migrate along the Pacific coasts of Asia, are thought to survive, although a much larger, sustainable population of eastern grey whales lives off the west coast of North America. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) estimates that the population of reproductive female western grey whales totals only about 30 animals. But four females have been trapped in Japanese fishing nets and accidentally killed in the past two years. Japan has expressed concern over this issue. Its fisheries agency says it has been asking fishermen to report sightings of the whales, and to release them when trapped, instead of keeping them and selling their meat, as permitted under the law. The agency claims that its effort has worked so far, with no meat from grey whales being sold on the market. However, the agency s efforts have not actually prevented the deaths, even though much could be done to that end, including supporting better research into the whales migration and breeding habits, and the development and use of fishing nets that can release trapped animals. One might expect the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), which heads Japan s research whaling programme, to take charge of this effort. But it says that responsibility rests with other research institutes and with the fisheries agency. The overall result has been inaction. The ICR is often characterized by its critics as little more than a cover for Japan s whaling industry. If it is to claim a real role in whale conservation, it could start by responding more energetically to the clear and present danger to the grey whale.