WDCS Blog - From the Front Line

Several years ago, on a bright cold morning in Kaikoura I took a very memorable whale watching trip with some IWC colleagues. Much optimism filled the air as the snow capped mountains pierced the blue sky and we anticipated the delights of the New Zealand coastline. We were very lucky. It was a special day in every way. We started the journey out to the deep sea-canyon water where the sperm whales are found, escorted by a typically exuberant group of dusky dolphins. We then saw several sperms whales. We watched them quietly whilst they gathered their breath and rested at the surface between dives. Along the way we also saw New Zealand fur seals, albatross and, as we neared the shore on our return, Hector’s dolphins. When the Hector’s dolphins came into view, the captain let the engine idle, allowing the passengers to take in the vista of mountains and sea, birds and marine mammals. Then, as if to make the point, although none needed making, over the PA system he put on the song ‘What a Wonderful World’ by Louis Armstrong . This was a bright and optimistic time. A sense of positive change for whales was palpable.

New Zealander’s (Kiwi’s) are know for their practical approach – the ‘number eight-wire’ mentality – but also for taking a bold principled stance on issues such as disarmament, nuclear power, human rights issues and of course, traditionally, on whaling.

How then, in a matter of a few short years from this memorable day in Kaikoura, where anything seemed possible, do we find ourselves in a situation where the New Zealand government is now countenancing a compromise on whaling. Where has all the passion gone? Is it simple exhaustion? Has the war of attrition with the whaling fraternity finally worn down some of the whales’ staunchest allies?

Some suggest that there is something more sinister at play; that international relations with the USA and Japan are overshadowing the views of the person on the street in New Zealand, that these views are being lost in the mire of trying to help secure a longer-term aboriginal whaling quota for the USA.

But I still hold out some hope that isn’t the case. The Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said that he is going to ask New Zealanders what they think before NZ officials would be permitted to vote on any deal on whaling – although quite how he is going to do this is yet to be revealed. Does he plan to hold a referendum? It seems unlikely, and rather unnecessary, since polls on the issue demonstrate, irrefutably, that the majority of Kiwi’s are fundamentally opposed to commercial whaling.

The theory of the New Zealand deal makers appears to have its foundations in good intentions. The objective, the proponents argue, is an overall reduction in the number of whales killed. The argument seems to be that we are at a crunch point within the IWC and that a way to make a deal with the whalers, but Japan specifically, must be found, otherwise the whalers will leave the Commission and form regional management bodies that will ‘manage’ whales under regulations that the conservation-minded nations would be unable to influence.

But these threats are not new. In fact, such threats have been echoing around the halls of the IWC meetings for over a decade and there remains a great debate about the political and legal ramifications of such a move by Japan and its allies.

Do the deal makers really believe that the deal that is on the table is ‘do-able’? That the whaling nations can be trusted to act in ‘good faith’? What precedent for good governance of global resources would be set by rewarding endless infringements of the IWC rules by granting coastal quotas?

In talking about a potential compromise on whale killing – even with the objective of reducing the number of whales killed overall (something which is far from guaranteed by the current deal, and most certainly not in the long-term) – the NZ Government has created an expectation that under the right circumstances NZ would vote for a compromise. What this diplomatic shimmy fails to recognise is a point of principle. This principle is fundamental to the people of New Zealand – they do not approve of commercial whaling.

So where to now New Zealand? There is time for recovery from this incongruous position, but the government will need to act quickly and decisively to reassure its public that this administration still believes that protecting whales remains an important part of what it means to be a Kiwi.

Meanwhile, whales go about their business in all corners of the oceans.

And I think to myself…. What a Wonderful World.

In a follow up to my recent post on the issue of climate degradation I noted two features in this week's New Scientist Magazine that i thought might interest you.

Firstly, further evidence is coming to light that methane is being released from under the Arctic Ocean. Alaskan based scientists have discovered over 100 hot-spots where methane is leaking from seabed permafrost to form areas of seawater at eight times the level of expected dilution in surrounding Arctic waters. Estimates suggest that 7 million tonnnes are being released a year at the moment, but as the Arctic warms up this could accelerate, contributing to rapid climate degradation.

At the same time three US states, Texas, Louisiana and South Dakota, have told their schools that they have to teach climate change scepticism. In the land of the 'First Amendment' it appears that states can decide what science is relevant, and what is not, and dance closely with the Constitution to insist that a political view is promoted in schools. So, whilst UK schools can debate the issue, with all points of view able to be discussed by enquiring students based on the evidence they can find; in South Dakota the state legislature has decided that the science is 'unresolved' and is 'complicated and prejudiced'. The legislature bill also says that climate change debate is 'political'.

These phrases from our state governments are political in their own right and I charge that they challenge the fundamental concept of Freedom of Speech. How can our legislators, local, state, federal or inter-governmental, insist that the science is 'prejudiced' unless they have already decided it is 'prejudiced' against what they wish students and young people to believe.

I for one thought the USA was founded on the right to oppose tyranny; but the modern tyranny of thought control over our children is maybe of more concern than any British musket ever could be.

Stop telling us what to believe, and let us decide ourselves.

Our friends at Cetacean Society International and ourselves are trying to make sure that President Obama realises what the US is doing in his, and the American peoples', name at the IWC.

We are especially concerned that the US is encouraging the resumption of commercial whaling though the '' Deal". If you have not seen it, please take a look at the following video and let President Obama that we expect more of the US.

On occasions when we have talked about climate change the more skeptical of our ‘friends’ have suggested that cetaceans ought to be pretty robust to all this warming and cooling. Some have even suggested that cetaceans ‘did all right in the last ice age, so should be fine now’.

To that I say ‘poppycock’.

WDCS has note the growing impact of acidification an its potential impact on cetaceans, but a recent report has again highlighted the problem of the silent death that is creeping through our oceans.

Les Blumenthal, writing in the McClatchy Newspapers writes; ‘Far away from our casual sight, something is going wrong in our oceans.’ Off the Pacific Northwest coast of the Unites States,  areas of lower level of oxygen are alarming scientists and conservationists.

 The report notes that in some spots off Washington state and Oregon, the almost complete absence of oxygen has left piles of Dungeness crab carcasses littering the ocean floor, killed off 25-year-old sea stars, crippled colonies of sea anemones and produced mats of potentially noxious bacteria that thrive in such conditions.

Areas of hypoxia, or low oxygen, have long existed in the deep ocean but in some spots, such as off the Southern California coast, oxygen levels have dropped roughly 20 percent over the past 25 years. Elsewhere, scientists say, oxygen levels might have declined by one-third over 50 years.



Scientists say the changes are consistent with current climate-change models.

'Previous studies have found that the oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

 As ocean temperatures rise, the warmer water on the surface acts as a cap, which interferes with the natural circulation that normally allows deeper waters that are already oxygen-depleted to reach the surface. It's on the surface where ocean waters are recharged with oxygen from the air.
 
Water that's pulled up from the depths is poor in oxygen, it's rich in nutrients, which fertilize phytoplankton. These microscopic organisms form the bottom of one of the richest ocean food chains in the world. As they die, however, they sink and start to decay. The decaying process uses oxygen, which depletes the oxygen levels even more.
'

Blumenthal reports further,  "It's a large disturbance in the ecosystem that could have huge biological changes," said Steve Bograd , an oceanographer at NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in Southern California.

Bottom-dwelling species could be at the greatest risk because they move slowly and might not be able to escape the lower oxygen levels. Most fish can swim out of danger. Some species, however, such as chinook salmon, may have to start swimming at shallower depths than they're used to. Whether the low oxygen zones will change salmon migration routes is unclear. 



So why are we humans so reluctant to accept something is going on? Well I suggest its not because the evidence is saying that there is not a problem. The blip of debate over the IPCC reports is just that, a blip. In a year’s time we shall see more evidence and this will be forgotten.

But the traditional environmentalists in our younger generations are also being swayed by the naysayers. Its concerning to see a report that suggests ‘Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 are, for the most part, split on the issue of global warming and, on some indicators, relatively disengaged when compared to older generations.’

Is it that we do believe that man-made climate degradation is real, it’s just that by remaining skeptical to pollsters and the media, we put off having to take responsibility?

(Please note that I find using the phrase ‘climate change’ or climate warming’ can encourage a kind of positive view in some people’s minds; a view of a world of ‘gentle breezes blowing in over a Caribbean beach’ – not quite what it could really be – like a another frozen UK. Lets use a negative phrase to get people to understand what this could really mean)

Just as some people had ‘forgotten’ about whaling, and their governments have conveniently forgotten what a resumption of commercial whaling will do for whales and our oceans, - its just easier to ‘hope it will go away’ without having to do anything now.

The evidence in our oceans may be out of sight and therefore out of mind, but when these effects start to affect the cost of your fish, or mean that prey disappears for whales and dolphins and they themselves then disappear off your coastline, it may well be to late.

I for one don’t know what the absolute effects of man-made climate degradation will be. What I do know is that the possibilities are alarming, and I don’t want to gamble on those worse options happening for my children, but there again, maybe if I close my eyes and put my hands over my ears, and spin round three times, I could just ignore it…

If you have not read it yet, take a look at Richard Black's discussion entitled 'EU - bloc vote or blocked vote?'

Richard examines the EU voting system in relation to CITES and other agreements. As we experienced this first hand at the IWC meeting any clarity someone can bring to this subject is very welcome. Though having read Richard's piece, I am not sure the EU is clear about what it should be doing, either morally or legally.