Author - CEO

Have you noticed how many whales, especially bottlenose whales, have been swimming up rivers lately? A couple a year is to be expected, but the number that we are now encountering seems to be a little too many? There has been the Clyde whale and Gilbert to name but two. A colleague has just told me we maybe have another one today in the UK.

So what is happening to cause this phenomenon? We are going to try and find out. We don't have the answers at the moment, but our suspicions are aroused and we shall let you know as soon as we think we have the answer.

I was not quite sure I heard it right this morning but BBC Radio 4 or 5 (giving away my listening habits now) reported that Ed Miliband had put forward an argument, 'that opposing wind farms should be as socially unacceptable as not wearing a seat belt in a car'. 

I for one support the wearing of seat belts in cars. I also support renewable energy. However, I don't think we should be erecting wind farms in every bit of ocean and habitat as fast as we can without thinking about it first.

Some of these habitats are highly sensitive for wildlife, including birds and cetaceans. Yes, lets have a well thought out renewables policy, but lets not try and correct one environmental threat (climate change), by sacrificing other parts of our natural heritage.

Its also about being consistent. We cannot afford to 'bend' our domestic and international commitments to the protection of species such as cetaceans for any reason. Why? Because its a slippery slope that we start on when we 'bend' one rule for a 'good cause' - and then who decides what is a 'good cause' the next time someone wants to build a new marina, or develop a new oil field in a cash starved region of the world. We create some of our laws to to protect ourselves from ourselves when temptation comes knocking for politically expedient answers. Please Mr Miliband, think before you you assume we are all having 'socially unacceptable thoughts'.

For those of you who don't know who Jimmy Savile is, shame on you for being so young!

So whilst Iceland Government is trying to deal with the chaos of its economic meltdown, it seems the whalers can exploit the situation to create excuses to kill more whales. 

The fin whaling season has now come to a close in Iceland with 125 fin whales being killed.

The owner of the industrial fin whaling fleet, Loftsson is quoted as saying he expects to export some 1500 tons of whale meat to Japan.

Whilst the Icelandic Government is pondering an application to the EU, the question has to be asked whether Kristjan Loftsson who has a number of interests in Icelandic fishing interests is using the issue of whaling to rally a NO vote against any possible accession. Not only will the EU oppose Iceland's whaling, but preferential access Iceland has to EU markets will now come with responsibilities to wildlife and the environment that maybe some in Iceland do not wish to see.

Because, whilst membership of the EU will benefit the majority of Icelanders it may not benefit the few who are exploiting the current situation of Iceland's plight to pursue their own economic greed.

Is the world community going to do anything? Lets see.

The last day of this important meeting for Europe’s cetaceans starts with the Chairman asking the meeting to keep interventions to the minimum. Along with many other delegates, he is hoping to finish at lunchtime and get an early flight home. The two working groups that met yesterday give reports on their work and then, one by one, the resolutions that endorse new actions, workplans and conservation plans reviewed in these working groups are subject to their final review. With very few comments each is passed. WDCS asks for a couple of minor changes – for example to make it clear that the steering group aiming to make a new engagement with fishermen is led by the Chairman of the Advisory committee (thereby allowing it to get on with its work) – and our suggestions are agreed.

This may not be the most exciting aspect of conservation work (no sea-spray in the face here) but it is potentially important. Firstly we have to agree actions that are likely to improve the situation for cetaceans, then we have to have the relevant countries (or ‘Parties’ as they are called here) agree to them, then – of course – the actions really need to happen. This last thing needs to happen far beyond the meeting room of the United Nations in Bonn, but here we can at least conclude the first two steps.

Denmark remains concerned about wording that relates to introducing consideration of all cetaceans (rather than just small cetaceans) into the Agreement. The Chair nimbly eases some compromise language into place. Norway, which has not signed the agreement but present here as an observer, is probably interested in this matter; its delegate has publicly indicated that Norway is interested in joining the agreement (this has come as something of a surprise as this country has not shown interest in ASCOBANS for many years). The only major area of work that has not been successfully concluded is the education and outreach plan but this will be looked at by the Advisory committee in some six months time and (hopefully) finalised then.

Denmark is also concerned about some procedural matters. She proposes that the Advisory Committee meeting before the next ASCOBANS meeting in three year’s time should agree any resolutions before they come to the MOP. However, there is some concern that this would in effect make the Advisory Committee the key decision making body and how would the MOP deal with matters that arise at the meeting itself? It is agreed that this matter will be further looked at but not revision is made to the MOP’s rules of procedure at this time. The biggest debate turns out to concern the press release that will be put out by the Secretariat at the end of the meeting. Some parties find the original draft too dramatic and a new version is swiftly agreed.

Then, suddenly, it is all over. The Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary are thanked. The representative of the United Nations Environment Programme also graciously thanks the non-governmental observers and after much hand-shaking (and even some hugging) the meeting room is again left empty. With conservation plans that have been several years in development now agreed; a mechanism to look at the western Baltic area that falls between them; a new plan for engagement with fishermen empowered and a budget for the next three years in place, ASCOBANS looks again ‘fit for purpose’. However, the WDCS team leaves with the comment of one of the regions’ cetacean experts ringing in its ears – Dr Peter Evans in an insightful speech following his receipt of the ASCOBANS education award – commented that the cetaceans in the region has yet to feel any benefit from the Agreement.

This needs to change.

An interview with part of the WDCS team at the COP talking about the issues and the meeting can be found on the website of Deutsche Welle (in English) here.

Good bye again Bonn. Thank you valiant ASCOBANS Secretariat for your hard work and compliments to the Parties and our fellow non-governmental organizations for moving the process along.

Today the Conference of Parties broke into two parts. One working group looked at budgetary issues; the other looked at documents focused on the implementation of the agreements aims. WDCS broke into two likewise.

Fortunately in the budgetary group many parties agreed with WDCS that the proposed fees to attend the meeting (120 Euros per person) were undesirable.

The same working group agreed a budget.to support the Agreement for the next three years.

Meanwhale, back on the 19th floor with a spectacular view of the Rhine a slightly larger group considered draft resolutions, action and work plans.

One issue that came from this was the fact that the sea area in the west of the Baltic and the adjacent sea (the Kattegat) is not covered by either of the two conservation plans that have been developed under the Agreement (the Jastinia plan that covers the main Baltic Area and the North Sea plan that covers… well it says on the label what it covers). Now this might not matter very much. However, in this area (which sits exactly between the two agreements) there is a major bycatch issue in this area – what we have termed a ‘wave of extinction’ now travelling outwards from the main Baltic affecting harbour porpoises.

Curiously it seems that neither plan wishes to stretch out and include this important area. Hence a little action needed to be agreed and haltingly the MOP referred this matter to its Advisory Committee.

A noise-orientated resolution focused on marine renewable developments was also discussed along with work plans. A plan for education and outreach could not be agreed and will be looked at by the Advisory Committee next year. The UK agreed to field comments on this.

The group worked late and by the end of the day most resolutions and work plans were lined up for adoption. Left lying on the floor where proposals to support the outreach work of the mother convention (The Convention for Migratory Species) and alongside them sit other outreach and education ideas… but maybe they are just resting and will be picked up and revived in the future.

More positively a new way forward for the agreement to work with fishing communities is being fleshed out – a workshop or series of workshops held in conjunction with the European Cetacean Society and the North Sea Forum are under consideration.

Everything agreed today needs to be verified by tomorrow’s final plenary. Will it all survive? We shall see.

ASCOBANS has introduced an award for lifetime achievement for contributions to cetacean conservation. The first award is awarded to Peter Reijnders for his huge contribution to cetacean conservation. WDCS has know and worked with Peter over the years, especially with respect to the increasing threat of chemical pollutants to marine mammals.

In accepting his award Peter noted with concern the fact that some delegations have criticized the ASCOBANS secretariat, noting that it is the role of teh budgeting process to serve ASCOBANS and not ASCOBANS to serve the budgeting process. Peter appeared to call for an appropriate staffing at the secretariat and support from the Parties. He also was able to draw attention to the fact that some documents had been kept ‘secret’ from observers, but welcomed the fact that the meeting had immediately made these documents available to all. [WDCS had, it appeared, jumped the gun with an early intervention on this issue, but heh…we believe in transparency in international conventions ]

The Parties, Peter continued,  ‘own’ ASCOBANS and therefore it is a tool to realize real conservation, and should not be seen as an ‘obstacle’.

There was very real and warm applause for Peter and his comments.

Peter Evans of the European Cetacean Society and SeaWatch in accepting the award for education and outreach noted the role of NGOs and our efforts in assisting Parties and agreements such as ASCOBANS. He did refer to hairy ecowarriers [the meeting turned in unison and looked at Mark Simmonds of WDCS, the only bearded NGO representative in the room] and nodded at Mark. Peter went onto stress the need to address all cetaceans in the agreement area and this sets up for the forthcoming debate on whether large cetaceans should be included. I note Norway is here at this meeting... and we shall see how the Parties react..

Its been a hectic week, I am just returning from Scotland where I have been meeting with the WDCS Scottish team, but we are also preparing for the forthcoming ASCOBANS meeting in Bonn, Germany.

And before anyone says anything, we are travelling by train. We get to work and minimise our carbon footprint at the same time .

Iceland has killed some 93 whales.

What does Iceland think it can do with that tonnage of whale meat. Is the new incarnation of the LDP party, the Democratic Party in Japan going to allow it to be imported into a declining market in Japan? The meat and blubber from the whales may yield a staggering two million kilogrammes of edible products.

Or is Iceland simply stockpiling whale meat because it wants to prove it can kill  that many whales and turn its back on the world community? 

This is at a time when researchers are increasingly concerned at the lack of fin whales being seen in the Bay of Biscay