Excellency Phillip Gibson
New Zealand Ambassador to Japan

by Seiji Ohsumi
      Director General
      Institute of Cetacean Research

Dear Sir:

I am writing to you concerning the recent statements of your Prime Minister about Japan’s whale research program in the Antarctic, her support for Greenpeace and the January 25, 2000 Media Statement.

At the outset, I would point out that Japan’s research program in the Antarctic is perfectly legal under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) which unequivocally provides that Contracting Parties may grant permits authorizing the take of whales for purposes of scientific research.  This provision begins with the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Convention...”.   Neither the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling nor its Southern Ocean Sanctuary diminish the rights of Parties under Article VIII . 

Your Prime Minister’s statement that begins “Yet in spite of this moratorium…” incorrectly implies that the moratorium applies to whale research programs. It does not.  Further, such statements, which are also a part of Greenpeace’s anti-whaling rhetoric, mislead the public.

You may also be aware that Article VIII of the ICRW requires that “any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted”.  This means that the Convention requires the utilization of meat and other by-products of the research. 

The fact that whale meat resulting from the research program is sold makes the research program consistent with this provisions of the ICRW.  It does not provide a basis for Prime Minister Clark’s reference to Japan’s research program as “so-called research” or “commercial whaling in disguise”.   Indeed, the Prime Minister’s media statement seems to parrot Greenpeace rather than present a sound rational for New Zealand’s position on whaling issues. 

The issue of scientific research on whales is of vital importance to the IWC since the Convention prescribes that regulations adopted by the Commission shall be based on scientific findings.  Japan’s research program in the Antarctic, which began with feasibility studies in 1987/88 and 1988/89 in response to claims of uncertainty of scientific information, has contributed valuable scientific information related to estimation of trends in abundance and biological parameters to improve the stock management of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale.  Valuable information has also been provided by the research program concerning the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem, the effect of environmental changes on cetaceans and the stock structure of the Southern Hemisphere minke whales. 

Indeed, the IWC’s Scientific Committee has commended both the quality and quantity of data resulting from this program.  The Scientific Committee specifically noted that “the program has provided considerable data which could be directly relevant for management” and that “the results of this program have the potential to improve the management of minke whales”.  Further, and contrary to Prime Minister Clark’s statement, the Scientific Committee also noted that “non-lethal means to obtain some of this information are unlikely to be successful in the Antarctic”. 

Clearly, if we are to base the management of whale resources on scientific findings, as required by the ICRW, the conclusions of the Scientific Committee argue strongly for continuation of this research program. 

Japan’s research program in the Antarctic will include the take of up to 440 minke whales from a stock of over 760,000 animals.  Since IWC’s Scientific Committee calculated that 2,000 minke whales could be taken from the Antarctic each year for the next 100 years without any threat to the stock, it is clear that this small take for research purposes does not pose any risk to the status of minke whales. 

Indeed, the Scientific Committee has agreed that minke whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere as well as stocks of other species including humpback whales in the North Atlantic, grey whales in the North Eastern Pacific and bowhead whales in the Western Arctic are increasing.  Prime Minister Clark’s statements about “serious decline in whale numbers” and that “whale numbers were only around five per cent of what they were a hundred years ago” are simply untrue. 

As the Director General of the institute that is conducting the whale research under the special permit issued by the Government of Japan I must also note that Greenpeace has carried out a dangerous and violent campaign which has, among other things, caused a collision with our research vessel.   It is difficult to understand your government’s support for this organization which has risked the safety of our crews and scientists for purposes of publicity and fundraising.

I understand that there are different political views on the issue of whaling and that it is an emotive issue.  However, the position of New Zealand on this issue, along with that of Greenpeace, is counter to the widely accepted principles of sustainable utilization of resources and scientifically based resource management.   I would welcome the recognition by New Zealand that whales are an integral part of the ecosystem rather than something to be totally protected in isolation of such considerations.  Even if your Government or the general public does not acknowledge or understand that whales in the world’s oceans consume approximately 3 to 6 times the amount of resources as is harvested for human consumption, I am sure that those in New Zealand dependent on the fishing industry understand the serious implications of this. 

I would also welcome recognition by New Zealand that just as there was no scientific basis for the establishment of the IWC’s Southern Ocean Sanctuary, there is no scientific basis for a sanctuary in the South Pacific or for a global whale sanctuary as is being promoted by Greenpeace.  Clearly, since the ICRW prescribes that its regulations shall be based on scientific findings, as a Party to the ICRW, the Government of New Zealand should be opposed to such measures since they contravene the terms of the Convention. 

I would appreciate your forwarding these views to your Prime Minister with a request that New Zealand withdraw its support for Greenpeace and reconsider its position on whaling matters.

Sincerely, 

Seiji Ohsumi
Director General
Institute of Cetacean Research