the American Cetacean Society at the IWC

IWC Wraps Up For Another Year

2009-06-26T15:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Greenland Update

2009-06-25T03:30:00.001-07:00

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.

Halfway Through the Meeting

2009-06-25T02:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Second Day Brings More Controversy

2009-06-23T15:48:00.000-07:00

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.

Let the Meeting Begin

2009-06-23T01:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Calm Before the Storm

2009-06-21T15:06:00.000-07:00

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

Watching the IWC meeting

2009-06-15T20:04:00.000-07:00

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

Getting Ready for IWC/61

2009-06-15T11:21:00.000-07:00

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

IWC 60 - Fourth Day of Plenary

2008-06-27T07:49:00.000-07:00

The commission and the NGOs arrived for the fourth day of plenary with curiosity and trepidation about what the day would bring. There were two divisive issues, the South Atlantic Sanctuary and the Greenland schedule amendment, that could potentially come to a vote. Either issue would likely change the tone of cooperation and hope of voting by consensus that the commission had struggled to uphold so far at the meeting.

We started with some last details of the Conservation Committee report, most of which were issues already brought up earlier in the meeting, and then launched right into Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW). The Chair of ASW reviewed several populations that are the focus of ASW efforts. He started with the eastern North Pacific gray whales and the problem of “stinky” whales. In a small percentage of gray whales, when they are flensed, they give off a strong, chemical odor; these whales are inedible. The cause of this phenomenon is unknown, but hypotheses that I have read include toxins (such as PCBs) built up or prey switching that causes some sort of chemical reaction in the tissues. The Russian Federation, whose ASW program focuses on this species, has suggested for several years that these whales not count under their quota because they are unusable. They stated that they will bring a schedule amendment to the IWC next year in relation to this problem. During this conversation, Mexico requested that a different name be used for these animals, but without a definition or cause identified the commission seems to be avoiding giving them an official name [besides, “stinkies” adds a certain child-like silliness to the meeting that is sorely lacking otherwise]. The Chair then very briefly reviewed stock assessments and quotas for other ASW species.

At this point, we launched into Denmark’s (on behalf of Greenland) request for a schedule amendment. Denmark gave a brief synopsis of the rationale for their request. At last year’s meeting, they provided a statement of need (730 tons of whale meat), which was based on an increase in Greenland’s population. The like-minded NGOs were upset about this increased need for a few reasons. 1) Greenland’s overall population shouldn’t impact the ASW quota, b/c ASW is supposed to feed only those people in the local aboriginal community. 2) The need stated here is for whale meat only. The blubber, which makes up a significant proportion of yield from large cetaceans, though eaten as well, is not included in this need. 3) The small cetacean take, which totals approximately the same amount of tonnage as the need statement, are also not included. In spite of these issues, the SC did approve the need statement last year. Denmark also reviewed the SC’s recommendation that a quota of ten humpback whales per year would not negatively impact the stock. Finally, knowing that taking humpback whales is always very contentious, Denmark offered to reduce their fin whale take if the humpback whale amendment was passed.

The Chair opened the floor to comments and a second later you could barely see him past the sea of waving hands. The first nation to take the floor was Slovenia, speaking on behalf of the entire EU voting block. Slovenia recognized the SC’s recommendations and the approved statement of need, but stated their opposition to the request. With this, there was a lot of murmuring throughout the room and the Chair, sounding resigned, acknowledged that his dream of an IWC based on consensus decisions had failed. This issue would have to come to a vote.

Comments fell out along the typical pro and anti-whaling lines. In the pro camp were Korea, Japan, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the Russian Federation and most of the Caribbean nations; in the like-minded camp were the EU, Australia, New Zealand, and most Latin American countries. Many of the speeches from the pro-whalers were emotionally charged, high volume, and with a fair amount of dramatic grandstanding. The Russian Federation talked again about throwing people into the fire. St. Kitts and Nevis and others spoke of Greenland’s basic human right to eat and whether the EU wants to take away other nation’s right to eat. Several nations criticized like-minded countries for making decisions based on emotion, not science. [In fairness to the pro-whaling nations, the EU did not explain why they were opposing the request, so it was understandable that they would think it was simply because they feel an emotional bond to humpback whales. In addition, if Greenland removed an equivalent number of fin whales from their quota, then few to no more whales would be killed.] Most of the pro-whaling nations expressed their disappointment that the efforts at consensus in the IWC had failed and questioned the validity of the IWC in the future. Another common thread was their anger at the EU voting as a block, because they claimed it fundamentally changed voting in the IWC. Slovenia later countered that each EU nation still has one vote, but there is simply an agreement that, if possible, they will vote the same due to common beliefs.

There was some confusion about whether the SC catch limit for ten humpback whales was a temporary, one-year recommendation pending further review or an annual limit. Several anti-whaling countries believed the former and used it as reasoning to oppose the schedule amendment. The SC Chair interjected to clarify that this was an annual catch limit good for two quota periods (ten years). Some of the opposed nations stated that they needed more information on Greenland’s subsistence need, because they were not yet convinced. Chile mirrored the concern of the pro-whaling nations that this issue has taken the IWC away from consensus; therefore, they announced that they would withdraw the South Atlantic Sanctuary proposal.

At this point, we came to the vote. The result was 29 for, 36 against, and 2 abstentions. The proposal failed. The only surprise in the vote was that the U.S. voted for the proposal. The U.S. took the floor to explain their vote; they voted in favor because they have a long history of supporting management recommendations by the SC and in this case the SC clearly stated that the take would not harm the stock. They said they are concerned about the precedent of ignoring the advice of the SC. Many other nations then took the floor to explain their vote, but the arguments were much the same as the previous discussion.

The next agenda item was Sanctuaries, which did not require action due to Chile withdrawing the South Atlantic Sanctuary proposal. Still, the Latin American countries presented a video in support of the Sanctuary. [This video was very touchy feely, with residents of range nations saying that whales should not be hunted because they are beautiful, special creatures and telling about their whale watching experiences. The tone of the video seemed to make the pro-whaling nations’ point that like-minded countries make decisions based on emotion rather than science. Nowhere in this video was the scientific reasoning for a sanctuary.]

Many nations commented on the sanctuary proposal even though it had been withdrawn. The comments again fell along typical pro and anti-whaling lines, so I won’t bore you with them. Suffice it to say that it all started to sound like someone had tape recorded the last round of speeches and had rewound and pressed play during this time. [Being conservation minded myself, I believe in sanctuaries; however, if the South Atlantic Sanctuary will be equivalent to the Southern Ocean “Sanctuary,” where the Japanese kill over 500 minkes every year, then I’m not so sure it’s worth all this debate. Unless the sanctuary will actually mean something in practice then it just seems like yet another conservation measure to make ourselves feel better and not to actually protect whales.]

We finished the day wrapping up some loose ends from the rest of the meeting. The last day of plenary will involve finances and other administrative issues in the morning and a closed working group in the afternoon. Being that I would guess people want to read about those issues even less than I want to sit through a meeting talking about them, I’ll wrap up on the IWC blog here.

Overall, this year’s IWC meeting made a few small steps towards “normalization” and a more cooperative atmosphere. However, as I would expect will be the case every year, this cooperation lasted only until the commission was faced with divisive issues. The feelings on each side are so contrary and so heartfelt that compromise, though a noble goal, may be too much to ask. The goal of normalization was to break the stalemate that the IWC has been in for years. However, if the only way to generate consensus and thereby make decisions is to boil down every issue into bland and ineffectual language or to eliminate decisions on important, potentially divisive issues, then what have we gained? The IWC will still be in a stalemate; only in this case there will be soft voices and smiles instead of the traditional model of angry speeches. We leave IWC 60 with very few developments in whaling efforts; Greenland will maintain the same ASW quota, Japan will continue their research whaling program, and there are no new sanctuaries for whales. We will see what IWC 61 holds in store for whales when it meets in 2009 in Medeira, Portugal.

IWC 60 - Third Day of Plenary

2008-06-26T20:16:00.000-07:00

The veil of camaraderie slipped a little today. We started the morning session with a discussion of Japan’s “small type coastal” (STC) whaling. They stated that they feel pressure from the coastal whaling communities to push this agenda item, but in honor of the new sprit of cooperation at the IWC, they decided not to pursue a schedule amendment this year.

We moved on to discuss whaling under Special Permit, or research whaling. The focus of this discussion was also Japan; research whaling is conducted in Iceland, as well, but they seem to fly under the radar. The Scientific Committee (SC) Chair introduced a novel mechanism to review new research whaling proposals in the SC. New proposals will be reviewed by an expert, balanced working group at an intersessional meeting. This new review process was met with praise by most countries, including Japan and the U.S. The SC Chair reported on results from current research permits and stated that there were no new proposals on the table this year.

In spite of the fact that there were no decisions to be made this year in regards to research whaling, there was a firestorm of commentary from member nations. There were many strong statements, including one from the U.S., against research whaling. These statements emphasized that research whaling should be replaced by the many non-lethal techniques available today and that the little information yielded by this research is not necessary for IWC management of whale stocks. New Zealand and the U.K. expressed that their citizens are outraged by research whaling. Australia made a two part proposal: 1) that the IWC decide first what research is needed for successful management of whales and only lethal research programs that meet those data needs will be approved, and 2) that nations form a non-lethal, cooperative research program to fill in data gaps. There was further discussion about this proposal later during the new initiatives agenda item and it was met with a great deal of support. Mexico made an excellent point that after 18 years of Japan’s whaling program in the Antarctic they still have not obtained their primary objective, which is a definition of stock structure.

On the flip side, there was a reciprocal burst of commentary from the pro-whaling contingent. Iceland stated that every country has a lethal research program on animals and he discouraged double standards just because we’re dealing with whales. St. Kitts & Nevis stated that whales and other marine resources belong to all nations, so no nation should usurp another’s rights to use these resources. Japan challenged anti-whaling nations saying that they base their arguments on emotion rather than data. Finally, the Russian Federation came in with my favorite quote of the day. The Russian commissioner told the story of Copernicus being burned at the stake because he dared say that the earth orbited the sun. He said that when Copernicus was burned, the crowd cheered; the crowd was likely the beginning of the NGO community (there it is… so far the leader for best quote of the meeting!). He went on to say that he hopes we are not pushing Japan into the fire as we did with Copernicus. The Chair, Bill Hogarth, encouraged the commission to move on from this topic.

We next moved to the issue of Safety at Sea, which focused mostly on the aggressive interactions between Sea Shepherd and the Japanese whaling vessels in the Antarctic. Japan described the protesters’ actions, such as throwing bottles with supposed irritable chemicals onto the vessel and using ropes to impede its navigation. Japan said that it was watching closely to see how the IWC reacted to these allegations. The commission was supportive of Japan saying that threat to human life was inexcusable, that they would cooperate to bring perpetrators to justice, and that they were concerned about the possibility of an environmental disaster in pristine Antarctic waters. The anti-whaling groups also did mention that they do support peaceful protest on the high seas, but not these threatening actions.

The next agenda item was Environmental and Health Issues. Working groups will be formed to deal with Antarctic ecosystem modeling and with climate change. There was a great deal of support for both working groups and the U.S. offered financial support for the climate change workshop [this made the NGOs very happy].

The meeting shifted next to the topic of Small Cetaceans. The issue of small cetaceans is generally controversial, b/c whaling nations don’t believe that it falls under the purview of the IWC. However, some of the worst welfare and stock exploitation issues fall under this category. The Chair of the SC touched on a number of small cetacean issues worldwide. He expressed the SC’s continued concern about the Vaquita; the population is no more than 150 animals and with the current by-catch rate it will likely be extinct in five years. If it is going to survive, all gill nets must be removed from the Gulf of California immediately. Mexico took the floor to announce that by presidential decree, they have earmarked 15 million dollars to remove all gill nets from the range of the Vaquita. This announcement was met by a great deal of gratitude and offers of support. Dall’s porpoise received a lot of attention this year because of Japan’s large drive fishery for this species. U.K. stated that the IWC has passed two resolutions, the most recent in 2001, condemning the Dall’s porpoise hunt as unsustainable; since the second resolution, 88,000 Dall’s porpoise have been killed. They encouraged Japan, in this new spirit of cooperation, to take the majority opinion to heart and reduce their hunt.

At this point, we broke for lunch and during the break Japan gave a presentation on their research whaling program. The highlights were that they have published many papers from this work, have many important findings, and are gathering information that can’t be obtained through non-lethal means. [As an editorial aside, there are a few things that can’t be obtained through non-lethal methods, but most of the information that we need for management of whale stocks can be gathered through photo-identification mark-recapture studies, biopsy sampling and analysis (including genetics, stable isotopes to determine trophic level of diet, and more), fecal analysis, ultrasound blubber thickness measurements, prey mapping/sampling, and tagging). Japan’s science is also questionable; they reach conclusions that are clearly self-serving and based on very little data… read on.] Japan said that they have documented a species shift in the Antarctic and that the recovery of humpback whales is causing competition for minke whales. The minkes are seen more often inside polynias (areas of open water) in the pack ice, whereas humpback whales are generally outside the pack ice. This led them to the conclusion that humpback whales are forcing the minkes closer to the ice. They also documented the minke whale age at sexual maturity as 12 years in 1945, 7 years in 1970, and a leveling off since then. These data led them to the same conclusion about competition and prey resources [instead of the possibilities that perhaps the 7 year maturity is optimal for minke whales and they simply have leveled off for this reason, or that climate change is impacting the Antarctic ecosystem, or many other plausible explanations].

When the commission returned, they moved to the agenda item for the Conservation Committee and the main discussion was a report from the ship strike working group. The group made several recommendations: 1) that the IWC secretariat maintains a ship strike database, 2) that member nations submit ship strike data regularly, and 3) that there is a workshop on ship strike mitigation. Ship strike is on the agenda for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting this year. There was general support for these recommendations and activities.

We finished the day with the NGO section, where six (three pro and three anti-whaling) NGOs were allowed to address the commission for five minutes each. Although only three NGOs were invited to speak, they stated that they were doing so on behalf of a long list of other NGOs, including the American Cetacean Society, that were listed on the official written copy of the statements that would go into the official record. I’ll start first with a summary of the pro-whaling NGOs: the High North Alliance from Norway, Women’s Forum for Fish from Japan, and Concepesca from the Caribbean. All three organizations are sustainable fisheries organizations and claim to support the continued, sustainable use of fish and whales as marine resources. They emphasized the importance of whaling to their communities and that they have a long history of fishing and whaling from their coasts. They also discussed the world food shortage and that whales are a renewable resource that doesn’t require agriculture to feed. They stated that whales are marine resources and should be available to all nations/ cultures. [I can appreciate that there are cultural differences in the world and that whaling may be a very important component of many communities. However, to me this does not trump the fact that this body was formed to manage whale stocks. If the stocks are not well understood or are being unsustainably hunted, culture shouldn’t enter into the equation. They are right that marine resources belong to everyone. They use this argument to justify whaling, but I say that it belongs just as much to me as to a Japanese whaler and what gives them the right to exterminate them?]

The like-minded NGOs, Greenpeace Japan, WWF West Africa, and CCC from Chile, discussed their support for sanctuaries and non-lethal uses such as whale watching. They stated support for the activities of the SC and the Conservation Committee and urged the IWC to consider all threats to whales, including by-catch and climate change. They expressed opposition for research whaling and any trade in whale products. They all emphasized the importance of civil society involvement in IWC proceedings.

The third NGO to speak was Greenpeace Japan and the decision was made amongst NGOs that he would give half of the presentation and that an English-speaking representative from an NGO in Dominica (who announced this year that they would not vote with Japan for the first time) would present the second half. Unfortunately, as the second person rose to speak, there was an emphatic objection raised by St. Kitts and Nevis who thought it unfair that four people were speaking on one side when only three spoke on the other side. After going back and forth for several minutes, the representative from Japan finished the presentation. This incident, though resulting apparently from a misunderstanding of protocol, caused some very negative feelings amongst members of the commission. In addition, being that this was the first year of NGO participation, it put into jeopardy the possibility of future involvement.

The day ended on an unfortunate note and tomorrow will be a long and difficult day with discussions and potentially a vote about Greenland’s proposed ASW expansion to include humpback whales and the proposal for the South Atlantic Sanctuary.

IWC 60 - Second Day of Plenary Part 2

2008-06-24T21:28:00.000-07:00

The pace of the first day of Plenary carried through to the second day. The commissioners had a closed meeting from 9am until almost noon, during which time the NGOs caught up on email, read part of their 10 lbs of handouts and reports, or chatted amongst each other. When the meeting resumed, the agenda was changed so that Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) was moved to Thursday morning and we started off with a report from the Future of the IWC working group. IWC Chair Bill Hogarth presented a document summarizing the procedural changes at the IWC. There were three primary changes:
1) Proposals for schedule amendments, draft resolutions, and changes to rules of procedure must be submitted to all commissioners 60 days prior to the meeting. This change was an effort to not “surprise” any members and to keep the IWC meetings non-confrontational.
2) Although English will continue to be the official IWC language, Spanish and French will be added as “working” languages. This means that any literature produced by the IWC must be translated into all three languages.
3) New countries to join the IWC must wait 30 days before receiving voting rights.

Fourteen nations spoke in support of this new plan for the IWC. The great majority of comments were congratulatory to the Chair, optimistic that this will make the meetings run more smoothly, and/or cautionary that this is only the plan and there is still a lot of work to do for implementation. For the most part, there were pats on the back and congratulations all around.

Only China, Korea, and the Russian Federation expressed reservations for the language changes. They voiced worries over the financial implications of having to make all resources available in three languages, but also over the fact that the other languages were not acknowledged.

After lunch, we shifted to the topic of Whale Watching. We watched a presentation from Argentina about whale watching in their country. The Chair of the Scientific Committee (SC) reported that they are concerned about reports of disturbance to whales from whale watching efforts, so they are going to embark on a worldwide research program to study these effects. The final proposal for this project will be presented next year.

Many countries (16 to be exact) made positive comments about the Whale Watching report. Most mentioned that they are extremely supportive of whale watching as a non-lethal, economically advantageous “use” of whales. They encouraged the SC’s research to determine the effects of whale watching on whales and also emphasized that there should be a code of conduct for whale watching programs to minimize impacts. Norway, Iceland, and St. Lucia commented that whaling and whale watching are not mutually exclusive; all three countries engage in both and they do not conflict. Korea expressed that they have not had success with developing a whale watching program.

Although the discussion of ASW was pushed until Thursday, two scientists from Greenland gave a presentation on their ASW program and proposed quota increase. Their proposal maintains the number of fins (19) and minkes (200) taken in their hunt, but increases their bowhead (2) and humpback (10) quotas. The presentation reviewed the latest stock assessments for both bowhead and humpback whales in Western Greenland. Bowheads are present in their area at a time when other species are absent, so adding this species to their quota will ease the hardship for their people during this time. This new proposal will produce approximately 694 tons of whale meat, which is 36 tons short of their stated “need.” Most of the whale meat is distributed locally to families, markets and community institutions (such as hospitals); however, a small amount of whale meat is sold to one company that distributes it to grocery stores in a wider area. They emphasized that the money from this sale goes back into the local community. (On a side note, Greenland produced a publication in direct response to the WSPA publication I mentioned in my last blog. The Greenland publication talked about how whalers need to pay their mortgages and bills just like everyone else and they pay those bills through the sale of whale meat. If I can be a biased observer for a moment and say that of course everyone needs to pay bills and selling whale meat is a way to do that, but that is also called commercial whaling NOT aboriginal subsistence whaling. Back to the summary…) ASW is defined by the IWC as that in which the products are consumed by the local community. Greenland pointed out that the term “local” is not defined and they apparently view all of Greenland as their local community. The commission was not allowed to discuss this issue until Thursday, so the subject dropped after Greenland’s presentation.

Next on the agenda was a report on the Revised Management Scheme working group. The IWC has not asked the SC for anything in this working group for a couple years, so the SC Chair reported on only a few items where the work is ongoing. The report was filled with acronyms and lingo that I won’t pretend to understand, but overall nothing major is happening on this front.

We finished the day with a brief return to Welfare Issues; the Head of Science reported on progress on the issue of whale entanglement. They are planning a three or four day working group just after IWC 2009 to discuss entanglement prevention, disentanglement, and euthanasia of whales that can not be disentangled. Sweden commented that they hoped the conclusions from this meeting will benefit small cetaceans as well.

We finished the day a little behind schedule and the agenda completely shifted around. At this point, the Chair seems to be pushing off possibly contentious issues until later in the week. Although the atmosphere in the meeting room is congenial, just outside there is a lot of literature passing back and forth between the “like-minded” (anti-whaling) and pro-whaling NGOs. These documents deal with a wide variety of issues including:
• Greenland’s proposed schedule amendment
• Japan’s scientific whaling
• Japan’s dolphin drive fishery
• High mercury levels in dolphin and whale meat
• Crew members on Japanese whaling vessels apparently taking whale meat home to give away or sell on their own
• Iceland and Norway exporting whale meat to Japan
• Proposal for a South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary
• And many more…

I will try to include information about these as the topics come up on the agenda.

IWC 60 - Second Day of Plenary Part 1

2008-06-24T06:25:00.000-07:00

The proposed schedule amendment from Greenland found its way into all of our mailboxes this morning. They are requesting to add ten humpback whales per year to their aboriginal hunt. The issue of aboriginal whaling is on the agenda for this morning. The big question is whether the European Union (EU) will vote as a block as they have agreed to do this year or whether, due to differing opinions, they will vote independently. The fear from the NGO community is that if they vote as a block, the amendment will likely pass (it needs a 3/4 majority). There has been a lot of discussion about how each country would vote and there are at least four countries that I have heard would likely vote for the amendment.

The World Society of the Protection of Animals (WSPA) produced a multi-page document detailing how whale meat from Greenland's aboriginal hunt makes its way into supermarkets throughout the country. These publications have been distributed throughout the meeting and they certainly beg the question about whether Greenland's hunt is aboriginal or commercial. We'll see how it all plays out during the meeting.

IWC 60 - First Day of Plenary

2008-06-23T20:07:00.000-07:00

The IWC meeting started off slowly today. There were the typical opening statements and introductions by the Chair, Bill Hogarth, and members of the Chilean government. After only a half hour of remarks, we broke for coffee. As you can see, the pace was slow to say the least. When we returned, the secretary discussed some IWC business. There are three new member nations this year: Uruguay, Republic of Congo and Romania (only Uruguay is in attendance). Although I don’t have an exact count, it seems that the anti-whaling (or “like-minded”) countries have a slight majority. At the NGO meeting yesterday, we found out that for the first time Dominica and Nicaragua are not going to vote in line with Japan this year. The Chair spoke about the new spirit of cooperation in the IWC and how they are going to try to vote by consensus and avoid antagonistic language. So far, there are no resolutions set to come to a vote and he asked that if any country is going to propose a resolution, they give other member countries due notice so as not to surprise (i.e. upset) them. Japan spoke to say that in this spirit, they would not propose changes to the agenda (such as the elimination of small cetaceans and whale watching) as they have in the past. In other news, the European Union (EU) will be voting as a block this year, although Denmark pointed out that on some issues (such as the Greenland hunt) they might have to diverge from the EU. Finally, NGOs will participate this year; they have been given 30 minutes on the agenda for three pro and three anti-whaling NGOs to speak for five minutes each.

We then dove into the report from the Scientific Committee (SC) on stock assessments. These began before lunch and carried through mid afternoon. There was nothing too surprising here; the SC stated that they’ve made “good progress” on a number of stock assessments, including southern hemisphere humpback whales, Antarctic minke whales, and North Pacific minke whales, but were not yet ready to state abundance estimates. During the discussion on Antarctic minke whales, the SC Chair mentioned the results of three circumpolar abundance cruises. The third cruise sighted fewer whales than the second and it is unclear if this is due to a real negative trend. New Zealand and Japan spoke up here wondering what is going on. Japan said that they will give a presentation on Wednesday in which they’ll offer their theory (which I have heard has something to do with interspecies interactions, but it’ll be interesting to hear what they have to say). The IWC expressed continued concern for western North Pacific gray whales; five females have died in the last three years. If this continues, the population could be extinct by 2050. IWC members expressed support for working with oil and gas companies to mitigate impacts and to create sanctuaries to protect these whales.

The next item on the agenda was humane killing methods and other welfare issues. Norway, the Russian Federation, and the US (and a very small report from Denmark on behalf of Greenland) gave reports on killing methods and number of animals struck and lost. There was a noticeable lack of report from Japan. Japan stated that they no longer give a report because their data were used differently than other nations and anti-whaling supporters used the most extreme cases to lobby against them. Several countries stated that the issue of humane killing methods is outside of the purview of the IWC. Other nations countered that the IWC needs these reports because welfare must be a part of any whale management regime.

With that, we adjourned for the day to head to a reception at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There we enjoyed good Chilean wine, very little food, and native music. Tomorrow morning starts bright and early with an NGO meeting with the US delegation.

IWC 60 - Arrival in Santiago

2008-06-22T16:30:00.001-07:00

I arrived yesterday in Santiago de Chile and am slowly settling into whaling mode. I attended a meeting with over 50 NGOs (non-government organizations) today and we discussed what to expect during this week's IWC meeting. There are many issues on the table, but a few of the most volatile issues are Greenland's proposed expansion of their aboriginal hunt to include humpback whales, Japan's expected proposal (again) for an amendment to the schedule allowing "small type coastal" whaling, and the future of the IWC.

I'll start with Greenland's aboriginal subsistence hunt. Their take in recent years has included minke and fin whales and last year was expanded to include one bowhead whale. They are looking to expand their quota to include higher numbers of whales, but also to include humpback whales for the first time. They claim that the population of Greenland is expanding and they need the higher quota to feed their people. The problem is that an aboriginal hunt, as this is supposed to be, should only support the aboriginal people and not the general population. The IWC needs to better define what "aboriginal" and "subsistence" mean in this context so it is clear what is allowed and what is outside the realm of "aboriginal subsistence" whaling.

For the past several years, Japan has proposed a schedule amendment to allow "small type coastal" whaling. They claim that four of their traditional whaling communities have suffered hardship after the moratorium was passed and they should be allowed to whale on a small scale. Japan has even stated that they would take fewer whales in their research hunt to make up for those taken in a small type coastal hunt; therefore, no more whales would be killed overall. This amendment requires a 3/4 majority vote and has failed each year. This year some people think that it might pass as part of a "deal" to eliminate research whaling, but we will have to wait and see what happens during the meeting.

Finally, IWC member countries have been frustrated by the antagonistic environment and general lack of progress at meetings in recent years. There was an intersessional meeting held in London to discuss the procedures of the IWC and the current Chair, Bill Hogarth of the U.S., has also been meeting with other countries independently to discuss the matter. Some people in the NGO community even think that Hogarth has made a "deal" with Japan that will make things run more smoothly this year.

The IWC meeting officially begins tomorrow and we will see what is in store; it is sure to be interesting and likely full of surprises.

IWC 60 - Setting the Scene

2008-06-20T09:11:00.000-07:00

Santiago, Chile is scenically nestled in the foothills of the Andes mountains. It is a large, South American city with millions of inhabitants, and it stretches out for miles. Winter, with its 60 degree days, 40 degree nights, and occasional rainy days has everyone scurrying about in scarves and heavy coats. Ski season is starting in the Andes. Among this, hardly anyone has noticed that off in one corner, in the Sheraton Santiago, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) will be making important decisions about the future of whales.

This year, Kate Sardi is attending the IWC meeting for us (www.acsonline.org). However, the commission meeting is just the one-week culmination of a month’s worth of discussions about whales and their management. It starts with two weeks of meeting of the Scientific Committee, who both provide scientific advice on the topics the Commission has asked for, and brings up new issues that the scientific community thinks should be brought to the Commission’s attention. Then there is a week of meting of other “technical” committees – the Conservation Committee, the Humane Killing Committee, the Finances Committee, the Infractions Committee, and so forth. Finally, the Commission meets for a week. As the Chief Scientist of the Whale Center of New England (www.whalecenter.org), I have attended the Scientific Committee meeting as an Invited Participant for several years now, and returned from this year’s meeting about a week ago.

The Scientific Committee (SC) is a group of about 200 scientists from around the world. Many nations that are members of the IWC send national delegations to the SC. In addition, a number of people are invited to attend for expertise in one or more areas of the SC’s considerations.

Much of the time that the SC meets is spent in topic-oriented sub-committees that consider particular topics. Such groups include focused sub-committees on the Revised Management Procedure (a determination of how many whales in a population can be taken by non-natural causes), By-catch (entanglement and ship collision deaths), Southern Hemisphere whale populations (focusing on determining the status of southern hemisphere humpback and blue whale populations), Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure (both the size of stocks and how to determine allowable takes for subsistence whaling), Stock Definition, Ecosystem Modeling, the Cetacean’s Environment, Whalewatching (both looking at how data can be collected from whale watch boats to help understand whale populations, and to look at the effects of whalewatching on whales), and Small Cetaceans. The last two groups are controversial, and every year Japan, as a whaling nation, notes its protests to the consideration of these issues in what should be a whaling-focused discussion.

After the eight days in which each sub-committee prepares its report, the full SC spends 3 days considering each sub-committee’s report and passes on a compiled “digest” of the reports for the Commission’s review. However, all deliberations of the SC are considered confidential until the Commission meeting opens and the report is made public, so I can not share any of the details of what was discussed.

However, after being an IWC participant for 8 years, and Vice President of ACS for as long, I can give an impression of what may be coming up as big issues in this year’s full Commission meeting.

Major topics I see are:

1) How the whaling “stand-off” is resolved. Everyone knows that the IWC is deadlocked between conservation-minded countries (like the U.S.) and whaling nations (like Japan, Iceland, and Norway). Right now there is a moratorium on commercial whaling, which will take a ¾ vote to overturn. However, Japan and Iceland are killing whales under self-issued “scientific permits” which are allowed under the IWC rules, and would also take a ¾ vote to overturn. With a split IWC, neither is likely to happen unless a compromise is reached. IWC commissioner Bill Hogarth has spent much of the past year trying to get a spirit of compromise in the IWC. How far that progresses, and what that “compromise” consists of, will be very important this year.

2) Japan’s request for “small-type” coastal whaling – Japan wants to define a new type of whaling, called “small-type coastal whaling” which would allow small fishing villages in Japan to continue to hunt whales but not be considered as “commercial” hunts. This is a strong push for Japan, who have even expressed a willingness to give up some of their scientific kill if given such a quota. However, this would also mean that a new type of whaling would be defined and legalized. I worry that this would start many nations applying for “coastal” hunts, including many of the nations to whom Japan provides millions of dollars of fishery support. I think this is one of the biggest threats to whales, and requires close scrutiny.

3) Greenland has had an “aboriginal” hunt of minke and fin whales for years. Now, they want to increase the number of species they take by adding bowhead and humpback whales to their annual kills. At the same time, there are new allegations that this hunt is in actuality a commercial hunt, with the meat processed and sent away for consumption.

I’m sure there will be many other topics discussed and issues debated in the shadows of the Andes mountains in the coming week. I look forward to hearing what Kate Sardi, our ACS rep to the commission, reports back. The future of many whales hangs in the balance.

I should also point out that an excellent editorial on the current whaling debate by the BBC can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7463633.stm. It is worthwhile reading.

- Mason Weinrich, ACS Vice-President and

Who We Are

2008-05-21T10:42:00.000-07:00

The American Cetacean Society protects whales, dolphins, porpoises, and their habitats through public education, research grants, and conservation actions.

Founded in 1967, the American Cetacean Society (ACS) is the oldest whale conservation group in the world. ACS is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with an office in San Pedro, California and chapters in Los Angeles, Orange County, Puget Sound (Seattle), Monterey, San Francisco, and the Channel Islands (Santa Barbara / Ventura). Our members live throughout the United States and in more than 20 countries.

We take our responsibility as participants in the web of life seriously, and volunteer our time and resources to not just protect whales, dolphins and porpoises, but to promote the health of the oceans and ultimately our planet as well.

The American Cetacean Society has a long history of sending representatives to the International Whaling Commission to observe, lobby for protection on the basis of scientific research, and to provide first hand reports on the IWC's activities to our membership. Past representatives to IWC meetings have included Barbara Britten, Kate O'Connell, Katy Penland, Bonnie Gretz, Kate Sardi, and Jonathon Stern.

In 2008, Kate Sardi will represent ACS at the IWC meeting in Chile. Kate Sardi is an ACS member-at-large and has been the national board's research chair since 2001. She is a senior biologist in the Rescue and Rehabilitation Department at the New England Aquarium in Boston, MA. Prior to starting at the Aquarium, she was the Assistant Director of the Whale Center of New England in Gloucester, MA. She has a B.S. in marine and freshwater biology from the University of New Hampshire and a Master's degree in marine biology from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

For more on ACS and ACS's past involvement with the IWC, see