The decision about Greenland’s aboriginal subsistence hunt was announced first thing on Thursday morning, but the meeting carried on throughout the day. The Scientific Committee (SC) Chair reported on the committee’s work with small cetaceans. The SC expressed concern about several populations, including common dolphins in the North Atlantic and the Vaquita in Mexico, which experience high levels of fisheries bycatch. The SC recommended that all fixed fishing gear in the Vaquita’s range be removed immediately because this species is on the verge of extinction. Australia pledged $500,000 to the SC’s studies of small cetaceans. Finland expressed concern about Japan’s unsustainable catch of Dall’s porpoise. In the past, there have been several IWC resolutions condemning this hunt, but nothing was proposed this year in an effort to avoid contentious issues and maintain consensus. Pro whaling nations stated their opinion that the IWC does not have jurisdiction over small cetaceans. These arguments have been on-going for years, the comments seem to be the same each year, but nothing seems to change.
Next on the agenda was the report of the Conservation Committee (CC). The CC Chair discussed “stinky” whales, which are gray whales captured in the Russian Federation’s aboriginal subsistence hunt that have such a strong, chemical odor in their meat that they are unusable. The cause of this smell is unknown. Although analyses are ongoing, scientists have found flame retardants in stinky whale tissues.
The CC Chair moved on to discuss ship strikes. New Zealand report sei whale ship strikes and the CC has plans to conduct research using aerial surveys and tags to learn more about this species. Several other nations, including Australia and Chile, also reported ship strikes. The U.S. reported on the ship strike mitigation measures for North Atlantic right whales along the east coast; speed limits were reduced to 10 knots in areas of known right whale use.
“The Cove” Is A Must See!
During the lunch break, I had the opportunity to see a screening of the movie “The Cove.” The Oceanic Preservation Society made this movie about the dolphin drive hunt in Taiji, Japan. The movie has received amazing reviews and actually won the audience award at the Sundance Film Festival this year. It was absolutely brilliant and I would highly recommend anyone with an interest in cetaceans to see it! The movie follows Ric O’Barry and his team as they risk being arrested to bring the story of these dolphins to the public. Make sure that you brace yourself for a very emotional experience. There are certainly scenes that are difficult to watch, but the movie doesn’t spend too much time on gratuitous violence and there is even humor thrown in along the way. Absolutely a must see! Check out the trailer on http://thecovemovie.com/.
Much of the rest of the day (actually the rest of the meeting, because we didn’t meet on Friday) was spent discussing business-related issues of the IWC (nothing that would be of interest to anyone except those directly involved). The one thing of note here was the election of important positions in the IWC. The IWC Chair, which has been Bill Hogarth of the U.S. for the last three years, will now be Cristian Maquieira of Chile (anti whaling). The Vice Chair will be Anthony Liverpool from Antigua & Barbuda (pro whaling). The Scientific Committee Chair position will also pass to Debbie Palka of the U.S. The Commissioner (Bill Hogarth) and Deputy Commissioner (Doug DeMaster) of the U.S. delegation have also attended their last IWC meeting. The Commissioner position will likely fall to Monica Medina who attended the meeting this year and who works for NOAA in Washington, but as far as I know there has not been an official announcement at this point. She comes from the NGO world so there is hope that she will be a stronger voice for the whales and will include the NGO community more than the previous delegation.
Final Thoughts
Once I return to the states and have time to mull over the past week, I’ll send out more detailed reflections of the meeting but here are a few thoughts I have right now. On the surface, it seems as though absolutely nothing was accomplished here in Madeira except the acquisition of interesting tan lines and a good deal of Madeira wine consumption by delegates from all over the world. When looking deeper, perhaps there a few small successes. Although Greenland’s proposal to take ten humpback whales was not voted down, it was also not approved. For now, the humpback whales in Greenland’s waters will continue to be safe. Japan’s small type coastal whaling, though discussed during the “future of the IWC,” was not approved by the commission; the whaling moratorium of 1982 still stands. The Scientific and Conservation Committees have done a lot of great work to better understand the world’s whale populations. Finally, climate change has become a topic of extensive conversation and concern (this is unfortunately not the case in many management meetings). Perhaps next year instead of “status quo,” we’ll actually make steps towards reducing whaling efforts in the world. Only time will tell.
26 June 2009
25 June 2009
Greenland Update
In a surprising turn of events, the IWC has decided to leave the issue of Greenland’s proposal open. They will convene a scientific working group to review the proposal, followed by an intersessional meeting of the commission to discuss and vote on this issue. Japan and the U.S. have pledged funds to allow developing nations to attend the meeting.
Greenland’s proposal to add humpback whales to their aboriginal subsistence whaling quota has caused tense discussion between member nations of the IWC, as well as between NGOs and delegations. The commission was very reluctant to bring this issue to a vote with the strong feelings on either side. The push for an intersessional meeting is all an effort to maintain the “cooperative, civil” environment for the SWG process.
Greenland’s proposal to add humpback whales to their aboriginal subsistence whaling quota has caused tense discussion between member nations of the IWC, as well as between NGOs and delegations. The commission was very reluctant to bring this issue to a vote with the strong feelings on either side. The push for an intersessional meeting is all an effort to maintain the “cooperative, civil” environment for the SWG process.
Halfway Through the Meeting
Wednesday session started with statements from NGOs (non-governmental organizations, such as the ACS). NGOs are typically more involved in international meetings such as this one, but for quite a while they have had little to no voice at the IWC. During the 2008 meeting, NGOs were given the opportunity to speak once during the meeting for a limited period of time. The same opportunity was afforded during this year’s meeting. Six organizations, three pro and three anti whaling, were allowed to speak for five minutes each. The three statements from anti whaling groups were written ahead of time and signed on by virtually all anti whaling organizations, including ACS.
The three anti whaling representatives were the Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society of the United States and the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition. They condemned research and small type coastal whaling, supported action by the IWC to promote whale watching and research global climate change, and requested increased NGO involvement in the IWC.
The three pro whaling representatives were the International Transport Workers (Japan), Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chuktoka (Russian natives) and Te Ohu Kaimoana (New Zealand natives). The first speaker was a crew member on a Japanese research whaling ship and he addressed safety at sea, condemning the aggressive actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The second two speakers defended the native right to hunt whales and encouraged the IWC to compromise to move the organization forward.
Scientific Committee Reports
Next the Scientific Committee (SC) Chair presented a summary of the climate change subcommittee meeting held in February. The recommendation from the committee was that climate change may have significant impact on cetaceans and should be taken seriously. Many nations spoke up at this point to support work on this important issue. There is going to be a draft resolution presented later in the week about climate change, so this agenda item was left open.
The next issue was toxins in whale meat. Several countries expressed concern about the levels of mercury and PCBs in whale meat. Japan had a great quote about whaling nations (Iceland, Norway and Japan) having the longest life expectancy of any countries in the world. The conclusion seemed to be that monitoring this meat was a role of individual nation’s government.
The SC then discussed whale watching; in the coming year they are going to review the possible impacts of whale watching on cetaceans. Many nations spoke up in support of the non-lethal, sustainable “use” of whales. Several Caribbean nations voiced the concern that if whaling efforts shifted to whale watching, that the profits go back into the local communities.
Research Whaling Review
Next the SC presented the results of their review of special permit, or “research,” whaling. The review process was changed last year, so that the whaling proponent is less involved in the review, making it a more unbiased assessment. This year, the SC focused on JARPN II, Japan’s research whaling program in the North Pacific. The SC recommended that JARPN II identify more short term goals that could be used in future reviews to monitor progress. The SC found much of JARPN II’s data to be valuable contributions to science; one exception was their sperm whale take. The sample size was so low for this species that no conclusions could be drawn from the data. The SC recommended an analysis of lethal versus non-lethal research. They also concluded that the whale stocks involved in this hunt were not negatively impacted, except for potentially sei whales that are poorly understood. There is concern about the J stock of minke whales, but the SC found that most of these animals were taken through bycatch in fisheries and not through research whaling.
Once the SC finished its report, many nations spoke up to condemn research whaling. The overall theme of these comments was that most of what was learned through this research could be learned through non-lethal techniques and that the amount of information garnered from this hunt does not warrant the thousands of whales killed. At the end of the discussion, Japan commented that they were pleasantly surprised how unbiased the review was and were happy to have real scientific discussion with the “able scientists” of the SC.
The remainder of the meeting was an extensive (or seemingly never ending) discussion about safety at sea. The agenda item opened with Japan giving a presentation about the aggressive, life threatening attacks on their whaling ships by the Sea Shepherd in Antarctica. Once their presentation was over, almost every nation (that’s 85 nations!) in the Commission spoke to condemn these dangerous activities. Many nations also pointed out that the IWC is not the forum to address these issues; they need to be addressed with the International Maritime Organization.
Greenland Update
Although there was a huge amount of behind-the-scenes activity from commissioners and NGOs, the issue of Greenland’s proposed subsistence whaling quota was pushed until Thursday. The IWC Chair urged the Commission to make this decision by consensus and not require a vote, but some nations (most notable the EU) were blocking the proposal. Partway through the day, Greenland amended their proposal to be ten humpback whales just for 2010 (previously it had been ten per year). NGOs were lobbying commissioners, commissioners were meeting behind closed doors and numbers were being thrown around. As of this moment (Thursday morning), the latest word is that the EU will not support a take of ten humpback whales, but may support one of only six for one year. There is a closed door commissioners meeting this morning, so we will see if they have come to consensus on this issue or it will have to go to a vote as it did last year.
The three anti whaling representatives were the Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society of the United States and the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition. They condemned research and small type coastal whaling, supported action by the IWC to promote whale watching and research global climate change, and requested increased NGO involvement in the IWC.
The three pro whaling representatives were the International Transport Workers (Japan), Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chuktoka (Russian natives) and Te Ohu Kaimoana (New Zealand natives). The first speaker was a crew member on a Japanese research whaling ship and he addressed safety at sea, condemning the aggressive actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The second two speakers defended the native right to hunt whales and encouraged the IWC to compromise to move the organization forward.
Scientific Committee Reports
Next the Scientific Committee (SC) Chair presented a summary of the climate change subcommittee meeting held in February. The recommendation from the committee was that climate change may have significant impact on cetaceans and should be taken seriously. Many nations spoke up at this point to support work on this important issue. There is going to be a draft resolution presented later in the week about climate change, so this agenda item was left open.
The next issue was toxins in whale meat. Several countries expressed concern about the levels of mercury and PCBs in whale meat. Japan had a great quote about whaling nations (Iceland, Norway and Japan) having the longest life expectancy of any countries in the world. The conclusion seemed to be that monitoring this meat was a role of individual nation’s government.
The SC then discussed whale watching; in the coming year they are going to review the possible impacts of whale watching on cetaceans. Many nations spoke up in support of the non-lethal, sustainable “use” of whales. Several Caribbean nations voiced the concern that if whaling efforts shifted to whale watching, that the profits go back into the local communities.
Research Whaling Review
Next the SC presented the results of their review of special permit, or “research,” whaling. The review process was changed last year, so that the whaling proponent is less involved in the review, making it a more unbiased assessment. This year, the SC focused on JARPN II, Japan’s research whaling program in the North Pacific. The SC recommended that JARPN II identify more short term goals that could be used in future reviews to monitor progress. The SC found much of JARPN II’s data to be valuable contributions to science; one exception was their sperm whale take. The sample size was so low for this species that no conclusions could be drawn from the data. The SC recommended an analysis of lethal versus non-lethal research. They also concluded that the whale stocks involved in this hunt were not negatively impacted, except for potentially sei whales that are poorly understood. There is concern about the J stock of minke whales, but the SC found that most of these animals were taken through bycatch in fisheries and not through research whaling.
Once the SC finished its report, many nations spoke up to condemn research whaling. The overall theme of these comments was that most of what was learned through this research could be learned through non-lethal techniques and that the amount of information garnered from this hunt does not warrant the thousands of whales killed. At the end of the discussion, Japan commented that they were pleasantly surprised how unbiased the review was and were happy to have real scientific discussion with the “able scientists” of the SC.
The remainder of the meeting was an extensive (or seemingly never ending) discussion about safety at sea. The agenda item opened with Japan giving a presentation about the aggressive, life threatening attacks on their whaling ships by the Sea Shepherd in Antarctica. Once their presentation was over, almost every nation (that’s 85 nations!) in the Commission spoke to condemn these dangerous activities. Many nations also pointed out that the IWC is not the forum to address these issues; they need to be addressed with the International Maritime Organization.
Greenland Update
Although there was a huge amount of behind-the-scenes activity from commissioners and NGOs, the issue of Greenland’s proposed subsistence whaling quota was pushed until Thursday. The IWC Chair urged the Commission to make this decision by consensus and not require a vote, but some nations (most notable the EU) were blocking the proposal. Partway through the day, Greenland amended their proposal to be ten humpback whales just for 2010 (previously it had been ten per year). NGOs were lobbying commissioners, commissioners were meeting behind closed doors and numbers were being thrown around. As of this moment (Thursday morning), the latest word is that the EU will not support a take of ten humpback whales, but may support one of only six for one year. There is a closed door commissioners meeting this morning, so we will see if they have come to consensus on this issue or it will have to go to a vote as it did last year.
23 June 2009
Second Day Brings More Controversy
Tuesday morning marked the start of the potentially contentious issues. On the agenda were the future of the IWC and aboriginal subsistence whaling (see my “calm before the storm” blog for a little background).
The Future
IWC Chair Bill Hogarth led off the day with a presentation of the Small Working Group’s (SWG) progress so far. At a closed commissioner’s meeting on the Sunday before the start of plenary, the Commission agreed by consensus to pass a resolution continuing the SWG for another year. There was a great deal of discussion related to this resolution.
Australia made a proposal that the IWC should be responsible for identifying research priorities that provide information for conservation and management of whales. Their proposal called for all scientific research to be related to these priorities and to use methodology with the least impact on species and populations. Under these conditions, special permit (aka, “research”) whaling would likely not fit these criteria and would, therefore, be eliminated (Australia’s ultimate goal). In an effort to maintain consensus, Australia presented this proposal just to generate discussion and brainstorming, rather than to bring it to a vote. The U.S. followed up by actually supporting Australia’s proposal and stating unequivocally that they oppose special permit whaling. For a few brief, shining moments, I was actually proud to be a U.S. citizen at the IWC! Japan, as would be expected, came out against this proposal and emphasized the need for compromise in the discussions of the IWC’s future.
Many other nations made comments that generally fell along the typical pro or anti- whaling lines. There were some common themes throughout, such as making the process more transparent, involving non-profit organizations, promoting good communication and involving representatives from different geographic, ideological and socio-economic groups in the proceedings. In general, there was support for the resolution to continue the SWG process for another year. After earnest discussion about semantic points in the wording of the resolution, it was passed by consensus.
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
The next topic was subsistence whaling, which is whaling by native people for local consumption. The numbers of whales killed in various native hunts throughout the world were reviewed. These hunts include bowheads off Alaska, gray whales off Russia, humpback whales off St. Vincent and the Grenadines and minke, fin and bowhead whales off Greenland. One interesting note is that the Russian Federation continues to document so called “stinky” whales, which are whales that have normal behavior and external appearance, but have a significant chemical smell when cut open. The meat of these animals is inedible and the cause of the odor is unknown. In 2008, ten stinky whales were caught and samples from eight of those whales were sent out for analysis.
The biggest issue under this agenda item is Greenland’s proposal to increase their hunt, which currently includes minke, fin and bowhead whales, to include humpback whales. They propose to take ten humpback whales per year. In exchange, they would reduce their minke catch from 200 to 178 whales. This change would require a ¾ majority vote of the full IWC to pass. Denmark, on behalf of Greenland, made a presentation describing their request and the increased “need” for this whale meat.
There are a number of things that are controversial about Greenland’s aboriginal subsistence whaling program.
a) Greenland states an increased need for whale meat due to a 9% expansion in their human population, but this expansion is in the entire population of Greenland, not just the native community;
b) Meat from a subsistence hunt is supposed to be consumed in the local community. Meat from Greenland’s hunt is consumed locally, sold in open air markets and even packaged and sold to supermarkets;
c) Unlike most subsistence hunts, Greenland specifies its “need” in tonnage rather than number of whales. This is an issue because the conversion factor for tonnage of meat yield per whale has not been officially identified for each species.
This same proposal was brought before the IWC last year and it was voted down due questions regarding the issues above. There was some work in the Scientific Committee to address the conversion factor for meat yield, but nothing has been agreed upon at this point. As you can imagine, there was a flurry of hands waving in the air to make comments on Greenland’s proposal and, again, opinions and remarks fell along typical pro and anti-whaling lines. Anti-whaling nations emphasized the need for an agreed-upon conversion factor before moving forward. Pro-whaling nations had some impressively dramatic speeches about Greenland people going hungry (of course they don’t mention the small cetaceans, seals and terrestrial mammals that are also hunted by Greenlanders). They also emphasized the fact that the Scientific Committee stated that a quota of ten humpback whales per year would not damage the stock.
Other nations were awaiting their turns to speak when the Chair asked to postpone the rest of comments and the vote until Wednesday afternoon. I think he was hoping for one more attempt for the commissioners to come to consensus. Certainly, if this proposal is voted down again, there will be many angry nations and potential implications in the whole cooperative spirit of the SWG process. The U.S. was one of the next nations to speak when we moved on to another topic, so we don’t yet know how they will vote. Last year, much to my dismay, the U.S. voted in favor of Greenland’s proposal to take humpback whales. Their reasoning was that they support the precedent of following recommendations of the Scientific Committee, which in this case stated that the hunt would not negatively affect the population. However, there are likely other underlying reasons for a yes vote. The U.S. is very protective of the Alaskan Inuit hunt and, in my opinion, if they vote against the Greenland aboriginal subsistence hunt they might open the door to attacks on the Alaskan hunt. I will anxiously await the U.S.’s comments and the outcome of the Greenland vote tomorrow.
The Future
IWC Chair Bill Hogarth led off the day with a presentation of the Small Working Group’s (SWG) progress so far. At a closed commissioner’s meeting on the Sunday before the start of plenary, the Commission agreed by consensus to pass a resolution continuing the SWG for another year. There was a great deal of discussion related to this resolution.
Australia made a proposal that the IWC should be responsible for identifying research priorities that provide information for conservation and management of whales. Their proposal called for all scientific research to be related to these priorities and to use methodology with the least impact on species and populations. Under these conditions, special permit (aka, “research”) whaling would likely not fit these criteria and would, therefore, be eliminated (Australia’s ultimate goal). In an effort to maintain consensus, Australia presented this proposal just to generate discussion and brainstorming, rather than to bring it to a vote. The U.S. followed up by actually supporting Australia’s proposal and stating unequivocally that they oppose special permit whaling. For a few brief, shining moments, I was actually proud to be a U.S. citizen at the IWC! Japan, as would be expected, came out against this proposal and emphasized the need for compromise in the discussions of the IWC’s future.
Many other nations made comments that generally fell along the typical pro or anti- whaling lines. There were some common themes throughout, such as making the process more transparent, involving non-profit organizations, promoting good communication and involving representatives from different geographic, ideological and socio-economic groups in the proceedings. In general, there was support for the resolution to continue the SWG process for another year. After earnest discussion about semantic points in the wording of the resolution, it was passed by consensus.
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
The next topic was subsistence whaling, which is whaling by native people for local consumption. The numbers of whales killed in various native hunts throughout the world were reviewed. These hunts include bowheads off Alaska, gray whales off Russia, humpback whales off St. Vincent and the Grenadines and minke, fin and bowhead whales off Greenland. One interesting note is that the Russian Federation continues to document so called “stinky” whales, which are whales that have normal behavior and external appearance, but have a significant chemical smell when cut open. The meat of these animals is inedible and the cause of the odor is unknown. In 2008, ten stinky whales were caught and samples from eight of those whales were sent out for analysis.
The biggest issue under this agenda item is Greenland’s proposal to increase their hunt, which currently includes minke, fin and bowhead whales, to include humpback whales. They propose to take ten humpback whales per year. In exchange, they would reduce their minke catch from 200 to 178 whales. This change would require a ¾ majority vote of the full IWC to pass. Denmark, on behalf of Greenland, made a presentation describing their request and the increased “need” for this whale meat.
There are a number of things that are controversial about Greenland’s aboriginal subsistence whaling program.
a) Greenland states an increased need for whale meat due to a 9% expansion in their human population, but this expansion is in the entire population of Greenland, not just the native community;
b) Meat from a subsistence hunt is supposed to be consumed in the local community. Meat from Greenland’s hunt is consumed locally, sold in open air markets and even packaged and sold to supermarkets;
c) Unlike most subsistence hunts, Greenland specifies its “need” in tonnage rather than number of whales. This is an issue because the conversion factor for tonnage of meat yield per whale has not been officially identified for each species.
This same proposal was brought before the IWC last year and it was voted down due questions regarding the issues above. There was some work in the Scientific Committee to address the conversion factor for meat yield, but nothing has been agreed upon at this point. As you can imagine, there was a flurry of hands waving in the air to make comments on Greenland’s proposal and, again, opinions and remarks fell along typical pro and anti-whaling lines. Anti-whaling nations emphasized the need for an agreed-upon conversion factor before moving forward. Pro-whaling nations had some impressively dramatic speeches about Greenland people going hungry (of course they don’t mention the small cetaceans, seals and terrestrial mammals that are also hunted by Greenlanders). They also emphasized the fact that the Scientific Committee stated that a quota of ten humpback whales per year would not damage the stock.
Other nations were awaiting their turns to speak when the Chair asked to postpone the rest of comments and the vote until Wednesday afternoon. I think he was hoping for one more attempt for the commissioners to come to consensus. Certainly, if this proposal is voted down again, there will be many angry nations and potential implications in the whole cooperative spirit of the SWG process. The U.S. was one of the next nations to speak when we moved on to another topic, so we don’t yet know how they will vote. Last year, much to my dismay, the U.S. voted in favor of Greenland’s proposal to take humpback whales. Their reasoning was that they support the precedent of following recommendations of the Scientific Committee, which in this case stated that the hunt would not negatively affect the population. However, there are likely other underlying reasons for a yes vote. The U.S. is very protective of the Alaskan Inuit hunt and, in my opinion, if they vote against the Greenland aboriginal subsistence hunt they might open the door to attacks on the Alaskan hunt. I will anxiously await the U.S.’s comments and the outcome of the Greenland vote tomorrow.
Let the Meeting Begin
The first day of plenary session started off with less than a bang (more like a soft pop). We started the day with opening statements from the President of the regional government of Madeira and the Portugese Minister of the Environment. They emphasized the importance of research and conservation, stressing the economic value of whale watching versus whaling. The overall message was one of compromise to get over the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) “stalemate.”
IWC Chair Bill Hogarth took the floor to announce that he had received no draft resolutions to be considered and voted on by the Commission. The nations of the IWC have agreed to work towards consensus in this year’s meeting (just as they did last year) in order to generate a more cooperative and, supposedly, more efficient meeting. However, being that there are extremely divergent opinions from different nations of the IWC and consensus is almost impossible, this agreement ties the Commission’s hands so that no decisions can be made. Perhaps even worse is that if no resolutions are presented to the group, there is no discussion on these important issues.
Whale Stock Review
We launched into the Scientific Committee’s (SC) report on whale stock estimates. The SC is still working on the abundance estimate for Antarctic minke whales, which are the focus of one of Japan’s research whaling programs (JARPA), and hope to have it by 2010. There is a discrepancy between the two models they have used to estimate overall abundance based on sightings data during boat-based surveys in the Antarctic. The SC is also working on an abundance estimate for Western North Pacific minke whale, which is the focus of the other Japanese research whaling program (JARPN). There is concern about the so-called “J” stock, which is lower in number than the “O” stock and has a significant problem with bycatch in local fisheries. The United Kingdom and the United States expressed concern about the J stock and the continued whaling efforts on this stock. Japan rebutted by saying that the concerns about this stock are exaggerated; it must be increasing because Japan’s bycatch of these animals has been increasing (you have to love the logic!).
Next on the agenda were humpback whales around eastern Africa. The SC found that there has been significant recovery of several of these sub-stocks; the recovery estimates range from 65% to 98%, depending on the stock and the model results. New Zealand expressed concern that the IWC use the conservative principle when dealing with this species, because the recovery rates of different stocks are very different and they intermingle in certain areas of their range.
The last major discussion in whale stocks dealt with western gray whales, which are highly endangered. The SC recommended increased research effort, including satellite tagging and genetic analyses, to better understand the movements and potential threats to this species. The U.K. and U.S. expressed concern about this species and encouraged research efforts. However, the Russian Federation expressed reservations over the effect of research on the whales. They encouraged cooperation and sharing of data so that research efforts, such as biopsy sampling, would not be repeated by different researchers, thereby reducing the effect on the whales.
Review of Whale Killing Methods
Under this agenda item, the committee chair reviewed the data submitted by Norway, Greenland and the Alaskan Inuit. These data are voluntary; Iceland and Japan do not submit their data to the IWC. Norway caught 535 whales in 2008 and only four were struck and lost. Although Norway has been consistent in reported their catch numbers in recent years, several nations encouraged them to also submit welfare information, such as the time between the first strike and death of the animal (“time to death”). Greenland reported an increase in time to death; this difference was due to increased use of rifles instead of harpoons, but they did not specify why rifles were used more often in 2008. The Alaskan Inuits reported 38 whales caught and 12 struck and lost (only 76% efficiency); this percentage was due to poor weather and ice cover. The U.K. suggested that the IWC compare the standards used by the World Organization of Animal Health for domestic animals with whaling practices in order to come up with a minimum standard for animal welfare. Norway responded by saying that people should not have double standards and should look within their own countries to see how hunted birds, deer and other species are treated (good point, but I would argue that this means we should have minimum standards for all animals, including whales).
Thoughts on the Day
Overall, the first day of plenary session was short, relatively congenial and not overly interesting. The divergent opinions of pro and anti-whaling nations occasionally peaked through during discussion, but we will have to wait for discussions later in the week to really see sparks fly.
IWC Chair Bill Hogarth took the floor to announce that he had received no draft resolutions to be considered and voted on by the Commission. The nations of the IWC have agreed to work towards consensus in this year’s meeting (just as they did last year) in order to generate a more cooperative and, supposedly, more efficient meeting. However, being that there are extremely divergent opinions from different nations of the IWC and consensus is almost impossible, this agreement ties the Commission’s hands so that no decisions can be made. Perhaps even worse is that if no resolutions are presented to the group, there is no discussion on these important issues.
Whale Stock Review
We launched into the Scientific Committee’s (SC) report on whale stock estimates. The SC is still working on the abundance estimate for Antarctic minke whales, which are the focus of one of Japan’s research whaling programs (JARPA), and hope to have it by 2010. There is a discrepancy between the two models they have used to estimate overall abundance based on sightings data during boat-based surveys in the Antarctic. The SC is also working on an abundance estimate for Western North Pacific minke whale, which is the focus of the other Japanese research whaling program (JARPN). There is concern about the so-called “J” stock, which is lower in number than the “O” stock and has a significant problem with bycatch in local fisheries. The United Kingdom and the United States expressed concern about the J stock and the continued whaling efforts on this stock. Japan rebutted by saying that the concerns about this stock are exaggerated; it must be increasing because Japan’s bycatch of these animals has been increasing (you have to love the logic!).
Next on the agenda were humpback whales around eastern Africa. The SC found that there has been significant recovery of several of these sub-stocks; the recovery estimates range from 65% to 98%, depending on the stock and the model results. New Zealand expressed concern that the IWC use the conservative principle when dealing with this species, because the recovery rates of different stocks are very different and they intermingle in certain areas of their range.
The last major discussion in whale stocks dealt with western gray whales, which are highly endangered. The SC recommended increased research effort, including satellite tagging and genetic analyses, to better understand the movements and potential threats to this species. The U.K. and U.S. expressed concern about this species and encouraged research efforts. However, the Russian Federation expressed reservations over the effect of research on the whales. They encouraged cooperation and sharing of data so that research efforts, such as biopsy sampling, would not be repeated by different researchers, thereby reducing the effect on the whales.
Review of Whale Killing Methods
Under this agenda item, the committee chair reviewed the data submitted by Norway, Greenland and the Alaskan Inuit. These data are voluntary; Iceland and Japan do not submit their data to the IWC. Norway caught 535 whales in 2008 and only four were struck and lost. Although Norway has been consistent in reported their catch numbers in recent years, several nations encouraged them to also submit welfare information, such as the time between the first strike and death of the animal (“time to death”). Greenland reported an increase in time to death; this difference was due to increased use of rifles instead of harpoons, but they did not specify why rifles were used more often in 2008. The Alaskan Inuits reported 38 whales caught and 12 struck and lost (only 76% efficiency); this percentage was due to poor weather and ice cover. The U.K. suggested that the IWC compare the standards used by the World Organization of Animal Health for domestic animals with whaling practices in order to come up with a minimum standard for animal welfare. Norway responded by saying that people should not have double standards and should look within their own countries to see how hunted birds, deer and other species are treated (good point, but I would argue that this means we should have minimum standards for all animals, including whales).
Thoughts on the Day
Overall, the first day of plenary session was short, relatively congenial and not overly interesting. The divergent opinions of pro and anti-whaling nations occasionally peaked through during discussion, but we will have to wait for discussions later in the week to really see sparks fly.
21 June 2009
Calm Before the Storm
It is the evening of Sunday, June 21st in Madeira, Portugal. Tomorrow starts the 61st annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) plenary session. Delegations from over eighty member nations and representatives from approximately 75 non-profit organizations have flooded into the capital city of Funchal. Meetings have been going on for weeks already; scientific committee, various subcommittees and hundreds of small, directed meetings have laid the groundwork for the plenary session where the decisions on the future of whaling will be made.
As in previous IWC meetings, there are a few issues (some that you’ve all heard before) that are going to draw the most attention and possible controversy. One of the most important issues is the future of the IWC. A Small Working Group (SWG) on this issue has been striving to find solutions to the deadlock in the IWC between the pro and anti-whaling contingents. The SWG has urged the Commission to make all decisions by consensus, which for countries that have such divergent views means that any real issues could not be brought to a vote or risk causing strife and hostility.
Since last year’s meeting, the SWG has met multiple times and seemed to be close to a “deal” that would change the direction of the IWC. The deal involved Japan reducing its research whaling program in the Antarctic in exchange for the IWC allowing Japan to start a “small type coastal whaling” program in the North Pacific. The conservation community, including ACS, was outraged by this proposal because the formation of this new category of whaling would completely undermine the commercial whaling moratorium (of 1982) and open the door to other nations starting programs such as these in their own countries. Luckily, the deal fell through when Japan requested too many whales for the small type coastal whaling, but this issue will continue to be a hot button topic.
Another issue for this year’s meeting is that Greenland, which has a subsistence hunt of fin and minke whales, will state an increased “need” for whale meat due to their expanding population. This translates into a proposal for an increased number of whales killed and, more specifically, a proposal to add humpback whales to their quota. Greenland made this proposal last year, as well, and during that meeting it was the spark that ignited the polite, consensus-oriented meeting into the more typical IWC model of animosity and angry speeches. Greenland will push this issue to a vote again this year and the result is likely to be similar to last year.
Other issues that will be discussed include everything from the effects of global warming on cetaceans, Iceland possibly joining the European Union and the possible implications for its whaling program, toxins in whale meat and many more. One exciting development for this year’s meeting is that the anti-whaling nations have a significant majority, which may have an impact on the outcome of the meeting.
There are many more issues that will surely be discussed this year and we’ll have to take those one at a time. Stay tuned to my blog and I’ll guide you through this year’s sure to be exciting meeting of the International Whaling Commission.
-Kate Sardi
Research Chair, ACS
As in previous IWC meetings, there are a few issues (some that you’ve all heard before) that are going to draw the most attention and possible controversy. One of the most important issues is the future of the IWC. A Small Working Group (SWG) on this issue has been striving to find solutions to the deadlock in the IWC between the pro and anti-whaling contingents. The SWG has urged the Commission to make all decisions by consensus, which for countries that have such divergent views means that any real issues could not be brought to a vote or risk causing strife and hostility.
Since last year’s meeting, the SWG has met multiple times and seemed to be close to a “deal” that would change the direction of the IWC. The deal involved Japan reducing its research whaling program in the Antarctic in exchange for the IWC allowing Japan to start a “small type coastal whaling” program in the North Pacific. The conservation community, including ACS, was outraged by this proposal because the formation of this new category of whaling would completely undermine the commercial whaling moratorium (of 1982) and open the door to other nations starting programs such as these in their own countries. Luckily, the deal fell through when Japan requested too many whales for the small type coastal whaling, but this issue will continue to be a hot button topic.
Another issue for this year’s meeting is that Greenland, which has a subsistence hunt of fin and minke whales, will state an increased “need” for whale meat due to their expanding population. This translates into a proposal for an increased number of whales killed and, more specifically, a proposal to add humpback whales to their quota. Greenland made this proposal last year, as well, and during that meeting it was the spark that ignited the polite, consensus-oriented meeting into the more typical IWC model of animosity and angry speeches. Greenland will push this issue to a vote again this year and the result is likely to be similar to last year.
Other issues that will be discussed include everything from the effects of global warming on cetaceans, Iceland possibly joining the European Union and the possible implications for its whaling program, toxins in whale meat and many more. One exciting development for this year’s meeting is that the anti-whaling nations have a significant majority, which may have an impact on the outcome of the meeting.
There are many more issues that will surely be discussed this year and we’ll have to take those one at a time. Stay tuned to my blog and I’ll guide you through this year’s sure to be exciting meeting of the International Whaling Commission.
-Kate Sardi
Research Chair, ACS
15 June 2009
Watching the IWC meeting
One thing I forgot in my last post - you can actually watch the IWC meeting on-line at http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/iwc/iwcmeeting.html. Be aware that the site is in Japanese - it is the web site of the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo (the folks doing the "research" whaling), but they will broadcast live (and the meeting is all in english). Madeira is five hours before east coast US time, and 8 hours ahead of US west coast time, but it will be webcast throughout.
- Mason
- Mason
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
