Japanese Whaling: Australia files with the International Court of Justice

The end of last year's whaling season in the southern oceans was a dismal economic failure for Japan due, in no small part, to the actions of anti-whaling organizations like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). But it is not exactly clear as to what Japan is planning to do for the upcoming season. Radical activist groups like SSCS are ready to do battle with the Japanese whaling fleet and should that occur, there will certainly be media coverage in the form of news reports and, perhaps, more episodic television.

However, equally important are the quiet efforts that are taking place on the international front, in the world courts. This week, the Australian government filed a written submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) calling for an end to Japan's whaling activities in the Antarctic ocean. This is the next step in an international legal battle that has been brewing since Australia first petitioned the ICJ in 2009, advocating a global ban on whaling.

As reported by the Dow Jones Newswire, "'Despite Australia repeatedly calling on Japan to cease its illegal whaling activities, Japan has refused to do so. That is why the Australian Government has taken this case in the ICJ. The [Australian] Government believes the whaling carried out by Japan is commercial, not scientific, and does not fall within that narrow exception,' the Australian government said in a statement."

Japan's rationale that they can engage in whaling under a "scientific research" provision within the rules of the International Whaling Commission has been questioned by many nations. And there appears to be ample evidence that the whales that have been taken have ended up in the commercial marketplace which is viewed as a direct violation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Australia's submission with the ICJ will be sealed until 2012, after Japan has had time to prepare a written response. It is hoped that the international legal body will take up the issue and rule in favor of Australia and the whales. It may seem a slow and tedious process, but it is another powerful force - as powerful as the more attention-grabbing activist groups - albeit working from the opposite end of the anti-whaling notoriety spectrum.

Let us hope that the Japanese government will recognize that they are rapidly becoming boxed in a corner by world opinion and should reconsider their position on a destructive and antiquated cultural and commercial activity.

Japan Earthquake: Macro facts, radiation, and a time for compassion

The destruction wreaked upon Japan by the earthquake, tsunami, and ongoing threat from radioactivity is, understandably, central on the minds of people and media worldwide. The loss of life, property, and the infrastructure of a developed culture is near apocalyptic and begs comparisons to what befell Japan at the end of the Second World War.



Macro Facts
Not to take away from the impact on the Japanese people, but there are also some staggering macro or global facts and issues as result of these recent events. Writing for Yahoo News, Vanessa Evans cited these facts:

* Although the largest earthquake recorded on Friday was the massive 8.9 quake that caused the vast majority of the damage, there have been hundreds of aftershocks, some of which reached magnitude 6 strength, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

* Any number of those aftershocks were as large as the earthquake that shook Christchurch, New Zealand, late last month.

* Geophysicist Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, has estimated that the Japanese earthquake shortened the Earth's day by 1.8 microseconds. Gross also said that the axis of the Earth probably shifted about 6.5 inches, which affects how it rotates, but not its position or movement in space.

* The U.S. Geological Survey initially estimated that Japan as a whole has physically moved by approximately 8 feet, but other scientists around the globe have estimated that some parts of the country may actually have moved as much as 12 feet closer to North America. In addition, parts of the country's terrain are now permanently under sea level, which will make it difficult for the flooding caused by the tsunami to drain.

* The loss of 1.8 microseconds as a result of the shift in the Earth's axis is unlikely to cause more than minute changes, but among those changes will actually be differences in the passing of the seasons. This will only be observable using satellite navigation systems with very precise monitoring equipment.

* The shift of the Earth's axis and loss of time is similar to that experienced after the Chilean earthquake last year, which sped up the Earth's rotation and resulted in the loss of 1.26 microseconds.

Radiation and the Sea
While many of these facts are scientifically interesting, they won't necessarily have a profound effect on the day-to-day activities of the planet. However, one ongoing issue, that of the possibility of a large discharge of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear facility, is an important concern to the ocean environment.

Current weather forecasts are showing prevailing winds blowing to the East, therefore taking any escaped radiation away from the mainland - but out to sea. The Japanese government has been exceedingly cautious in their pronouncements about the crisis at the nuclear facility. However, from an ocean ecology perspective, there are some important questions to be answered.

How powerful or strong would the radiation be if there was a major leakage from the facility? What kinds of particles would the radiation consist of? Would these particles travel great distances above the sea or would they settle quickly, close within Japanese waters? Could the radiation be consumed by fish or smaller creatures, entering the food chain at a base level and work their way up in time? Could certain fish like swordfish, tuna, or sharks - which are known to accumulate other pollutants - also accumulate radiation over time. Or would the radiation dissipate to such low levels as to not be an issue.

The potential harm from radiation to the Japanese people is certainly an important concern. However, the same can be said of the environment, and particularly the sea, should a major discharge occur and the predicted winds carry it out to sea.

Our Better Nature
Speaking of the Japanese people, I have read a few online comments from some highly passionate but misguided conservationists who see the events of the past few days as a fitting retribution on the Japanese people for their whaling, dolphin, and tuna fishing activities. Nothing could be further from the truth and, in fact, denigrates us as a civilized society when we stoop to those kind of pronouncements.

This was not justice, or God's will, or bad karma, or any other vengeful nonsense. Natural disasters of this sort have occurred throughout the history of this planet and they will continue to do so long after we have either resolved the issues of protecting the environment or vanished through our own self-extinction. If we are at all worthy of sharing any space on this planet it will be because we can call upon the "better angels of our nature" - the same ones that make us strive to protect endangered species and conserve our natural resources - and bring comfort and compassion to our fellow man in the face of such catastrophe.

Support the relief efforts through the American Red Cross or similar agency in your country.

Read more about the changes in the earth in Yahoo News.

Japan's Whaling Industry Setback: what conservationists do next is critical

The past several weeks have seen a considerable amount of media attention over the decision by Japan to curtail its annual Antarctic whale hunt ahead of schedule. This has been due in no small part to the actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in disrupting the Japanese whale fleet's activities through harassment and intervention. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has been dogging the Japanese fleet for many years while the island nation hunted whales under a "whale research" loophole in the regulations put forth by the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

I have gone on record as not being an advocate of the kind of attention-grabbing, eco-terrorist techniques employed by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. I believe that it polarizes the opposing parties and does not pave a way for reasonable negotiations - which, like it or not, is where the necessary economic and regulatory change comes about. But credit where credit is due. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's efforts this season, while not as dramatic as in past seasons (with rammed ships, arrests, and calls for international prosecution), succeeded in reducing Japan's catch this year from an anticipated 850 minke whales and 50 fin whales to just 170 and 2, respectively. The Society deserves a hardy pat on the back.

The big question is: What next?

What will be Japan's strategy for 2012? This is a nation whose government and whaling industry is smarting and feeling very defensive over their cultural predilection toward whaling (indeed, toward commercial fishing in general) and their sense of national pride and indignation regarding verbal (and in the case of Sea Shepherd, physical) intervention from foreigners. One mustn't think that, based on this year's curtailed whaling season, Japan will be willing to throw in the towel.

However, there are several social and economic factors at work that may be pressuring the governing forces in Japan to begin to re-evaluate their position regarding whaling. In a recent article in Inter Press Service (IPS), Suvendrini Kakuchi reported,

"Despite campaigns to increase the sale of whale meat from minke whales, the local market has reported a reduction of 30 percent in 2010, according to the Tokyo-based Minato Newspaper quoting the publicly funded whaling company Koyodo Senpaku.

Whale meat is popular among older consumers in the sixties and above whose diet soon after World War II relied on whale as a protein.

But a 2008 September survey conducted by an independent organization under a request by Greenpeace Japan conservationists indicates that 70 percent of people between the ages of 15 to 39 years have not eaten whale meat.

The Japanese media has reported that 4,000 tonnes of excess whale meat was frozen and stored in warehouses in 2009."

Japan's government and regulatory agencies are inclined to maintain the cultural and historical status quo, but as younger generations begin to view whale consumption differently from generations past, that is producing some harsh economic realities that the industry will need to confront.

This provides a window of opportunity for delicate, non-combative diplomacy exercised by conservation groups, international agencies and individual countries. These forces have an opportunity to discuss with Japan the merits of sustainability, tighter fishery (and whaling) management, and perhaps work together on economic issues like shifting more resources towards developing, say, more environmentally efficient aquaculture.

Make no mistake, there is a tremendous opportunity here and there are even forces within Japan that are pressuring for a change. Some local governments are looking into establishing restricted or limited fishing as a means of maintaining sustainability of both the industry and marine species.

"The decision to call back the Japanese whaling fleet is based on low whale meat consumption locally, and other evidence that shows the industry is not sustainable," Prof. Toshio Katsura, marine biologist at Mie University told IPS.

But our response now must be a judicious one. Japan's whaling industry has sustained a serious blow this season and rather than gloat, we must carefully negotiate with the country's old guard, who are still very much in power both politically and commercially, to find ways to save face and set a new course in marine resource management.

Read the IPS article on Japan's whaling policy.

Japan's Seafood Heritage: careful conservation diplomacy to challenge centuries-old practices

The nation of Japan's cultural heritage behind seafood and its reliance on this natural resource to feed its people runs very, very deep. Combine that with the nationalistic pride that exists amongst the government and industrial institutions, along with the attitudes of a large segment of the population who know what it's like to be an island nation that has had to fend for itself for centuries, and it makes it easier to understand their intransigence when outside nations, particularly from the west, demand they change their ways for the sake of conservation of particular marine species.

Western civilization actually has a somewhat limited seafood menu pallet compared to Japan. What you'll find on the menu in a seafood restaurant on San Francisco's Fishermen's Wharf pales in comparison to what you'll find in a Japanese fish market. Historically, for Japan, marine species = seafood = survival. So, when strident conservation groups come in wagging a finger and demanding a complete cessation without any quid pro quo, based on a perceived higher moral authority on conservation grounds, the recalcitrance or outright defiance by the Japanese people should not necessarily come as any surprise.

An article that ran this past Friday in the Guardian, illustrated the industrial effectiveness of the harbor city of Kesennuma, Japan. In Kesennuma, shark fishing is a major activity, along with fishing for swordfish and tuna. The article highlighted not only the active commercial fishing taking place in this port city but also the protective attitude of the people in keeping their activities off the radar of prying western eyes.

Two leading pro-shark blogs, SharkDivers' and Da Shark, picked up on the story and wrote insightful posts, both noting the importance of viewing the situation from the other person's perspective, in this case, the Japanese. This is the essence of diplomacy: you can only attain your goals if you can show the other side that it is also in their best interests. And when the emotional furor of a conservation issue finally elevates itself to the international arena, then the game subtly shifts from conservation of a species (which still remains an underlying cause) to economic and cultural sustainability. This occurs whether it's a small Pacific island community or an industrial nation like Japan.

When I speak to U.S. audiences on shark conservation, I find that for the most part, the people I am speaking to have not had any shark products, except maybe for an occasional shark steak. They see the pictures of shark finning and are appalled, particularly when the fishermen dump the shark carcass overboard in favor of retaining only the fins. The audience's dander is now definitely up.

Then I ask them, "Have you ever toured a cattle processing plant? Or how about a poultry farm?" If they did, it wouldn't surprise me that it produces a few new vegetarians. Then, to put the cultural aspect in some sort of perspective, I ask them what their reaction would be if Mrs. Paul's brand of fish sticks were to change from cod to haddock. Typically, the reaction is one of "no big deal." Now, let's say instead, turkey is officially banned; no more big basted bird on the traditional Thanksgiving Day table. Their cultural heritage is now being infringed upon, and that's when they begin to get an idea as to the challenge before us.

Non-combative international diplomacy will continue to emphasize that conservation is in the best interests of Japan and all other Asian countries where seafood consumption has been a long-established foundation of their diets. Both sustainability of the species and their industrial economy will depend on long-term planning, initiated by some pressing and game-changing short term measures. Investing in improved, ecologically-sound aquaculture techniques could be the quid pro quo that could reinvent their commercial fishing industry before it collapses from a loss of species - a disastrous result which neither benefits mankind or the planet.

Read about Kesennuma in the Guardian.co.uk.
Read SharkDivers' post on the subject.
Read Da Shark's post on the subject.

WikiLeaks and Whaling: Japan pressed U.S. and Australia for concessions

There has been much attention surrounding WikiLeaks and the emails, cables, and diplomatic dispatches it has somehow acquired, many of which having been released to the public amidst great consternation - and some embarrassment - from various governments.

The WikiLeaks scandal is now making its way into the conservation movement with the release of documents claiming to show some backroom diplomatic wrangling going on between Japan, Australia, and the United States regarding Japan's continued whaling under the guise of "scientific research" - a loophole that was written into the International Whaling Commission's ban on whaling. Through that loophole, Japan has been taking approximately 500 whales seasonally.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal and the Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) website, in 2009, Japanese government officials were suggesting a willingness to considered curtailing their scientific research whale hunts in exchange for a lifting of the whaling moratorium and allowing a limited catch in their territorial waters. Apparently officials in the U.S. and Australia, while expressing their public support for the whaling ban, were at least willing to discuss the Japanese proposal.

The ABC reported, "Australia's Opposition party environment spokesman Greg Hunt says the Government's position on whaling has been exposed as a sham. 'The labor Government was saying one thing to the Australian people and another thing behind the scenes,' he said."

Also, playing into all this international horse wrangling were the efforts of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a constant irritant to the Japanese government due to their eco-terrorist techniques to attempt to disrupt Japanese whaling. According to the leaked documents, Japan was pressing the U.S. to take action against the U.S.-based radical organization, perhaps by depriving the NGO of its non-profit tax status.

The ABC reported, "The cables reveal the US envoy to the International Whaling Commission, Monica Medina, held talks with the head of Japan's fisheries agency, Katsuhiro Machida, in late 2009. The two sides discussed the possibility of revoking the tax-exempt status of the US-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society."

There are many conservationists who do not prescribe eco-terrorism as a solution as it can endanger lives and alienate governments beyond any hope of negotiation or change. The actions of the Japanese are an example of this. In 2009, they apparently were willing to discuss eliminating the "scientific research" whaling (I believe they realized that world opinion was opposed to that sham) but, in exchange, they wished to continue hunting in some limited fashion. However, any agreement would have depended on putting a stop to Sea Shepherd.

The WikiLeaks revelations, I am sure, will simply embolden the Sea Shepherd Society. It's founder, Capt. Paul Watson, was quoted, "These governments play games with each other all the time, they say things they don't mean, they make deals that they don't honor. There's no honor amongst thieves and politicians are the biggest thieves of the lot."

All of these diplomatic machinations took place before the June, 2010 annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). At that meeting, nothing was resolved, though U.S. State Department officials were pressing the U.S. negotiators at the meeting to get some sort of concession from Japan regarding reducing the size of their catch. A proposal to Japan to allow limited hunting within its own territorial waters may surface at the next IWC meeting in 2011.

Here is the dilemma of international diplomacy and conservation: international organizations like IWC, CITES, and the United Nation's various environmental and ecological offshoots are necessary in adopting worldwide policies to protect natural resources and biodiversity - regional or local efforts alone are not enough. But the art of diplomacy is pain-stakingly slow and the level of compromise that is sometimes required can, in the end, prove to be of limited or no benefit to nature. As individuals, we must keep the pressure on our elected officials and appointed representatives to ensure that they do not trade the health of the planet for the sake of diplomatic progress.

Read the Wall Street Journal article.
Read the Australian Broadcast Corporation article.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: species' future once again debated by controversial ICCAT

Starting this Wednesday in Paris, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) will hold its annual meeting to review catch quotas for the coming year. The 48 member governments of ICCAT constitute one of the few international fishery management organizations that can address the issue of rapidly declining stocks of bluefin tuna, billfish, and even sharks. But to date it has a dismal track record in the eyes of many scientific and conservation organizations.

At last year's meeting, the ICCAT ignored the recommendations of even their own scientific advisers and set catch levels at 13,5000 tons - well above the recommendations ranging from 6,000 tons to an all out ban. It became clear that ICCAT's mission was not the conservation of an aquatic species but that of propping up a dwindling industry in the short term.

So, once again, they meet to discuss the future of Atlantic commercial fishing in a time of worldwide economic pressures, a huge demand for bluefin tuna in Japan with astronomical prices to match, and political pressures to keep supporting a commercial fishing industry with the status quo - rather than transition it to a more sustainable future.

Gloomy outlook, but there is some interesting political jockeying going on.

According to the New York Times, "The European Union’s fisheries commissioner, Maria Damanaki, with backing from Sweden, Germany and Britain, has called for an Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean quota of 'less than 6,000 tons.' The union’s 27 members are supposed to reach a consensus and vote as a bloc."

Ready to challenge that proposal may be France, Italy, and Spain. France has come under fire, in particular, for an apparent reversal in their support of an outright ban proposed just 3 months ago at a UN meeting on endangered species. "In addition to the apparent about-face by President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, the hosts may find the situation delicate for another reason: the French Agriculture Ministry was singled out in the [International Consortium of Investigative Journalists] report as having allegedly connived for many years to help French fishermen understate their catch," reported the New York Times. ‘‘'France is becoming the Darth Vader of the bluefin fishery,' Rémi Parmentier, an adviser to the Pew Environment Group, said in a recent interview. 'France appears to be doing its best to sink proposals to reduce the catch.'"

Following the Gulf oil spill and concerns of potential impacts on Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna breeding grounds, the position of the United States is a mixed bag. Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA, said that Washington would support the scientific recommendations - which lean towards radically reduced catch levels. But northeast politicians, who represent major industrial Atlantic fishing fleets, are riding the wave of unemployment concerns and resisting efforts to have the bluefin tuna listed as an endangered species under U.S. law. Again, short-term gain that serves only as a precursor to a total industry collapse.

The interesting wild card in all of this has been indications from Japan that they might consider stricter fishery management. At the recent Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) meeting, Japan stymied all efforts to protect tuna under CITES rules, declaring ICCAT to be the more appropriate forum. Now the pressure is on Japan to put their money where their mouth is. Being consumers of more than three quarters of the catch of Atlantic bluefin tuna, Japan could endorse significantly lower catch levels - or even a moratorium, as some Japanese officials have said they would be willing to support.

Or they can watch their market demand vaporize before their eyes in just a few short years with the loss of one of the ocean's great predator species. The battle of short-term versus long-term goals continues.

Read article in New York Times.

COP 10: Biodiversity conference off to a bold start with alarming study

In Nagoya, Japan, the opening to the 10th Conference of Parties (COP 10) to the Convention on Biological Diversities took off with a bold start, announcing a study that confirms that one-fifth of the world's vertebrates are faced with extinction.

The comprehensive study, combining the efforts of 174 authors, 115 academic and research institutions from 38 countries, worked with data covering 25,000 different species from the IUCN's Red List of Threatened Species. The results show that human expansion, logging, and over-hunting are moving 50 species of mammals, birds, and amphibians, on average, closer to extinction each year. According to renown Harvard University Professor Edward Wilson, "The 'backbone' of biodiversity is being eroded."

But a unique feature of the study - and one that should catch the attention of the COP 10 policy- and decision-makers - is that the study also analyzed and confirmed the positive effects of conservation, that the efforts of nation's to protect worldwide biodiversity can have a demonstrable effect. The study's results show that without the current level of conservation that has taken place, biodiversity would have declined by another 20 percent.

"History has shown us that conservation can achieve the impossible, as anyone who knows the story of the White Rhinoceros in southern Africa knows," Dr Simon Stuart, Chair of IUCN's Species Survival Commission and an author on the study was quoted in Science Daily. "But this is the first time we can demonstrate the aggregated positive impact of these successes on the state of the environment."

This is a much better start to this conference than the COP 15 climate conference in 2009 or the CITES conference in March of this year, where political and economic lobbying ran roughshod over important conservation and environmental initiatives. For COP 10, this is a good step forward and the nations involved appear to be on board with the study's findings. Now the question is, what will be the final results of the conference in terms of policy and commitment? Lip service or definitive, lasting action?

Read more about the COP10 study in Science Daily.

Failing Fishery Management: report and video illustrate excesses by EU and Japan

The logic is so simple: if you harvest from a finite resource without giving back then you will deplete it.

But combating that is the economic principal that requires the use of available resources to meet market demand and sustain business growth.

These are the concepts that fishery management has been wrestling with for decades - and it is becoming more and more apparent that economic interests win in the short term and the environment loses in the long term.

I have sited in past postings the European Union's inability to effectively manage its industrial fishing. It has failed to the extant that it moves from one species to another, harvesting until there effectively is no more in their territorial waters. And so they export their trade to other countries, fishing in the territorial waters of developing countries who are lured by the economic gains of providing fishing rights and/or fishing crews to prop up struggling economies - ultimately sacrificing their natural resources for short term gain.

A report recently published by the New Economics Foundation declares that the EU has now basically consumed all of its own fish and must look elsewhere to meet demand. The report says the EU has reached a "fish dependence day" and is now having to live off the rest of the world when it comes to seafood.

The report, Fish Dependence: The Increasing Reliance of the EU on Fish From Elsewhere, states, "In a context of finite resources and growing populations, the current EU model is unsustainable. The EU's increasing fish dependence has implications for the fish stocks in other countries, which are also overfished, and for the communities that depend upon them."

It makes me recall the science fiction film, Independence Day, which portrays an attack on the earth by malevolent aliens that travel the galaxies, plundering all the natural resources of a victim planet before moving on to the next one. We don't need fictional aliens to see that that is exactly what is happening right now in our oceans.

Click here to download a copy of the report.

Also making the rounds of various online forums right now is a startling video from Alex Hofford, showing industrial shark fishing at its most graphic. In the Japanese city of Kesen-numa City, blue sharks and salmon sharks are piled high like cord wood, awaiting processing which includes the removal of their fins and, in the case of the salmon sharks, their hearts. In watching the video I was struck by the methodical way in which the workers went about their business - with gentle musak playing in the background and visitors walking above.

Here are hundreds and hundreds of sharks - animals that, because of their low reproductive rates, can in no way withstand such massive harvesting - all being dispatched like cattle in a slaughterhouse. And to the Japanese, that is exactly what it is. This is something that many western pro-shark advocates fail to appreciate: to the Asian markets, seafood is food, no different than beef or poultry. The butchering of sharks to them is no different than the butchering of cattle or chickens.

But there is one crucial difference: cattle and poultry are breed and raised for consumption; the majority of seafood is not.

The Asian markets may not have developed sizable cattle and poultry operations, and they may never will. But if any society - Asian, European or otherwise - is going to respond to a growing market demand for seafood, then they must make a concerted commitment and effort in developing effective and environmentally-safe aquaculture while also radically changing open-water commercial fishing as we know it today. Unless capable of being successfully grown in an aquaculture environment, some commercial species will need to be severely restricted, if not off limits all together.

The EU report states, "There is only so much fishing that our oceans can sustain. So for fisheries policies to be sustainable, they need to acknowledge and respect the ecological limits of the marine ecosystems on which they depend."

The logic is simple. But the motivation to act in the face of a bleak future is apparently difficult.

Read more about the EU fisheries report in the Guardian.
See the shark fishery video at Alex Hofford Photography.

The Cove: Oscar-winning documentary needs your help

A well deserved congratulations to The Cove for being awarded the Best Documentary Oscar at Sunday night's Academy Awards presentation! If you have not seen this film about the brutal harvesting of dolphins and whales in the Japanese village of Taiji and the subsequent distribution of polluted meat to an unsuspecting Japanese public, you can now purchase the DVD (here's a link to Amazon.com).

All of the films nominated in the Best Documentary category are important films and worth seeing. The contenders focused on critical social issues - human rights, abuse, immigration. And all of these challenges deserve our attention. What made The Cove perhaps a bit special was that it combined both a conservation issue (the particularly brutal harvest of marine mammals) with a human issue (the indifference of the Japanese fishermen, the ignorance of the local villagers to the hazard they are exposing themselves to, and resistance from the Japanese government to do anything about it). Add to that the drama experienced by the film crew in secretly filming the harvest, and you have a film that stands out as both education and entertainment with the hope that viewers will be motivated to do something about an ecological and human health tragedy.

Perhaps winning the award will provide The Cove with a little extra clout with the Japanese government, but there are plenty of forces currently at work to prevent the film from getting its message out to those who need to hear it the most - the Japanese people. The producers have several online vehicles (web site, Facebook page & cause, blog, etc.) that you can visit to learn what you can do to help them get more exposure to a people who, unfortunately, have such a long heritage of dependence involving seafood. The Cove needs all the help it can get.

Links:

• The Cove web site
• Facebook Fan Page
• Facebook Cause
• The Cove blog

Conservation's Indirect Strategy: mercury levels in Japanese could effect change

The strategy of reporting on the health impact on humans brought about by the consumption of endangered ocean species continues to gain momentum as a viable approach for garnering public awareness. The Ocean Preservation Society, who produced the award-winning documentary The Cove, is spreading the word about a recent article in The Japan Times about mercury levels in the whale and dolphin meat that is consumed by the people of Taiji, where much of The Cove takes place.

Taiji is known for its capture and bloody harvest of dolphins and small whales - either for aquariums or for human consumption. While there has been much government intervention to manipulate the media and downplay the event, at least one brave Taiji council member moved to have the meat tested. He was eventually shunned and left Taiji, but the testing continued and the results have been reported in some segments of the media who have resisted government pressure.

According to the Kyodo News and The Japan Times, it was found that the people of Taiji, who consume dolphin and whale meat, have mercury levels that are as much as 10 times higher than the Japanese norm. Children, who can be very susceptible to the neurological effects of mercury, were going to school every day only to dine on contaminated dolphin meat as part of the town's school lunch program. Fortunately, the program has now discontinued serving dolphin meat.

Pelagic animals like whales, dolphins, tuna, swordfish, and sharks, unfortunately are able to retain pollutants deep in their tissues. Although mercury seems to be one of the most worrisome agents, other pollutants have been found, including DDT, and other pesticides, in addition to several other industrial chemicals that enter the ocean either directly or from discharge into the atmosphere (which then eventually falls into the sea).

While health threats against mankind might be the impetus needed to produce change in environmental or ecological policy, it seems sad that it has to come to that. It illustrates our self-centered behavior when it's not enough that the atmosphere is being altered or that species are being endangered by over-harvesting or loss of habitat - instead, it takes a direct negative effect on ourselves for us to sit up and take notice.

Perhaps it's academic; it's just human nature and we should use it to our best advantage. Shark conservationists are using mercury poisoning to drum up concern over the demand for shark products; climate change proponents are using documented changes in agricultural output and drought conditions in Africa and the related loss of life to make their case; and groups like GotMercury.org put out information on the pollutant levels in over-fished species like swordfish, tuna, and others. It seems to be a strategy that has potential for generating real change. The problem is that when that change comes to protect mankind from himself, where will the plant and animals, the ocean, land and air be by then? Will it already have been too late?

Read article in Japan Today/Kyodo News.

The Cove: a critically important documentary available soon on DVD

While on my most recent location assignment, I had the pleasure of being on board and spending time with Simon Hutchins and Greg Mooney, two important members of the Ocean Preservation Society which is one of the key organizations behind the powerful documentary, The Cove.

The Cove, which documents Japan's capture and harvest of dolphins and other marine mammals in a secluded cove in Taiji, is an absolute must-see film not only for the marine conservationist but particularly for the unenlightened as well. As an island nation, Japan has a long-standing cultural dependence on seafood. But with it's growing population (not to mention the rest of the world), that dependence is taking it's toll on a variety of ocean species. The Taiji harvest has become a highly protected event and the filmmakers had to employed clandestine methods to document it.

In addition to the impact of the harvest on dolphin populations, is the important issue of mercury poisoning from consumption of dolphin meat (along with many other pelagic species). The Cove serves as a wake-up call to the Japanese people as to the level of dangerous pollutants they are unknowingly consuming - particularly at risk are children and pregnant women.



The Cove, which is now on the short list for Academy Award consideration, has concluded its theatrical run and will be available on DVD on December 8th. I've mention this film before in previous postings but with the upcoming DVD release, I strongly urge you to get a copy - for yourself, for your friends, for lovers of seafood who need a reality check.

I was glad to have the chance to spend some time with Greg and Simon. Guys, my hat's off to both of you and the rest of the production crew. A truly important and timely film.

Pacific Island Conservation: 3 steps in the right direction

Three interesting and related news tidbits from Seaweb.org, all having to do with recognizing and acting on conservation issues in Pacific Island regions:

Indonesia will host a World Ocean Conference next month that will include delegates from several Asia Pacific regions, from the Philippines to Papua New Guinea. It is expected that there will be joint agreements on addressing the issues of climate change on the oceans in addition to actions to preserve fisheries (particularly for some of the smaller islands) and to protect coral reef environments (which support both fisheries and tourism, not to mention being a physical buffer to adverse ocean weather/wave conditions).

To the tune of $20 million USD, Australia will fund the Pacific Climate Change Science Program, designed to work with Pacific Island nations to track and analyze the effects of climate change including temperature increases, acidification, and rises sea-level. "Climate change has the potential to affect some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations with challenges including sea level rise, more intense storms and floods, water shortages, and the resulting impacts on water and food security," said AU Senator Penny Wong.

As part of a Japan-Pacific Islands Forum Summit Meeting scheduled for May, Japan and 16 other Pacific Island countries and territories plan to join forces to combat issues such as climate change, poor sanitation, pollution and declining biodiversity. Japan will provide environmental technology assistance to countries and territories to support agriculture and fisheries, address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and develop tsunami warning systems.

It's great to see countries of all sizes and economic persuasions come together to take proactive steps that will help the long-term preservation of their ocean environments and their tourism and fishing-dependent economies. Some of the other industrialized nations should take note.