Getting Ready for IWC/61

As I type this, Kate Sardi, the ACS rep to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), is landing in Lisbon, Portugal. Over the next two weeks, she will be reporting back from what promises to be a most interesting IWC meeting.

Personally, I just returned from Portugal, where I attended the Scientific Committee (SC) of the IWC for The Whale Center of New England. The SC meets for two weeks before the main meeting of the Commission. It’s purpose is threefold: 1) To advise the commission on appropriate actions to take based on the best available science; 2) To answer questions directed to the SC from the Commission to help guide their actions; and 3) to consider new findings that affect the status of whale stocks from around the world. While the conclusions of the SC remain confidential until the start of the Commission, I can at least set the scene for what is likely to follow.

The SC meets in a series of sub-committees, which discuss particular topics for eight days. Each day is broken in to a series of 90- to 120-minute blocks, where 3 sub-committees meet simultaneously. Each scientist, who is either a part of a national delegation or an “invited participant”, signs up in advance for which committees he or she would like to be a part of. There are 12 in all, including such topics as Environment, By-catch, Bowhead-right-and-gray whales, Whale Watching, In-depth Stick Assessments, Ecological Modeling, etc. For each sub-committee that you participate in, you are given a stack of submitted papers that deal with topics in that sub-committees purview. These are presented to the sub-committee, usually by the authors, and that presentation, plus the ensuing discussion, form the basis for the sub-committee’s report, which has to be finalized by the end of the eight days.

Once each sub-committee’s report is completed, the chair of the sub-committee highlights parts of the report to present to the full SC in a 3-day plenary meeting. Here anyone can comment on the actions of the sub-committees, and make consensus recommendations on particular topics. These are then combined into the full report of the SC, which is later presented to the full Commission.

This year’s meeting is in a beautiful setting – the island of Madeira, Portugal. Madeira is a lush, 35-mile long island of amazing beauty. Its capital town, Funchal, has just over 150,000 people, with a small but bustling downtown area and harbor. Until recently the site of a sperm whale hunt, it is now a place where whalewatch boats come and go daily, seeing sperm and Bryde’s whales and a number of dolphin species. Some of the former whalers now act as shore spotters for the whalewatch companies. Fishermen ply the trade every night, and scabbard-fish (a relative of the swordfish, called “espada”) is the most common local seafood (it is often made with a banana or passion-fruit sauce). Ironically, the meeting is in the local convention center, which doubles as the island’s casino; appropriate for a meeting where the future of the whales is as sure as a toss of the dice!

Having just been through all of these discussions, and having been involved in the IWC for several years, here are a few issues which I see of importance in the upcoming weeks:

1) The future of the Commission. Over the past 12 months, a “small” working group of 26 countries tried to negotiate a settlement to the stalemate over whaling that has blocked any significant progress at the IWC for several years. While agreements were close in December, we hear that everything fell apart in their March meeting when Japan announced their intentions to continue a significant “scientific” hunt as part of the agreement. What then happens to this (controversial) “progress,” and what next steps are to move forward in whale and whaling management, remains to be seen.

2) The Greenland request for humpbacks. Greenland has had a subsistence hunt for fin and minke whales for years, and for the past two years has asked to start to kill 10 humpbacks a year. Starting last year, their actual need was questioned, when it was revealed that some of the meat taken is sold at local markets, and “subsistence hunts” are supposed to be for actual local needs. The request was turned down last year, even though the SC said the stock could withstand it; the decision was among the most controversial made last year. Greenland has returned with its request again this year.

3) The Japanese request for small-type coastal whaling. Japan has also made this request, for a new classification of whaling, for several years. They claim their coastal communities, while not subsistence communities, need the hunt for their local cultures and food needs. They have asked the SC for advice on the effects of their planned hunt, which would involve a depleted stock of minke whales. This new classification was to be allowed under the negotiated deal, but now stands little chance of passage.

4) How “scientific” is whaling? The Japanese “research program” on whales by which they take several hundred minke whales, Bryde’s whales, sei whale, and even sperm whales, was reviewed by an independent panel this year. This is the first time that such an independent review on the quality of the science involved has taken place. The report of their review was presented to the SC, who discussed it at length. Certainly, both the report, the response of the scientific team involved in the project, and the discussions at SC will be prominent at this year’s meeting.

5) SORP. Over the past year, Australia has organized a major mutli-national program, called “SORP” (Southern Ocean Research Program – see http://www.marinemammals.gov.au/news-articles0/whale-workshop) as a non-lethal alternative to gather similar information to the Japanese scientific research whaling in the Antarctic, and to address important issues of whale populations in the southern ocean. Under the capable leadership of Dr. Nick Gales, it promises to give us a lot of new information about whales in the Antarctic and its surrounding waters. No doubt SORP will also be prominent in this year’s commission meeting.

6) Increasing numbers of whales. One issue which may be on the table this year is a positive – the increasing populations of many whale stocks in many areas. But as these findings reach the IWC, it is harder and harder to argue to keep the moratorium in place in biological conservation terms. Just a red flag – watch for this to become an area of increasing discussion in this, or future years.

As she did last year, you can trust Kate, our research chair, to give an accurate daily reporting of what happens at this key meeting. I’m sure there will be unanticipated surprises, unexpected outcomes, much posturing, and many length speeches. I, along with you, look forward to what Kate has to report.

- Mason Weinrich
ACS Vice-President
Executive Director and Chief Scientist, The Whale Center of New England