WDC Blog - From the Front Line

So how does Sweden feel now that Norway has welcomed Sweden's position on commercial whaling? 

You see Sweden has split the EU on the issue. Or that's what they would like you to believe. What we actually have is a small minority in Sweden and Denmark pimping their fellow Scandinavian's whaling (that's Iceland and Norway), whilst the rest of Europe led by the UK and Germany are very much opposed.

We at WDCS have been working with colleagues at ClientEarth to help the EU work out its voting system and then their legal responsibilities to protect whales which means that they cannot actually vote for commercial whaling.

At the same time as Sweden slides into the pro-whaling camp, it seems the WDCS report 'Reinventing the Whale'  has stimulated some investigations. In Australia it has already led to an investigation by the investigative reporter Andrew Darby who's investigation has led to an Australian company removing whale products from its 'shelves'.

And the IWC is only just beginning. More to come I feel!

Save the whale, save the planet. It seems that whales might be helping to slow down climate change. Science News reports that 'Sperm whales in the Southern Ocean deserve credit for their fine work pumping iron for climate change.

'Of course the whales breathe, but earlier calculations overlooked the potential for whales to offset their emissions by introducing extra iron into the upper zone of water, Lavery said October 13 at the Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals in Quebec City, Canada. The extra iron that whales bring up from their deep feeding encourages plankton growth. That growth traps carbon, much as human-run iron-enrichment experiments in the ocean might, Lavery and her colleagues contend.

According to the team’s calculations, sperm whales in the Southern Ocean should rank as carbon neutral at least. The animals may even be capturing a net 5 million metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, Lavery says.'

So every time the whalers kill a whale they may well be contributing to climate change.

I hope Sweden, who appears to be abusing its position as President of the EU at the moment to help force through Denmark's demands to kill more whales in Greenland, takes note and steps back from its crusade to have more whales die.

It would seem that Sweden is whale enemy no 1 at the moment.

We move to the highly controversial topic of whale watching (WW).

Arne Bjorge gives us his nice report from the Scientific Committee on this noting that a long term experiment on whale watching is due to commence.

UK (a little hoarse) - Chairman we congratulate the WW Subcommittee on its work this year and note that some of us have now been here for sometime many of us have been able to enjoy the excellent opportunities available here to see whales and dolphins from this beautiful island.

We note from a very helpful and thorough paper provided to the Scientific Committee this year that whale watching in Madeira is focused near to where we now sit. In fact you can walk from here and in less than half an hour be out amongst the whales and dolphins. Some 58,000 people take part in whale watching in Madeira each year; it involves 12 boats (including some rather beautiful large catamarans); is slowly growing; and it is worth some 1,5 million euros.

We note that the current guidelines will be underpinned shortly by legislation that will soon come before the Island government. The IWC Scientific Committee has repeatedly told us as Dr Bjorge has just reminded us that guidelines are most effective with legislatory backing and so we commend such a move.

Chairman, the people of Britain both at home, and here in their legions on holiday and in many other places around the world enjoy their whales alive. Well-managed whale watching can be regarded as a sustainable use of these animals and a source of usually low impact enjoyment.

Whales are not only a global resource; they are creatures of great splendour and awe – generators of inspiration and respect for nature, charismatic symbols of our global environment; let us follow the example set here in Madeira – once itself the center of a very major whaling industry – and move to a more harmonious relationship with them.

The German Invisible Porpoise

Many others join in to celebrate whale watching.

The distinguished commissioner from Mexico notes wisely that the carrying capacity of whale watching is the last aspect that we need to quantify to ensure sustainability.

Argentina eloquently congratulates the scientific committee on its work. Notes the socio-economic importance of WW in Patagonia and identifies some ongoing initiatives in his region.

The Chair next calls on Norway to speak.

No he says it is a mistake he really does not want to speak on this matter.

Germany regrets that it only has porpoises in its waters and notes that they are mainly invisible. But agrees that WW needs to be regulated.

Costa Rica congratulates IFAW on its new report on WW around the world.

After a while we come to St Kitts and Nevis. He is worried about who gets the priority – whalers or whale watchers. We need to consider who is benefiting from this use – consumptive or non-consumptive. If the WW industry is generating over 2 billion dollars where is it going. He is interested in compensation. Apparently the developing countries are getting almost nothing.

Iceland is happy to report that whaling and WW co-exitist happily side by side.

Guinea thinks that the benefit must go to the poor.

Belgium commends the work of the Scientific Committee (SC)_ They think that as WW management is on the agenda of the Conservation Committee (CC), the two bodies are now complimenting each other. (So the SC compliments the CC on WW.)

Monaco - I associate with many countries on the immense value of renewable resources and commend the work of the SC. I pick up comments from the respected delegate from St Kitts. We should pay attention to the vast economic returns from this new industry. The nice thing about whales is that when they are alive we can benefit from them – we need to share and transfer knowledge about them in this case about whale watching inducytyu management. Poor countries could benefit from this.

Cameroon – how much do we have to invest – us the poor and developing contries – to start this industry. We have financial problems. How much does it cost. Is it worthwhile.

Korea is small and mountaneous, so coastal communities depend on fisheries – we have introduced whale watching with feasibility studies and public education but no industry has emerged. We observe that the value and benefit of whale watching varies from country to country and is not universal.

The UK - Chairman we congratulate the WW Subcommittee on its work this year and note that some of us have now been here for sometime many of us have been able to enjoy the excellent opportunities available here to see whales and dolphins from this beautiful island. We note from a very helpful and thorough paper provided to the Scientific Committee this year that whale watching in Madeira is focused near to where we now sit. In fact you can walk from here and in less than half an hour be out amongst the whales and dolphins. Some 58,000 people take part in whale watching in Madeira each year; it involves 12 boats (including some rather beautiful large catamarans); is slowly growing; and it is worth some 1,5 million euros.

We note that the current guidelines will be underpinned shortly by legislation that will soon come before the Island government. The IWC Scientific Committee has repeatedly told us as Dr Bjorge has just reminded us that guidelines are most effective with legislatory backing and so we commend such a move.

Chairman, the people of Britain both at home, and here in their legions on holiday and in many other places around the world enjoy their whales alive. Well-managed whale watching can be regarded as a sustainable use of these animals and a source of usually low impact enjoyment.

Whales are not only a global resource; they are creatures of great splendour and awe – generators of inspiration and respect for nature, charismatic symbols of our global environment; let us follow the example set here in Madeira – once itself the center of a very major whaling industry – and move to a more harmonious relationship with them.

Lunch beckons.

Many European countries rush off to coordinate. Many do not eat and the lack of food starts to affect their minds.

Seemingly without any real pause we are back in the room with the freaky huge overhead air ducts and swirling carpet.

Korea is loudly presently the rest of the report from the Conservation Committee. He reveals that the CC is now planning to look at whale watching. This causes great excitement

The CC report also covers Stinky whales (see earlier); Ship strikes (and how to address them); and whale watching (WW) – the key aspect of this being setting up a new work area within the CC on WW.

The Australian Minister, Garret makes a strong speech on whale watching noting that some 13,200 are employed worldwide. New IFAW report – when well managed totally sustainable. It should not put cetaceans at risk through increased interactions – we expected maximized oppoertnities and minimized risks. $ Australia 25,000 will go to a workshop.

South Africa tells us a little about poverty in his country and the importance of WW there. Brazil speaks of the honorable and [we think he says] extraordinary minister for Australia and is grateful for their [major financial] contribution to the work of the conservation committee.

Many Latin American countries speak to support the initiave and congratulate each other on related issues. Argentina (the eloquent alternate commissioner) offers to host a key meeting.


Bill takes Tea with the Porpoises.

The Chairman breaks in to say that in his previous job he used to get lots of reports of people chasing porpoises. Porpoises come by his Florida house every afternoon when he has drinks (and he sees manatees).

St Lucia wants to see that no undue pressure is put on these animals as they recover from long years of abuse. [Are we still speaking of whale watching?] The information in the Australian document is incorrect. WW in St Lucia has increased by 77% it suggests and she goes on to detail some problems with the document. [Some time passes. What did the EU just coordinate about?]

India suports whale watching but it needs to be safe for whale and whale watchers.

We move to another agenda item. Special Permit [aka Scientific] whaling. Arne takes us through the Scientific Committee report on this:

Special permit whaling

Major focus of committee this year was the results of specialist workshop to look at the results of JARPN II programme.


Objectives were to review first six years of JARPN program and review future plans for meeting the objectives and evaluate the techniques used.


There was a review of work undertaken: tremendous amount of scientific work but difficulty in accessing programme progress against long term objectives. Lack of short term objectives was considered a weakness of the programme. Ultimate goal of providing species management advice is a major task and will take more time.


Further analysis needs to be undertaken. Panel noted modelling work but models are not at a stage to draw even general conclusions never mind contribute to management advice. More time needs to be spent on the modelling. Also notes that some data comes from sperm whales which are of no use to the modelling study.


Panel acknowledged general difficulties with studies of stock structure.


Issue of lethal and non-lethal research remains controversial inside and outside of IWC. However comments of panel are just of a scientific data.


Sample size and design – without a full analysis it won’t be possible to provide advice on this.

Comments from the floor:


Monaco –severely questions the need for this science and the why did you kill all these whales, we still don’t have the answer to this. He is especially concerned about the killing of sperm whales for no reason.


Australia – number of points; share with Monaco’s concerns and that there have been considerable difficulties in obtaining this report in enough time to go through it. Fundamental questions have not been answered such as why is there a need for any sperm whales to be taken in JARPN hunts when they are not relevant? Can the scientific objectives be answered by non lethal techniques and do they need this many whales and what is the effect of populations? Commission is now left without advice on the issues of most serious concern. Where do we go from here? We need to find a way forward


India – definitely a need for refinement of research, especially this unnecessary lethal research


Sir Geoffrey – New Zealand’s position on scientific whaling is well known but we must emphasise this is an important issue for us and key if we want to progress in the future of the IWC discussions. We can acknowledge Japan’s decisions not to take humpbacks while diplomatic process is under way but also must highlight the need for answers to fundamental questions.


UK – Thanks scientific committee but the review needs to provide answers to all the questions we believe to be important. The UK is deeply concerned by the responses of reviewers to key questions. After 6 years and hundreds of dead whales, Japan still can’t provide evidence to justify its decision to kill all these whales. Japan also maintains its decision to take sperm whales even though they cannot justify this. Article 8 has been misused and this is undisputed evidence which highlights importance of bringing the programme under IWC control. Japan needs to show signs of addressing these issues. Abuse of article 8 must not continue - this has divided us for years. The UK is committed to take part in any discussions to resolve issue.


Mexico – There are many factors which have not been considered by the Japanese research and their claims for changes in abundance/distribution of minke whales. It needs to be clearly documented what could have been gained through non lethal means. The information to date is not reliable – group did not investigate all the factors to identify answers to the problems.


US – fully committed to resolving this which has been identified as a key issue as part of future of IWC discussions.


Switzerland – associates with Mexico


Ireland – also associates with others

South Africa – Associates itself with NZ, Ireland, US

Australia – also associates with the above. We have particular concerns regarding annex P [which defines the review process]. In Rome we had a number of questions including the need for independent reviewers on the panel and issue of transparency. There are still no satisfactory answers. We look forward to improve things. The work plan for Scientific Committee suggests a review of annex p and Australia supports that.


Korea – Special permit whales has more fundamental issues because it occurred after the whaling ban. We are committed to the objective and recognise importance of conservation but also sustainable use. When humans recognised usefulness of animals as food all the problems began but this must be about the right to be feeding and eating animals and respect for animals.


Luxembourg – we concur with New Zealand and others. Criteria of JARPN II has not been complied with, we urge them to adopt non lethal techniques


Germany – associate with comments of UK and Ireland


Portugal – highlight need to bring it in line with other international guidelines for lethal research, such as it should only take place when essential and when other methods have been tried.


Finland – associate with previous speakers


Chair reminds everyone that this is issue for small working group [on the future of the IWC] over the next year so would appreciate short interventions.

Spain – associates with others particularly Portugal

Norway – reminds UK and Mexico that this is not the meeting of scientific committee. Our scientific committee has carried out review and we think the Commission should thank scientific committee and note report


France – states opposition to scientific whaling, and associates with others such as UK


Iceland – report of specialist panel is in general positive towards JARPN II programme. Cherry picking the negative side which does not support the report.. This is a step forward from polarised position


Monaco – Has opposition to large scale and unjustified scientific whaling, it is an obstacle to this commission and hopes it would be addressed over the next year.


Japan – Thanks chair of scientific committee for extensive presentation of the review and also thanks to the experts on the panel. These are very able scientists who have full respect. Surprised initially that the review was balanced and neutral, this has not been seen before so annex P is working well. Japanese scientists felt they were finally engaged with good scientific discussion. Constructive criticism is not a reason to stop research activities. The panel recognised high quality of field and laboratory work undertaken and that there has been substantial effort and start to using the data towards modelling objective. Also noted that the results provide good scientific contribution on issue of environmental pollutants. So contrary to claim that our activities produce no achievements, the experts recognise we are doing a good job. We heard our analysis was not enough but also recognition that this is an ambitious plan and it is only reasonable that substantial progress will take time. About the sperm whales – it was needed to be included in report but as a small sample size to see the correlation between deep water and surface ecosystems. The small number of samples taken prove that there are certain correlations so it has some scientific importance. JARPN scientists provided a response to the questions raised in document which of course don’t answer all questions but refer to where progress has been made. Competition between whales and cetaceans – we have never concluded whales are the cause of the reduction of fish around our waters – we said we have some evidence that whales are playing an important role in ecosystem and our catch in recent years and that more evidence is needed – this is why JARPN II was started. Japanese scientists are cautious to come to a conclusion and we try to do as much data analysis as possible. For some countries position statement comes first before they look at the science.


Chair of Scientific Committee – thanks for all comments. The main reason for prevailing controversy is not scientific but it is the question of appropriateness of use of article 8 for long term programmes or whether it is justified so not about the science.


Monaco – Will be happy to have private talk with chair of scientific committee. This is not just a political question, it is based on science. We need to look at this in the context of how can we make use of non lethal techniques and new technologies? Major scientific advances have been made and this needs to be looked into.


The Chair closes the item, we admire the air vents in the ceiling try to focus on the carpet and move on.

Monaco says thank you and he will be happy to speak to the Chair and says this lies within the scientific realm as well.

No one likes violence.

Next we are treated to a film by Japan.

[Once again the Sea Shepherd PR team will be pleased with the publicity.]

We are shown various angles of some footage purporting to show the SS vessel the Steve Erwin ‘ramming’ a Japanese ‘research’ vessel.

The film also shows some fine deployment of water jets.

Japan speaks to claim that their vessel was dangerously rammed caused to list to starboard and notes that we can hear the screams of panic from their crew.

They note they have called on various countries, especially the Netherlands (the flag state) to act and stop this violence.

[In a hotel foyer not far away the TV Personality and Skipper of the Steve Erwin relaxes and enjoys some more publicity.]

In fact the rest of the afternoon is now spent with one country after another condemning the violence and calling for action. Basically they all agree – some more strongly than others that Sea Shepherd deserves as much publicity as it can get [Editor; surely punishment or something like that.]

Australia say they are looking into the matter in the southern ocean, they are concerned.

The Netherlands say the IMO is the appropriate place to consider this. The NL adds that in Decemeber 2008 and Feb 2009 the principles of good seamanship were not fulfilled. The NL remains opposed to any of whaling and [supports] the right of free speech and demonstration and notes that this should apply to the high seas too. The have warned Sea Shepherd repeatedly and action is pending.,

The US says that this is not the place to discuss this.

Sir Geoffrey of New Zealand is worried about the fragile environment where these actions are taking place They have written to Sea Shepherd and drew their attention to international law. The recognize IMO too and they are discussion how to handle these matters now.

Here come some saints

Antigua and Barbuda concerned

St Kits and Nevis concerned

St Lucia concerned

St Lucia notes that 30 years ago the same individual was responsible for ramming a vessel in Portugal

Korea shares the concerns raised. This is basically a legal issue. Individuals have the right to be heard but this should happen in a [very loudly] peaceful manner. You may recall the Rainbow Warrior incident and the life lost then. No one can equate the value of human being with an animal. There can be violent attacks in laboratories but they are punished. Why not apply this principle to maritime violent acts.

Benin – does not like violence and favours punishment

[It is so hot in here now that delegates are peeling off any extraneous clothing. Clearly we are being punished. There will be more stripping later - stay tuned.]

Suriname – does not like violence

In fact many countries follow, none like violence.

Denmark condemns the ‘French activist’ group, noting that its leader is banned from his own country. We should condemn activities he says.

Portugal notes that this is a matter that unites us [is this a success of the small group negotiating process.]

Togo - it is man that creates situations that allows the whales to multiply.

Kiribati thanks hosts and agrees with the saints

St Vincent says it is being attacked

[and many others follow]

[Ok we get it… you are unhappy with people doing bad things at sea… now let us out of here we are cooking. And that some of you value Japan’s research.]

UK – we welcome the information provided by the flag states concerned and we think this should be resolved at the IMO and we should defer to the relevant bodies.

Iceland (ignores this) and thanks Japan and condemns violent acts.

Norway this is ‘a blatant violition of national and international law’ we note and investigation in Australia and we hope a court case will follow. He also looks forward to actions in Netherlands. The IMO is a rule making body. It tells you how to conduct yourselves at sea but it has no court. Countries have to deal with this matter the IMO can make rules in the future the flag state and the port state need to act.

Monaco says nothing is more valuable than a human being.

Germany – violence is wrong.

Sweden associates with Norway as does Finland.

Cameroon comes back for a second time and supports Norway.

Who is that whispers Chairman Bill to Secretary Nicky. It is Japan she says

Japan I would like to thanks all those that commented and we would like the IWC to liase with the IMO and hopes for co-operation with the countries concerned.

Chairman – well those states are here and doing things. Let’s just write to the IMO. Ok. Close the item. OK?

OK.


A change of theme: a Minister gets excited.

Australia now presents its Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP) which is committed to the development of invocative, powerful non-lethal technologies and research in the southern ocean. They recently held a very successful workshop. A power point [this meeting may be setting the record for power points] is given by Minister Garret.

They will be looking carefully at how climate affects the whales.

In 2009/10 there will be a joint survey with New Zealand and a new helicopter will be surveying over the ice. There will also be much tagging of whales. [The minister is excited – it is exciting he says.]


Back to the Humpbacks

Denmark we now have a changed proposal that should be acceptable to the majority here or at least all the countries that want to provide food. Greenland has to rely on the resources to be found in our land. The state Secretary will explain more. We propose a one year quota – the number of whale stuck shall not exceed ten and this will be reviewed if new scientific data becomes available.

The Chairman says please consult tonight [does he mean coordinate] it is very important to the future of this organization. He then gives instructions to the wine bar where the NGOs hold a reception in the evening. Many delegates arrive drink and leave.

The stripper is also rather disappointing.

In honour of his 50 years of attending IWC meetings the redoubtable Sidney Holt is awarded with a t-shirt, showing his travels around the world with the IWC. This is presented complete with a fine speach by Patrick of IFAW and much applause.

Sidney strips his top off to put his new shirt on. Ladies faint, small children cry but a fine time is had by all.

Congratulations Sidney.

So as I write this it seems that the rogue US delegation is now trying to strong arm the UK, - blaming the UK for Greenland not getting its unsupportable humpback quota.

Well, well done UK and Germany is what I say, - and where does the US get off in trying such pressure? Both these countries have evaluated the available information supplied by Denmark and found it lacking, both scientifically and politically in its arguments for justifying an increase in the hunt.

Denmark has not been able to persuade the IWC of its case so its using the US to suggest taking the issue into another IWC intersessional meeting to discuss this one issue. It hopes that NGOs and other countries that oppose the quota will not be able to attend and it can slip through proposal through away from prying eyes.

And before any journalists say this shows the IWC is dysfunctional, what it actually shows is what the whalers strategy is.

Lets get an endorsement for a any form of coastal whaling that allows for commercialization. Of course this one is wrapped up in the trappings of ASW language and Sweden and others are pandering to such rhetoric. But of course if the USA and others can get this through then they can deliver Japan its coastal whaling; Heh, they may even be able to justify Iceland joining the EU as a whaler.

On behalf of the whales, thanks for nothing USA.