Author - CEO

Its a regular thing at IWC meetings that somebody representing whaling interests trots out the statement that anyone that opposes whaling is a 'racist'. Its an attempt to polarize the debate away from the issues and into the sphere of vitriol. We spend a lot of time trying to be careful about what we says, unpicking all our statements to make sure these people who would deflect the debate, cannot stretch anything we say in such a way as to support their crusade.

What's so pathetic of these attacks is that many of the world's anti-whaling campaigners are also fervent advocates against injustices against humans as well as standing up against the brutality of whaling.

Its seems that this is not quite the same for the pro-whalers. Makoto Sakurai, founder and leader of Japanese right-wing group Zaitokukai, advocates the use of force against Australia to secure Japanese whaling
rights in the Southern Ocean. His party has grown to over 10,000 members, becoming largest and loudest in a new ultra-nationalist movement that marshals its forces online, and is known as the “Net Far Right”

But it appears that extremist views are not limited to the right wing. Ichiro Ozawa, the former secretary-general of Japan's ruling Democratic Party, dismissed the American people as “simple-minded”. The 68-year-old  politician, who resigned as the second most important official in the ruling party in June after coming under fire for campaign
finance scandals, reportedly said: “I don’t like British people,” before commenting that he liked the way the British prisoners of war marched in the film, 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'.

Many of you will be also following our colleagues activities on the other WDCS blogs, but if you have not yet seen them I would recommend you take a look at the current postings of Sue Rocca's as WDCS sails with Greenpeace in the Gulf of Mexico and WDCS work in Scotland

You can also follow some of the exciting developments in the South Pacific with Dr Cara Miller.

And of course Charlie and Niki bring you the world of the Moray Firth and the German view of the issues facing whales and dolphins

Dont forget, if you have any comments or views on how to improve the way WDCS presents the work we do, don't hesitate to let us know.

I was asked the other day whether WDCS would oppose an individual potential threat to the cetaceans in the Moray Firth if some colleagues we respect thought that any one individual activity would not pose an immediate risk. Traveling into work recently I found a way to articulate my thoughts.

Most days of the week I travel on a train. In fact, I travel on several trains to reach the WDCS office in Chippenham in the UK but that’s another story.

When I get on the train at a small rural station deep in the heart of Somerset, there are not many people on the train and it’s easy to find a seat amongst the many available.

Within twenty minutes the carriage is filling up with people and indeed often people are forced to stand because the seats are all taken.

During these twenty minutes what has also happened is that what was a relatively quiet space has now become a cacophony of discordant sound.

It begins with a single person putting on their MP3 player. Within minutes they have been joined by another and then another. I actually don’t have a problem with one or two people doing this, especially when they consciously ensure that the volume is not causing discomfort to those around them. But, that’s not the norm as many of you will know and have experienced yourselves.

It only takes one person to reject their responsibility to those around them and the undistinguishable beat of some popular song resonates down the carriage. Everyone is too polite to complain, and instead of someone requesting that the person adjust the volume, someone almost immediately dials their MP3 player’s volume up a few more numbers. Others elevate what were quiet conversations to presentations that would be appropriate for the Albert Hall or the Sydney Opera House.

Very soon the carriage is filled with waves and waves of jumbled clattering noise. For those of us unable to retreat behind the barriers of our own headphones, the environment has become uncomfortable bearing on excruciating. As we did not speak up at the beginning the only choice is now to move away from the source of our discomfort and move to another carriage. Unfortunately there is often only one on my route into work, so…

So when someone asked if WDCS would be complaining about possible seismic surveys that are to be carried out in the Moray Firth, Scotland, home to one of the last remaining UK populations of bottlenose dolphins and a multitude of other species I had to think about what we should do, especially as it’s been claimed that that the individual surveys are unlikely to cause any immediate impact on the bottlenose dolphins, and if it does it may be transitory.

I cannot help thinking that the Firth, as one of our great remaining UK wild places is already criss-crossed by human activity creating a background noise that is just about tolerable to acoustic creatures. The switching on another source of noise and the implied potential for much more in the near future reminds me too much of my train carriage. Of course the dolphins may be able to move ‘carriages’ so to speak, but maybe they can’t. And even if they can, thousands of peoples livelihoods now depend on the presence of these creatures – indeed, those involved in the tourist industry now often market themselves around the dolphins.

One single noisy person or thing may not be such a problem, but the cumulative effect can be devastating. That’s why WDCS will question all and any such industrial developments that contribute to this threat, and why we shall not be the passive passenger that allows this habitat to be eroded before we cannot do anything about it.

Apologies for the delay in writing again, but a topical issue made me think about the relationship of science with truth.

The BBC has been reporting that a certain oil company has been offering contracts to academics to help with the clean up in the Gulf of Mexico. The BBC reports the ‘head of the American Association of University Professors has accused BP of trying to "buy" the best scientists and academics to help it contest litigation after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.’

Whatever is going on, the issue of the unbiased nature of science is not one that will go away or avoid controversy.

I remember a debate in the IWC when WDCS and others pointed out that allowing the scientists on whaling surveys to carry out their work unsupervised could lead to many more whales dying - we were shouted down. And yet, countries insist on having inspectors on board a whaling vessel incase one more whale is killed than given in a quota, - but the fact that scientists could bias their sightings just slightly and that this could lead to hundreds more whales been counted, and so leading to higher quotas in the first place, seems to be out of bounds as a topic of debate.

Of course I would suggest that the majority of people who pursue science as a career set out intending to be good scientists, that only want to deal with the facts and not the politics of the situation - but there have always been those who are willing to tow the political and funding line.

In Japan there are very few cetacean jobs outside of the Government departments and fisheries agencies. In Norway the group of scientists who originally agreed with the IWC scientists who were expressing concerns about the decline in NE Atlantic minkes in the 1980s were quickly replaced by the current scientists who have gone on to deliver every politically requested quota.

Maybe it’s all legit, but one has to question it a little I would suggest.

So scientists are like any other human beings, subject to the same pressures and the same temptations. Let’s not forget that and let’s not put them on a pedestal that ignores the pressures that are on them. It seems that someone may always be willing to exploit the weakest of us and its important that we champion those scientists who are willing to stand up to such pressures and tell us the truth, even if we don't always like what they say.

We are often asked about why whales may live so long, especially past breeding age. For most species, I am afraid that once you have had your offspring, Kaput!- you are no longer necessary to the species.

For some species, especially social creatures we do see individuals surviving past the menopause and playing a role in that society. For humans we have grandparents, but this is also true of whales.

Over the last few years it’s become increasingly clearer that older individuals play an important role. The elders of a social group have the invested knowledge and experience that needs to be passed onto the youngsters. In orca groups whilst many creatures reach sexual maturity it may be several years later that they actually reproduce, and this is because? Because they need to learn how to be adults, -what is acceptable behaviour in such circumstances.

There has now been published data on what WDCS has been observing (and saying to anyone that wanted to listen) and I look forward to this area of work having a real impact on conservation policy.

The world whales have been spared the threat of the clocks being turned back fifty years and the IWC sanctioned commercial whaling, but it seems that the unnecessary slaughter of ten humpback whales and transparency may have been the price.

Dogged by continued accusations of corruption and vote buying and feeling unable to discuss the Chairman and vice-chairs proposal on the ‘Future of the IWC’ in the scrutiny of public view, the Commission took its horse trading behind closed doors.

As the US IWC Commissioner said yesterday that on speaking with other countries about the US proposal for its ASW hunters, most delegations expected some trade off for granting a quota. If this is what the US is willing to state dogged the issue of quotas for a recognized ASW hunt imagine what the double-dealing was like behind closed doors.

However, thankfully his lack of transparency did not prevent nations from seeing through the failing in the Proposal.

The prospect that the IWC could control the current renegade whaling was surely tempting to many, but the reality was that this Proposal was never going to do that. The devil, as they say, was always in the detail.

It effectively abandoned the precautionary principle for political science and indeed, this fundamentally flawed approach to the science underlined the flawed political approach to everything else, including international law, relying on ‘gentleman’s agreements’ for nearly all its substance. And all this without any guarantees on Scientific whaling or whaling under objection.

The whalers demonstrated that they had no intention, and showed no indication, that they would surrender these Treaty rights. Yes Japan dangled the prospect that it may scale down its Antarctic hunt, but it was never willing to surrender the principle of Article VIII because it can always rely on it to escalate quotas it in the future. Iceland was clear that it would never give up trade in whale products for this is the only way its whaling could hope to be profitable .

Japan’s actions on blue fin tuna at the recent CITES meeting shows how it can make that Convention dance to its tune. The prospect of a CITES down-listing of whale species following IWC commercial whaling quotas would have brought overwhelming pressure on any future IWC that thought it could regulate trade on a nod and a prayer.

The reality was also that the proponents of this deal were also already talking to South Korea to adapt the proposal to allow for their whaling to be recognized in the deal. So what was meant to tie in three countries was, within minutes, already being expanded to allow for more.

We did see progress made on the protection of small cetaceans and WDCS welcomed the initiative of Belgium to address the issue of their protection of this under represented group within the IWC.

The failure of the IWC to see through the application of Denmark for ten humpback whales, brought on behalf of Greenland, was indicative of the underlying problems that the IWC refuses to face up to in addressing aboriginal subsistence whaling.

Whilst WDCS welcomes the saving of live of minke and fin whales, the unnecessary deaths of these ten humpbacks will shame the IWC for years to come, especially if they end up on the dinner plates of tourists in expensive hotels.

Overall the IWC is at a turning point. WDCS believes that what may have happened here is that countries that came to the table to negotiate away the moratorium may have realised that this is not an point of principle that is worth sacrificing because those who would gain never intended to honour the approaches being made, - and for those who opposed any form of commercial whaling there is a realization that there is a need to challenge the fundamental principles of the IWC and find a way to end commercial whaling once and for all.

WDCS remains committed to working with all countries and delegations that will work to end commercial whaling and teh abuses of ASW once and for all.

25th June 2010: Despite huge concerns from many delegations, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has just adopted a new quota for Greenland's so-called aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW).

Greenland had requested an increase in its subsistence whaling quota of some 10 humpback whales a year, for a period of three years – the same proposal it has tabled unsuccessfully each year since 2007.

Despite repeatedly claiming, year after year, that it requires ever more whale meat, this year Greenland secured the quota by ‘whale-trading’ - agreeing to reduce its quota of minke and fin whales in exchange for 9 humpbacks even though it would get less, not more, whale meat out of the deal.

WDCS, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, has consistently argued that Greenland has failed to justify its claim to need more whale meat because so many of the whales it hunts end up on supermarket shelves rather than meeting the genuine subsistence needs of remote indigenous communities.

This year, WDCS provided new evidence to the IWC that hunters are ’whaling to order’ for a commercial processing company that supplies supermarkets, and that whale meat is being sold in fancy hotel restaurants frequented by foreign tourists. 

Greenland’s willingness to barter humpback whales for fin and minkes is further evidence that it does not need more whale meat. The tonnage of whale meat from the 22 minke and 9 fin whales it is ‘surrendering’ far exceeds what they will get from 9 humpbacks.

We fully expect humpback meat to make it into the same commercial distribution chains as the other species, perhaps even at a premium price because its flavour is apparently preferable in Greenland.

Sue Fisher of WDCS says, “Despite agreeing to maintain the moratorium on commercial whaling earlier this week, the IWC has just voted for commercial whaling. It makes no sense for Greenland to give up tonnes of whale meat when it says it needs more, unless there are commercial motivations in play. In one vote the IWC may have irreparably damaged its credibility by overturning a long-established process for approving subsistence quotas and condoning commercial whaling in the name of subsistence.”

Fisher continues on the role of the EU who proposed a compromise that was ultimately adopted, “The EU came under huge pressure from Denmark to capitulate. Denmark has broken the back of the EU on this issue.”

“Having previously refused to abide by the EU Common Position, Denmark has clearly indicated that it is not here to represent the views of millions of Danes but people in Greenland and the Faroes who want to conduct commercial whaling. This is not the democracy of the European Union we were promised, but the dominance of one country over 24 others” Sue Fisher from WDCS concludes.

The EU has just proposed amending the Greenland proposal to 178 minke (that's down from 200 in current schedule, but already proposed by Denmark), 10 fin (down from 19) and 9 humpbacks.

Denmark has asked for five minute break to discuss with the EU.

The meeting resumes, with Denmark speaking and says it wishes to make 'small changes, some are substantive.

Putting 16 fin whales instead of ten, but with 'voluntary reduction of fins to 10 whales a year'.

There is some discussion of what footnotes actually say, but time is running out for ten humpbacks.

Costa Rica speaks of the value of whale watching and regrets this proposal.

Australia speaks that its support the principle of ASW, but the Danish proposal raises lots of concerns

Brasil endorses concerns of Costa Rica and Australia.

Iceland says there is only two forms of whaling, sustainable and unsustainable and therefore support

St Lucia speaks up for the proposal, attacking those who have problems, and then quotes the Sci Comm report and ASW report. St Lucia of course, chooses to ignore any of the concerns raised by countries on commercialization and non use.

St Lucia sounds like that the reduction of fin whales down from 19 fin whales is not appropriate? Now argues that IWC is ignoring the Scientific Committee. The spokesperson notes that Greenland is covered by ice and cannot grow food (thats not quite true actually - see latest edition of National Geographic with article on climate change and the growth in agriculture in Greenland - limited but, growing - ed)

Argentina agrees with Costa Rica.

St Vincent is convinced of the arguments. There is sound science involved for humpbacks. Many interventions from delegates that support ASW and they support the amended proposal.

I am now going to leave this to my able colleague above who is reporting this subject much better than I.

Sorry back in as some interventions now important -

Russian federation speaks passionately for the proposal

USA speaks in favour

Monnaco, says there are two criteria for it, science, wish it feels it is okay, and the second is real need, noting Greenland's highest indigenous income, rich fishery takes, and take of 4000 small cetaceans and therefore cannot rely on 20 year old 'needs statement' - asks withdrawing of last line of table of humpbacks, ie 90 tonnes of humpback will ham people, it seems totemic attempt to add tasteful whale species. We should look to proper regulation and need real needs statement, and Monnaco is not enthusiastic to support - clap from room.

Ecuador supports last speaker and other Latin countries.

New Zealand notes that this issue was put off at the last meeting as  debate would be highly divisive and would prejudice the future discussions, and so intersessional was held. The people of Greenland have travelled a long way and we owe them to give them the quotas. (NZ speaks for killing humpbacks - ed). NZ is supporting because we follow the EU on this issue. 'Purity and absolutism cannot be the guide for an international organsiation that will work' - clap from pro-whalers (pro-whalers - ed?, yep! -ed 2)

St Kitts associates with NZ.

Chile associates with Ecuador and Latins (I think )

Kiribati supports the proposal

Korea pleased to support amended proposal

India: respects ASW, but are of view that IWC should work to reduce dependence on whales in a controlled manner. India maintains that there should be monitoring for use of whale products so to ensure only used for indigenous peoples.

Costa Rica: associates with Latins and notes Monnaco's comments.

sorry, missed one intervention

Nauru supports

Palau supports, and complains that commissioners want to protect animals over people.

Norway: says that Greenland may well leave if not given quota (sorry I thought Denmark spoke for Greenland? ed)

Marshall Islands: associate with support for proposal

Chairman: sums up. I feel we better agree this if we want to progress the discussions on the future of the IWC, and asks countries that are not in favour should not block efforts to pass by consenus? Asks if silence means agreement

Brasil: speaks and asks for ten minute break. break agreed

All back into the meeting

Brasil: Brasil remains committed to the future of the IWC, and appreciates the mutual understanding and that this could prevail. We note that we have asked for the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, we would like to see an undated statement of need from Greenland and fully understand ASW and respects cultures and will not block consenus

Australia: we support IWC regulated ASW, but we need a more work (as noted by Brasil) for needs statement and in spirit of cooperation Denmark does deliver, will not break consensus

Denmark, we have heard much today and from those who don't like the proposal. We are willing to consult wth range states in run up to 2012 negotiations, in two years. We shall consult at home on needs statement, having done so in 2007.

the humpback has been hunted in Greenland for a very long time, and therefore is part of culture as well as food supply. we have concentrated on need statement in tonnes as this is what we thought people wanted.

Mexico speaks: asks for its intervention to be recorded in Chairman's report

Monnaco: will not block vote on grounds of the wider debate

St Vincent: some countries patting themselves on their back for not standing against this. Greenland has absolute right to these whales and the 'condacending reluctance' of countries, they are not heroes for not standing in way of Greenland.

Chairman: I will note all views in my report, considering all views, proposed schedule amendment asks for adoption by consensus as revised by EU.

Proposal is adopted. Humpbacks will now die

Denmark says that discussion was acrimoneous, but thanks all. Grreenland Minsiter for hunting and fishing speaks: thank you, this now shows work of Sci Comm respected, and that there is no difference between certain groups of people and certain groups of animals. It is my 2nd time at IWC, and what I find out shocked me, thatt domestic and election issues put before our needs as indigenous peoples, and I strongly, strongly suggest that if IWC is going to work it should follow science.

Okay, this is how it should be.

A country that has a group of people with a continuous nutritional and cultural need for taking whales should bring a needs statement to the IWC. This is reviewed and then if found to be correct, the Commission, on the advice of the Scientific Committee decides whether a species of whale can be hunted and allocates a quota. Unless you are Greenland.

This is how the system gets perverted -

If you are Greenland, you declare that you are an Inuit nation and that everybody in your country is going to be counted for the consumption of whale meat. You also, don't actually ask the IWC, you pass your demands on through Denmark and then threaten to leave if you don't get what you want.

Also you don't allow the IWC to think about numbers of whales with you request, you demand a 'tonnage' of whale meat and then point out that your ability to get the meat of the whales is limited by the experience of the hunters (sorry I thought these guys were experienced indigenous peoples? - ed) and whether they have a fishing boat, power boat, type of rifle etc. So you argue that the IWC has to use Greenland's figures for 'conversion' - that's how much meat can be taken off a whale - which seem much lower than any indigenous group. Strange that. But of course this leads to inflated numbers of whales being needed.

I was saying to colleagues today that the concept that you can bring a needs statement (or not) but make a claim and then say, ‘oh never mind - I quite like that one’ - makes this feel like this is more like clothes shopping when I know I need a 48 inch waste but have been buying 40 inch ‘for growth’, but in fact end up buying a 36 inch for the style and colour.

So what will happen today? We know that Greenland has said that this is about proving they can get what they want out of the IWC, so stand by for some 'whale-trading' just so Greenland can win this argument.

That's it for Thursday, no vote on Greenland, but maybe tomorrow,  but  the Mainichi Daily reports that , 'domestic consumption of whale meat -- long considered a
source of protein for Japanese -- has been on the decline. According to
the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries statistics, domestic
whale meat consumption dropped from 230,000 tons in fiscal 1962 to
5,000 tons in fiscal 2008. As of the end of 2009, 4,246 tons of whale
meat -- almost equivalent to total annual consumption -- remains in
stock.'

So please, Japan, stop pushing this huge pile of whale meat up a hill. I am sure there are legitimate things you could spend you hard earned overseas aid on.