IWC 2010: Reflection - the Moratorium and John Gulland
A new Whaling FAQ entry that I'm going to write up is about the commercial whaling moratorium.
Recently in the media there have been statements : Both [pro-sustainable use and anti-use] sides agree that the moratorium and other conservation efforts have helped many whale populations recover.
This isn't strictly true, and that's what the FAQ entry is going to be about. The pro-sustainable use side certainly would agree that "other conservation efforts" were responsible for the recovery of whale populations (largely exclusive of the moratorium), whereas the anti-use side argues that the commercial whaling moratorium is the reason for these recoveries, giving little credit to prior conservation measures.
An examination of the facts strongly supports the argument that the moratorium, which took effect in 1986, was an almost completely pointless exercise in terms of deriving conservation benefits.
The Southern Ocean Sanctuary, later imposed in 1994, was a step further, providing absolutely no conservation benefits. With a commercial whaling moratorium in effect globally, sanctuaries are meaningless duplicative arrangements.
But the duplicative nature of the moratorium isn't as obvious. The Whaling library site has a list of various great whale species, and when they were protected from commercial hunting by the IWC :
The Right and Grey whale species were protected since before the formation of the IWC
The Blue whale species has been protected globally since 1966, although it has only finally started showing signs of recovery recently
The Fin whale species, which became a favourite target of whalers after the protection of the Blue, due to it's large size, was protected by 1976
The Sei whale species was fully protected by 1978
The Sperm whale, one of the most populous in the world today, was largely protected globally by 1981
The Humpback whale, favourite of the whale-watching industry, was protected in the Southern Hemisphere by 1963, and fully protected globally by 1966, 20 years before the moratorium came into effect. Today some of the protected humpback stocks are rapidly recovering back towards their estimated carrying capacity levels, with predictions that some may reach pristine condition within the next one to two decades.
Only the smallest of the rorqual whales, the minke, and the larger Bryde's whale species were protected in 1986, with the imposition of the moratorium.
Clearly, the IWC had already been taking measures to protect depleted stocks of whales in many cases well before the idea of a commercial whaling moratorium had even been floated. The moratorium thus meant little in terms of conservation for the most heavily depleted large whale stocks.
None of the species noted above died out, and most today are recovered or recovering (the Gray whale in the western Pacific, and the Right whale in the North Atlantic are the only species that remain in imminent danger of extinction - with ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear the main threats to their survival. Of course, neither are hunted by whalers).
The two remaining species (minke and bryde's) that did get protection in 1986 are today regarded as being in good shape. A strong argument can be made that protection was not even required in the first instance. For example, anthropogenic removals of minke whales in the Antarctic for example never exceeded 9,000 whales, and in the last year before the moratorium was imposed, around 5,000 were taken. The IWC Scientific Committee then agreed in the early 1990's that the abundance was around 760,000, with 95% confidence that the true figure lay between 510,000 and 1,140,000. Given that even a total catch of 10,000 Antarctic minke whales would almost certainly have been less than 2% of the population size, there is a lot of weight to the idea that this level of catch was quite sustainable, and that protection was not required.
The record of proceedings at the 1982 IWC meeting (and meetings in prior years) indicate that many nations felt that the moratorium measure contravened the ICRW. For example, land-locked Switzerland, which today votes against all whaling, despite claiming to vote in accordance with scientific evidence, that it would abstain from the moratorium vote, "because it believed the proposal did not fulfil the Convention requirement of being based on scientific findings".
Japan and Norway were amongst whaling nations who also noted that the moratorium had not been advised as necessary by the IWC's Scientific Committee.
* * *
The UN's FAO observer at the 1982 meeting, the late Dr John Gulland (), noted concerns about the lack of scientific need for a moratorium in detail : It is expected, on the basis of our current knowledge of the dynamics of whale populations, that the open ocean stocks, including the large stock of Antarctic whales, are also increasing, but direct evidence is lacking.
...
Here the past record of the Commission has caused concern, such that none of the baleen whales (other than minke) now support significant industries. The present record is better. Where commercial whaling is still being carried on, the catches are, by and large, within the productive capacity of the stock and should be sustainable indefinitely. However this depends on having adequate scientific advice.
...
The continuation of commercial whaling can also be threatened by management measures that are too restrictive. The most extreme example is a moratorium on all whaling. This is a completely unselective measure. Given the differing status of the various stocks, and the fact that virtually all those species or stocks that are seriously depleted are already receiving complete protection, there seems to be no scientific justification for a global moratorium. A justification for a complete cessation of whaling can be put forward on aesthetic or moral grounds, but these seem outside the terms of reference of the Commission.
...
Another justification for a moratorium is that not enough is known about the dynamics of whale populations, and that no catches should be taken until adequate knowledge is obtained. The objection to this is that the best, if not the only, way to determine the sustainable yield of a whale stock is carefully monitored harvesting. Certainly our knowledge of whale stocks is far from complete, and there can be considerable argument on just how large a catch can be sustained from individual stocks. However, these doubts are no reason for not taking moderate, and carefully monitored catches from stocks which appear to be in a healthy condition.
...
The present time is, therefore, a crisis point in determining the trends of the basic policies of the Commission. Should it be considering only conservation in the narrow, protectionist sense, or should it include also the rational utilization of those stocks which can sustain commercial harvesting?
Gulland also repeated his concerns about the moratorium in a 1988 article in New Scientist, where : [I]f conservation means ensuring that catches are kept within reasonable bounds, and that depleted whale stocks are allowed to recover, the main victories had been won earlier.
...
[I]f conservation means a sensible balance between the current use of a resource, and conserving it for possible use in the future, the moratorium was hardly a major victory. Some, myself included, consider it a setback.
Ultimately, the moratorium was of course imposed, and the IWC's "New Management Procedure" was replaced by the newly developed and highly risk averse "Revised Management Procedure" after the imposition of the moratorium. But the imposition of the moratorium in the first place in clearly showed that already a large number of ICRW signatories were no longer interested in making decisions in accordance with scientific findings, as required by the convention. Nonetheless, the Revised Management Procedure was an important development in conservation terms. If there was any benefit from the moratorium, the RMP seems to be it.
Still today, despite this development, and evidence that many stocks are in good shape or are recovering (rapidly in certain cases), still anti-use proponents are prepared to disguise their true beliefs by asserting that the moratorium is the reason why the whale was saved.
Scientists today of course continue to note that sustainable whaling is possible for many stocks. Judy Zeh, member of the IWC Scientific Committee and former Chair, a few years back: We're in the process of completing the third circumpolar survey, and looking at minke whale estimates for the southern oceans, and as far as I know at present, it's certainly true that if commercial whaling were resumed under the revised management procedure, it could be managed safely.
The IWC Scientific Committee is due to finalize it's latest Antarctic minke whale abundance estimates by next year's IWC meeting. The number is certain to be in the hundred's of thousands, even if it indeed is lower than the 1990 estimate, as has often been reported in recent years. This will put the anti-use proponents under more pressure than ever to permit limited hunts, in accordance with scientific advice.
That's the long version! Somehow I'll have to condense this down for the FAQ.
posted by 7/6/2010
IWC 2010: Greenpeace breaks own Accountability Charter...
The fallout from Greenpeace's in St. Kitts and Nevis continues, with Nick Nichols that it took just 22 days for Greenpeace International to violate the that it was involved in developing.
This is the problem you face when you need to that you survive on. Greenpeace has made it all too clear where it's priorities are.
The full article from Nick Nichols below: Greenpeace International has violated a code-of-conduct that it, and 10 other non-governmental organisations (NGOs), signed just 22 days ago. I am shocked and awed. The much-touted Accountability Charter states that the NGO signatories will take all possible steps to ensure that there are no links with organisations, or individuals involved in illegal or unethical practices. Nice words. But for the 39,129 citizens of the sovereign Caribbean island Federation of St. Kitts/Nevis, these words must be ringing a bit hollow. According to government press statements and news reports, on 20 June a Greenpeace vessel, the MV Arctic Sunrise, violated the Federation’s territorial waters, illegally offloaded passengers and defied law enforcement officials by refusing to accompany them to police headquarters. Ten members of the invasion force were arrested; six of them spent the night in jail, awaiting cash from Greenpeace to pay their fines. The captain and crew of the mother ship apparently abandoned their comrades and sailed off in the direction of St. Eustatius. The apparent objective of the Greenpeace expeditionary force was to disrupt a meeting of the International Whaling Commission being hosted by St. Kitts. Their defence lawyer told the local magistrate that the activists had not intended to cause trouble on the island but only to engage in non-violent protest. Federation officials had a different opinion; they issued a national security release charging that Greenpeace had shown total disregard and disrespect for the government in utter contempt of its sovereign status. The Federation release also noted that the Greenpeace vessel’s illegal manoeuvres had threatened the marine environment, jeopardising the barrier reef which protects the eastern Atlantic coastline of St. Kitts/Nevis and other fragile near-shore marine eco-systems. Greenpeace International and the other Accountability Charter signatories claim the reason they signed the charter was to promote further values of transparency and accountability that we stand for, and commit our NGOs to respecting its provisions. The charter states that its signers seek to advance international and national laws that promote human rights, ecosystem protection, sustainable development and other public goods. Unless someone can make a compelling argument that violating national sovereignty, obstructing law enforcement authorities and jeopardising a fragile eco-system are not outright violations of the commitments made by those who signed the Accountability Charter, it seems to me that Greenpeace International has two options in the wake of the St. Kitts affair: either condemn the actions of the captain and crew of the MV Arctic Sunrise; or publicly jump ship from the Accountability Charter. When Greenpeace wired money to pay the fines that were levied against the St. Kitts invaders, it may have clarified its true intentions. Only time will tell. What is clear is that Greenpeace picks some really nice places to invade. Perhaps it’s their way of recruiting new rainbow warriors. Join our merry band of sea scoundrels. Explore the beaches of picturesque islands. Drink your fill of mai tais. Have a whale of a good time. While the attempted invasion of St. Kitts may not make the history books, this long-time observer of activist group shenanigans is shocked that it took Greenpeace nearly a month to depart from its charter commitments. I expected a more rapid departure. And I’m awed by the actions taken by the government of St. Kitts/Nevis. Unlike other sovereign nations and many international corporations which have turned tail at the sight of the rainbow warriors, the Federation of St. Kitts/Nevis rejected appeasement and defended its sovereignty when the Greenpeace armada appeared on the horizon. I would bet that the rainbow warriors won’t be returning to this Caribbean paradise anytime soon.
posted by
IWC 2010: Terry Glavin article on the IWC
It's worth reading the whole thing, but some parts that I found particularly interesting were as follows: Now the IWC is in danger of becoming worse than irrelevant. Even the venerable International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which tracks the world's endangered animals, has called on it to shape up. Otherwise, it said, the world's whaling nations may "leave the IWC behind" and strike out on their own. The day after the IWC adopted the "normalization" resolution on St. Kitts, the IUCN issued another warning: "More than ever there is a need to seek a form of consensus that will allow IWC to continue its work. Proponents and opponents all claim to support the conservation of whales but to date have failed to find common ground." But there is often little common ground between the Save the Whales generation and younger conservationists more committed to the sustainable use of renewable resources -- the IWC's dysfunction is already infecting a whole range of international efforts to protect truly endangered species. "We have to base resource management on science and knowledge, not on myths that some specifically designated animals are different and should not be hunted, regardless of the ecological justification for doing so," says Gro Harlem Brundtland, the ex-Norwegian prime minister who led the historic UN Commission on the Environment and Development. "There is no alternative to the principle of sustainable development. This is necessary and logical."
The Highnorth Alliance hompage also has some more Brundtland quotes . New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark is . We can but imagine what she might think of Brundtland's comments regarding whaling.
posted by
IWC 2010: Whaling to the point of extinction?
There is little doubt that many people opposed to whaling are opposed because they fear the possible extinction of great whale species. "Right-minded people simply do not want to see these beautiful creatures hunted to extinction and I am glad that my motion received the support that it did. "I hope that those 33 members of the IWC who voted in favour of the resumption of whaling will reconsider their position on this matter we cannot allow whales to be hunted to extinction."
--Ribble Valley MP
Of course, he's saying exactly the same thing as the whalers. No one wants to see any species of whale hunted to extinction, least of all the people who wish to eat them.
Under the IWC's , "catches should not be allowed on stocks below 54% of the estimated carrying capacity".
One can but wonder what Mr Evans' response would be if he were asked exactly how he thought whales might be driven to extinction by hunting under such conservative conditions.
Humpback stocks in the Southern Hemisphere were apparently reduced to numbers in the very low thousands, if not hundreds, back in the days when the developed nations were hunting whales for oil. The level to which the humpback species was reduced was to probably around a single percentage point of the estimated carrying capacity, if not less than that even.
Yet today, 43 years on since the humpback was initially protected in 1963, the IWC Scientific Committee estimates that there are more than 40,000 (), and that numbers continue to increase rapidly.
This is fabulous news. And yet, the RMP does not rely on whale stocks being able to recover from such low levels. The RMP will not allow any hunting for any stock at levels lower than 54% of it's carrying capacity.
One has to question whether Mr. Evans and others who share his fears are actually aware of this particular reality.