WDC Blog - From the Front Line

2011: if you ask a politician, a government within a Member State of the European Union, today how many dolphins are displayed within the Member States of the European Union, about the reproduction rate of the breeding programmes etc. No one would be able to give you a precise answer, as there is no such register available that lists such data and provide transparent access to such information. Please keep in mind we talk about large mammals. Forget even trying to think of asking about the percentage of abortions, still births, miscarriages, what kind of medical treatment dolphins get etc.. Just forget it. No one knows, just the institutions displaying these large mammals themselves.

In 2006 and 2007 several dolphin calves and an adult female died at the dolphinarium in the Nuremberg Zoo, Germany. WDCS took action and asked the representatives of the Nuremberg Zoo as well as the City of Nuremberg (who have responsiblity for the Zoo) to have access to all data relating to the display of dolphins for an independent review. The request and access was denied. In 2008 WDCS took legal action, as denying access to such information violates the law that grants access to Environmental Information. Since then we have been in court fighting for the public's right to know what is happening with dolphins and whales held in captivity. We won, the city of Nuremberg appealed, we won again. Meaning: in May 2011, the Bavarian Appeal Court confirmed that WDCS has the right to access all information relevant to the display of dolphins. The first verdict of its kind. The first time, a public institution has to open their books. You might think, this should be standard practise. You might think, why did the Zoo fight so hard to prevent the law being applied?

Yes, this is an amazing result, but I want to offer you another thought.

The City of Nuremberg has provided the guarantee for the investment of more than 20 Million EUR to expand the dolphinarium at the Nuremberg Zoo. No instruction to undertake an independent evaluation of the breeding programme had taken place before the politicians came to their decision (acting on tax payers money).

When you consider that the total budget for research, field work and conservation projects by the Convention on Migratory Species, the Agreement for the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the North and Baltic Sea (ASCOBANS) and the Agreement for the Conservation of Whales and Dolphins in the Mediterranean and Black Sea is less than 500.000 € a year …

then you might agree with two things:

1. the verdict is a Milestone for transparency that was bitterly needed

2. If you are a tax payer - there is a huge scandal up in the air and you may be asking further questions of our elected officials.

Its rare that I would publicly identify WDCS colleagues for individual actions but it would be remiss of me not to mention the outstanding work of the German WDCS team for their incredible work in taking on Nuremberg Zoo for the public's right to access information about the dolphins it keeps. Yesterday the Munch Appeals Court ruled in WDCS's favour by granting the public access to all information relating to the display and husbandry of captive dolphins at the Zoo.

You might think on first inspection that this ruling is a small matter, but its a first and will have a dramatic effect on conservation and welfare campaigns for whales and dolphins. It means that the days when cetaceans were just to be thought of as the property of a zoo or aquarium are long gone, and that such institutions have a duty of care to the public to open its doors and files to independent scientific evaluations of its data relating to dolphins in
captivity. We can now ask such questions as 'what is the keeping of dolphins in captivity doing for animals in the wild?' and, 'how successful is their captive breeding programme?'. 

A bright light has been shone into the darkness of this commercial industry which has more to do with the circus than conservation.

So to Dr. Karsten Brensing, Niki Entrup and the whole German team, - chapeau! Your actions have brought the end of dolphinaria in Europe a lot closer.

Whilst not banning outright the consumption of whale meat and products in the Faroe Islands where the health risks to children have been clearly demonstrated, it seems the Danish Government are happy to ban Marmite and Farley's rusks. Or so it seemed a few days ago.

Further to an outcry from marmite lovers, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated, 'Neither Marmite nor Vegemite and similar products have been banned by
the Danish Food And Veterinary Administration. However, fortified foods
with added vitamins, minerals or other substances can not be marketed in
Denmark unless approved by Danish food authorities.'

Now I have to declare an interest as I was brought on both products and have been known to even mix the two. And anyone pretending to be squeamish about Farley's rusks should quietly try one again. They were nutritious and delicious.

Seriously though, as the Danish authorities seek to guarantee the safety of foods in Denmark this contrasts with their abject failure to address the pollution of their own citizens in the Faroe Islands - one must ask whether we are seeing some political hypocrisy in action here?

Denmark has taken some excellent steps in banning pollutants from entering the marine environment, so come on now, go the next step and help stop unnecessary whaling once and for all.

My thanks to discussions on Facebook for highlighting the Danish Ministry statement.

WDCS colleagues are on site in South Uist and are reporting from the rescue site

In the last couple of months the UK Government has put its deregulation programme into high gear with what many regard as an attack on all regulations that may stand in the way of ‘doing business’.

In April 2011 the UK Government’s Cabinet Office launched its Red Tape Challenge. What appears on many levels to be a positive method of public consultation could, however, turn into a nightmare for nature and biodiversity conservation, as well as a method for Government to avoid its own declared aims on climate change.

The Red Tape Challenge website states that ‘the default presumption will be that burdensome regulations will go. If Ministers want to keep them, they have to make a very good case for them to stay.’ That is, unless there is a positive position taken by the public and Ministers, the regulation should be scrapped.

Now, the use of ‘democratising’ consultative techniques such as this can have benefits, but uncontrolled, they could also be a disaster.

One also has to question the premise that all such regulation is a burden and a problem that should be removed. As the Red Tape Challenge itself states ‘Good regulation is a good thing. It protects consumers, employees and the environment, it helps build a more fair society and can even save lives’,  - and so shouldn’t regulation that protects our environment and the wildlife we live amongst be see in the light of,  ‘Should stay - unless not doing what it says on the tin – and therefore should be made stronger’.

Much legislation protecting our environment has come from our commitments to EU law, and striking these down will only lead to problems. WDCS has been dealing with the inadequacies of many European governments’ interpretation of EU law for some time and any weakening of these will only be a retrograde step for cetaceans and the marine environment.

The 'Red Tape Challenge' does not appear to be just a ‘tidying up exercise’ by Government, but a root and branch assault on primary legislation. Members of the UK Coalition Government and HM’s opposition should be looking very carefully at what is underway here.

As concerned members of the public, we should definitely be aware of what is happening and be saying what we think.

You can find the relevant Red Tape Challenge sections here at ‘Environment’ and I would urge you to let the UK Government know that we don't wish to see our wildlife legislation weakened or scrapped, and, indeed, in many ways that they should be tightened up.

It looks like if we don't say something now, silence may well be interpreted as permission to burn our environmental and wildlife protection measures alongside everything else in the bonfire of the ‘red tape’. So please, don't be part of the silent majority