Japan's whalers try to hide the corporate body

The International Whaling Commission, of which Australia and Japan are both members, placed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986 and in 1994 endorsed creation of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

 

The private Japanese company Nihon Kyodo Hogei Co Ltd which owned and operated Japan's whaling fleet appeared to have been composed of a number of other shareholder companies, including Japanese seafood giants Nippon Suisan, Kyokuyo and Maruha. Gorton's of Gloucester and King and Prince Seafoods are alleged to be Nippon Suisan U.S. subsidiaries.

In 1987 the company was dissolved and a new private company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd  was formed, with the seafood giants' shareholdings transferred over to this corporate entity.

In 2006 these shares were sent on or 'sold' to what appears to be a number dummy public interest companies, who became the new shareholders of record in Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha.

This process seems to have included transfer of the entire Japanese whaling fleet at the time.

Presumably this measure was intended to hide the seafood companies continuing involvement in commercial whale hunting.

The presidents of Nippon Suisan and Marhu are reportedly vice-presidents of the Japan Fisheries Association, an umbrella organisation for the entire fishing industry of Japan and one which actively supports whaling.

 

Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Pty Ltd operates the vessels used by the Institute of Cetacean Research (a government-sponsored body) which conducts the so-called 'scientific' research. Annually killing an estimated 1,000 whales, whose meat finds its way onto the domestic Japanese seafood market.

 

Interestingly the Institute describes itself as a "nonprofit research organisation whose legal status is authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Government of Japan, as a foundational judicial person."

 

Institute of Cetacean Research:

http://www.icrwhale.org/abouticr.htm
 http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/060324news.pdf

Japan Fisheries Association newsletter:

http://www.suisankai.or.jp/topics_e/isaribi/isaribi_30.pdf

 

If you would like to express a polite objection to annual Japanese whaling in the Antarctic generally or the whale sanctuary area in particular, here are some starting points.

 

Embassy of Japan

112 Empire Circuit
Yarralumla ACT 2600

AUSTRALIA

Tel: (02) 6273 3244

Fax: (02) 6273 1848

 

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries of Japan online email form:

https://www.voice.maff.go.jp/maff-interactive/people/ShowWebFormAction.do?FORM_NO=5

 

Japan Whaling Association
Toyomishinko Building 7F
4-5 Toyomi-cho,
Chuoh-ku, Tokyo 104-0055

JAPAN
Email: kujira@whaling.jp

 

Kazuo Yamamura

Chief Executive

Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd.

4-5 Toyomi-cho,

Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055

JAPAN

 

Isao Nakasu

President

Japan Fisheries Association

Sankaido Bldg., 1-9-13, Akasaka,

Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan
TEL : 03-3585-6681 FAX : 03-3582-2337
Email : japan@suisankai.or.jp

 

International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA)
7918 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102

USA
703.752.8880

Email: contact@icfa.net

The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Email: Peter.Garrett.MP@aph.gov.au

Australian court rules against Japan's whalers - Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha P/L failed to show and Japanese Government says 'so what'

How the international media saw the Australia-Japan whaling standoff yesterday.

"SYDNEY, Jan 15 (Reuters) - In a purely symbolic act but one that could inflame bilateral ties, an Australian court ruled on Tuesday that a Japanese whaling company broke environment laws by killing whales in Australia's Antarctic waters.
The Federal Court of Australia ordered Japanese whaler Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd stop killing whales in Australia's Antarctic whale sanctuary, saying that unless it was "restrained" it would continue to kill and injure whales.
But the court has no jurisdiction outside Australia and the Japanese government denied the whalers were doing anything illegal.
"According to the International Whaling Commission, what the Japanese whaling fleet is doing in the South Pacific and Antarctic region is legal," said Tomohiko Taniguchi, a spokesman at Japan's Foreign Ministry.
An official at Japan's Fisheries Ministry declined to comment.
An Australian fisheries ship is searching for the Japanese whaling fleet to gather photographic evidence for an international court case aimed at stopping Japan's annual "scientific" hunt.
Japan plans to hunt almost 1,000 minke and fin whales for research over the Antarctic summer, but has abandoned the cull of 50 humpback whales after international condemnation and a formal diplomatic protest by 31 nations.
Humane Society International (HSI) launched legal action against Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd in 2004, seeking a federal court injunction against harvesting in the Australian Whale Sanctuary."
Reuters yesterday:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUST271709

 

How Australia saw the same situation.

"1. THE COURT DECLARES that the respondent has killed, injured, taken and interfered with Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and injured, taken and interfered with humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229, 229A, 229B and 229C of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), (the "Act"), and has treated and possessed such whales killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229D and 230 of the Act, without permission or authorisation under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Act.

2. THE COURT ORDERS that the respondent be restrained from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with any Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) or humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, or treating or possessing any such whale killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, unless permitted or authorised under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)."

Austlii.edu.au Federal Court of Australia full judgment:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2008/3.html?query=^whaling

New Labor broom sweeps away Australia-India uranium deal

What a relief! Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith announced yesterday that the Rudd Government was calling off the former Howard Government's deal to export uranium to India.

It was always a totally mad idea to send uranium to a country which has resisted signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Is Yamba being developed to the drowning point?

Here are a few selected quotes from an article in The Daily Telegraph today.

* FOR years it has been a sleepy surfing hamlet but it's about to be violently awoken from its slumber.
* Like many NSW coastal towns Yamba's real estate market has been described as a "sleeping giant ready to explode".
* Because of its location, demographer Bernard Salt has pin-pointed Yamba as the next NSW North Coast "boom town". He said the combination of an upgraded Pacific Highway and sea-changers making the move, cash in hand, had made it a prime target for developers to swoop in.
"Yamba is a place to watch out for - it's the next cab off the rank after Byron Bay," Mr Salt said.
* The iconic Blue Dolphin Holiday Park is also being developed. It is getting a $300 million makeover which will see the $32-a-night family camping holiday destination replaced by four to five star luxury tourist and permanent apartments.
The first stage of 55 strata title apartments will begin in May, with final building expected to be completed in six years.
* "It's a great family place that's got everything - a river and beach - and we'd hate to see the death of the family holiday just so people can make a few bucks," Mrs Apps said. "However I suppose, unfortunately, that is progress."
* He said Clarence Valley Council was working on a development control plan to preserve coastal heritage.
The Daily Telegraph article
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23050802-5006009,00.html

Nowhere in this newspaper article was there any mention of the potential negative impact of climate change on Yamba.
The CSIRO has warned the NSW North Coast of potential problems due to freshwater shortages, increased storm activity, ocean storm surges, and seawater innundation.
This blog has also drawn attention to growing concern amongst coastal residents.

The Clarence Valley's oldest and largest newspaper The Daily Examiner published this worst case map projection on 16 Feburary 2007. It shows barely anything in Yamba left above the maximum high water mark.
Before this stage is reached Yamba might well be subject to natural disaster mass evacuation using the one small bridge out of town which leads to safe inland areas and emergency assistance.

Map from http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/

Mungo MacCallum on the real start to the Rudd Government term in office

"And this, as they say, is where the story really starts. The government is officially back to work preparing to launch itself across the uncharted seas of its election promises.
It is not as if the holiday period has been entirely unproductive; apart from the headline items like Bali and Iraq, there has been a fair amount of activity behind the scenes. Legislation is prepared for the early elimination of AWAs, work is well advanced on an apology to the stolen generation, and a review is under way of the grants system to eliminate the corruption of secret ministerial vetoes and approvals and end the pernicious practice of stopping grants to environmental and charitable organizations that criticise government policy.
A government vessel is on the track of the Japanese whalers in the Antarctic Protection Zone. All the new ministers are receiving a crash-course from their departments (and, it is to be hoped, vice-versa) and in spite of the snide comments of the Murdoch tabloids, it is considered unlikely that our workaholic Prime Minister has spent the entire break with his feet up watching television while drinking beer and eating party pies.
However this is the week where it all starts happening – or at least the week when Kevin Rudd and his merry band start making the hard decisions about exactly what “it” is going to entail, at least for the next couple of years.
As has been made painfully clear, some of the promises, especially those made with the intent of neutralising as much as possible of John Howard’s farewell bribe fest, were, to put it mildly, extravagant. The biggest and meanest of them, the elephant preparing to rampage through an already over-heated economy, is of course the tax cuts. Rudd did not quite match Howard’s bid of $34 billion; he had the decency to pare a bit off the edges. But $31 billion is still a lot of loot, no matter how you spin it.
In a situation where the smart money is on yet another official interest rate rise in February and when the banks are already slotting in unofficial rises to preserve their record profit margins, it must at least be asked whether providing a hefty increase in available spending money is quite the conservative economic management Rudd and his treasurer, Wayne Swan, boasted of during the election campaign.
Obviously, Rudd is anxious to keep faith with the voters; he would seriously hate being accused of carrying on the Howard tradition of core and non-core promises. But keeping faith can be looked at in a broader context than just the tax cuts. Rudd’s overall promise was to reduce the burden on working families; for months we heard it every waking hour and one suspects that Labor members were mouthing it in their sleep. This is what he has pledged to deliver, and he simply can’t deliver it through a bonanza of tax cuts which are promptly eaten up by increases in interest rates, never mind the wider damage that a spending spree would do to the economy.
The clever thing to do, from both a political and an economic point of view, would be to hand the money back to taxpayers, but as superannuation, not as an immediate cut; this would avoid putting any pressure on inflation while returning the cash. But this would involve breaking an election promise, and no amount of Howard-style legalistic weaseling could deny it. In this case honesty is simply not the best policy, and the cabinet will have to make the choice. Welcome to the real world of government, Messrs Rudd and Swan.
And while they’re at it, the ministers might like to consider whether other aspects of the me-tooism they indulged in as strategic electioneering should really be considered immutable. "
Mungo MacCallum at Crikey.com.au:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080114-Mungo-This-is-the-week-where-it-all-starts-happening.html

Federal Shadow Treasurer speaks out of turn

Shadow Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull has been rather busy lately running to the media to criticise Treasurer Wayne Swann.

As a former principal of a merchant bank which seems to have always been a law unto itself, perhaps Malcolm should keep mum on any bank's ability to raise its interest rates or otherwise conduct business.

A reminder to the Rudd Government and all state & coastal local governments

Recent wild weather and high seas have highlighted the vulnerability of Australia's coastline. Time is beginning to run out for the formation and implementation of adequate national, state and local government coordinated planning responses.

This opinion piece in The Age last Friday says it all.

 

"COASTAL development, rising sea levels, increasing storm surges and a vocal community are a potent political mix. The climate change debate has rightly focused on the critical need to reduce carbon emissions but inadequate attention is being given to what we need to do in terms of adaptation to climate change on the coast.

Our coastal communities face an impending crisis. Continuing development in areas likely to be inundated is foolhardy at best. For a nation skilled at emergency management when it comes to floods and fire, we are remarkably unprepared for when the inevitable storm surge hits a populated coastal area.

Coastal planning is one of those policy areas that doesn't fit neatly into one portfolio or level of government. It covers environment, urban planning and infrastructure provision, including water, housing and indigenous interests and cuts across portfolio responsibilities. With the significant risks of climate change, this now involves the Federal Government and the insurance industry, as well as state and local governments.

The Sea Change Taskforce, comprising coastal council representatives and the Planning Institute of Australia among others, has lobbied government for years on the looming problem for local councils experiencing rapid urban growth and the accompanying servicing requirements.

The Australian coastline is littered with exhausted communities battling to save the character and environment of their townships. As if this weren't enough, climate change predictions of rising sea levels and storm surge have added a potent ingredient to the mix challenging the capacity of land-use planning systems and local councils to respond. Only now have governments started to map seriously the coastal areas likely to be inundated at the scales and resolutions needed to respond effectively to the science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the CSIRO. But this has been largely the result of individual council or state government initiatives rather than as part of a wider plan."

The Age article by Barbara Norman, past national president of the Planning Institute of Australia:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/our-endangered-coast/2008/01/10/1199554828671.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1