skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Two recent developments offer encouraging news for whales. Though not yet fully realized in terms of their ramifications, they are certainly steps in the right direction towards ensuring the long-term future of whales worldwide.
US Proposes Sanctions Against Iceland
Iceland is one of two nations that openly defy the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling - the other nation being Norway. Japan hides its whaling operations behind the commission's loophole regarding taking whales for scientific research.
In response to considerable pressure from environmental groups, US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, on Wednesday, put Iceland on notice that they may be subject to economic sanctions if they do not curtail all commercial whaling activities. Using the Pelly Amendment, which provides for sanctions against nations that violate global fisheries conservation agreements, the Commerce Department is taking the first step in a process that ultimately must be approved by President Obama."Iceland's harvest of whales and export of fin whale meat threaten an endangered species and undermine worldwide efforts to protect whales," said Locke, who oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "It's critical that the government of Iceland take immediate action to comply with the moratorium."
Iceland's actual involvement is whaling is not as aggressive as Norway or Japan. Complying with the whaling moratorium for many years, Iceland resumed whaling in 2006 and most of its catch was exported to Japan - a market that has declined recently. Last year, Iceland took about 225 whales, compared to Japan's annual catch which often exceeds 1,000.
But with Japan heading towards an international legal struggle with Australia and continued harassment from pro-whale organizations like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, taking political aim at one of the two Northern European whaling prohibition violators is an appropriate move. Now it remains to be seen as to whether President Obama will concur and impose sanctions.
Oman Studies Cetacea in the Northern Indian Ocean
Recognizing the importance of cetacea that ply the waters off this Arabian peninsula nation, Oman continues to embark on research to study the several different species of whales and dolphins that call the Northern Indian Ocean home.
Oman is the only Arabian peninsula nation that is a member of the IWC and, through its Environment Society of Oman (ESO), has been studying the Arabian Sea Humpback Whale in addition to Bryde's, Sperm and Blue whales. The study has generated great interest in the scientific community as the whales inhabit a region that is not directly linked to cold, polar feeding regions that generate considerable amounts of krill - a key food source for most whales. This makes for a somewhat unique habitat for the whales living there.
Recognizing the importance of conservation measures to monitor the interactions and threats to large whales from shipping traffic and bycatch, the director of the ESO Lamees Daar said, “The successful development of a regional CMP [Conservation Management Plan] will depend on the cooperation and understanding of all range states [Oman, Yemen, the UAE, Iran, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka], which is an ambitious undertaking but is a challenge that ESO feels is necessary.”
Read about possible US sanctions against Iceland in the Associated Foreign Press.
Read about Oman's pro-whale commitment in the Times of Oman.
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.
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.
Because of the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) this week, there has been a lot of related cetacean news with various scientific reports being issued for the benefit of the commission.
BTW: The IWC went into closed door sessions regarding potential changes in the current whaling moratorium. Apparently, the issue was tabled, which is being considered a good or bad thing by observers, depending on who you talk to. Good because the status quo remains and nations like Japan and Norway haven't stormed out; bad because it's still an issue that has sticking points for some and the delay allows opposing parties to exert more influence against the moratorium as it currently exists.
The Associated Press recently reported on a disturbing scientific study presented to the IWC by Dr. Roger Payne and the Ocean Alliance, which conducted the research. According to the report, whales are carrying a stunningly high level of various toxic heavy metals including cadmium, aluminum, chromium, lead, silver, mercury, and titanium.
The research, begun in 2000 by taking tissues samples from 995 whales over a five-year period, was initially designed to track persistent organic pollutants (DDT, PCB, etc.). The researchers were surprised by the levels of heavy metals in their samples."The researchers were stunned with the results. 'That's where the shocking, sort of jaw-dropping concentrations exist,' Payne said. Though it was impossible to know where the whales had been, Payne said the contamination was embedded in the blubber of males formed in the frigid polar regions, indicating that the animals had ingested the metals far from where they were emitted. 'When you're working with a synthetic chemical which never existed in nature before and you find it in a whale which came from the Arctic or Antarctic, it tells you that was made by people and it got into the whale,' he said. How that happened is unclear, but the contaminants likely were carried by wind or ocean currents, or were eaten by the sperm whales' prey."
The report cited levels of mercury at an average of 2.4 parts per million (ppm), with some whales recording as high as 16 ppm. Chromium - a known carcinogen used in the making of stainless steel, dyes, paints, and leather tanning and the subject of a major environmental civil suit made famous in the movie "Erin Brockovich" - was found in all of the study's 361 sperm whales.
Mercury pollution has become a hot topic in the shark and tuna conservation movement with levels typically around 1 ppm. There has been considerable industry opposition in the form of conflicting or disputing counter-reports as to either the levels or toxicity of mercury in seafood. It would not be surprising to see a similar response to this Ocean Alliance report from nations with an economic interest in continued whaling. "'The entire ocean life is just loaded with a series of contaminants, most of which have been released by human beings,' Payne said in an interview on the sidelines of the International Whaling Commission's annual meeting. Payne said sperm whales, which occupy the top of the food chain, absorb the contaminants and pass them on to the next generation when a female nurses her calf. 'What she's actually doing is dumping her lifetime accumulation of that fat-soluble stuff into her baby,' he said, and each generation passes on more to the next. Ultimately, he said, the contaminants could jeopardize seafood, a primary source of animal protein for 1 billion people. 'You could make a fairly tight argument to say that it is the single greatest health threat that has ever faced the human species. I suspect this will shorten lives, if it turns out that this is what's going on,' he said."
Dr. Payne is well known for his studies in the late 60's of humpback whale songs. His research advanced our understanding of the intelligence and complex social behaviors of whales and significantly added to the public groundswell in support of a whaling moratorium. But his recent research gives him much reason for concern as to the whales' future.
"'I don't see any future for whale species except extinction,' Payne said. 'This is not on anybody's radar, no government's radar anywhere, and I think it should be.'"
Read entire Associated Press article.
Here's a mixed bag of news items - some good, some bad; some new, some nagging old issues that haven't been resolved.
An effort by the prior U.S. administration to remove the U.S. Forest Service's requirement to consider wildlife habitat when planning clear-cutting, mining, or road building proposals in addition to the banning of environmental impact reports when planning long-term development - all was struck down by a federal judge. This judgment will help protect up to 193-million acres of national forestland from Alaska to Florida.
Australia and New Zealand have announced a joint Antarctic whale research expedition that will gather data in a non-lethal manner. The significance of this announcement, just prior to the upcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission, is that it challenges Japan's loophole whereby they having been taking whales "for scientific research." Although Japan has stated that the killed whales are not used for commercial purposes, many organizations have purported that is not the case.
Papua New Guinea (PNG) is one of the South Pacific's gems in terms of both its vibrant coral reefs and its lush tropical forests. Those forests have been used so far as an economic boon to the island in the newly hatched world or carbon trading. Though not yet recognized by the UN, the Reduction of Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) has been working with some industrialized nations in speculating on REDD credits. However, there are some legal issues over the ownership of large tracts of rain forest that threaten the program, with the potential for clear cut logging looming.
Shark fishing and finning on a large industrial scale has been the concern of many pro-shark organizations. But we must be mindful of even the small operations - island villagers that are tempted by the high price for shark fins - as these can also have a devastating impact on shark populations since the reproductive rates of these animals is typically very low. On the island of Darien, Panama, a group of tourists came upon a beach strewn with the rotting carcasses of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of juvenile sharks, stripped of their fins. No one could specifically lay blame to any one group of fisherman or village at this point, but it was clear it was not the typical approach used by a large commercial operation. What was doubly disturbing was the fact that, as juveniles, these sharks undoubtedly had not had a chance to breed and at least add to their population, no matter how slightly. Panama has several laws prohibiting or regulating shark fishing, but enforcement in remote fishing villages is another matter.
I reside in California, so I was pleased to hear that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cleared the way for California to enforce automobile emission standards that are stricter than the national standards. California has been a leader, pushing for this waiver for some time and there are several other states, as many as 15 potentially, that could follow suit. Automobile manufacturers are under tremendous pressure to respond to both the current economic conditions and the demands of a growing environmental consensus - they can either willingly adjust to a new reality or be pulled kicking and screaming.
For you whale watchers out there, there's good news regarding the right whales that migrate along the U.S. East Coast. It was reported last week by the New England Aquarium that a record number of calves were reported for this spring. At 39 calves, that's considerable improvement from 2000 when only one calf was born.
The right whale - known by that name because whalers considered it the "right" whale to hunt due to its high level of whale oil and fat - travels nearly 1,000 miles down the East Coast to give birth in the warmer waters of Georgia and Florida. This coastal migration made them any easy target for whalers or even accidental encounters/rammings by ships, adding to their diminished numbers which are as a low as a staggering 400 worldwide.
While still heavily protected or regulated for commercial use, whales have fallen off the public radar compared to their heyday in the 70's. This has enabled countries, like Japan and Norway, with long-standing traditions in commercial whaling to chip away at the current regulations and that is posing a threat to populations of whale species that have improved over the years but are still very tenuous at best.
You can learn more more the current status of whales at large at the American Cetacean Society web site.
It seemed in the 70's that cetaceans (whales) were quite the darlings of the conservation movement. A groundswell of respect and sympathy for these great oceanic mammals that were commercially hunted reached its zenith with the adoption of whaling restrictions and moratoriums for several species by the International Whaling Commission. Over the decades, whale eco-tourism has flourished and the populations of some species have improved. But there are still critical issues that require changes in strategies.With whale eco-tourism, the need exists for greater scrutiny of procedures to better insure whale safety. A recent report cited in SeaWeb's Marine Science Review - 227, showed that in the
northeast region of the U.S. where whale watching boats adhere to a voluntary program of "speed zones" regarding speed and distance from migrating whales, an alarmingly high number of boats were not in compliance and most operators approached the maximum speed limits routinely.
Of greater importance is the overall change in attitudes between the pro- and anti-whaling communities over the years. Another report cited in the same SeaWeb review, assessed the new "norm" that sprang from the anti-whaling movement. It was a fragile peace that has become weaker in recent years - culminating in Japan's recent definition of whaling for "scientific research" involving Humpback Whales.
One of the great challenges conservationists face is in dealing with commercial enterprises that have a strong cultural component. When you criticize the industry, the community takes it personally. It's not just black and white, dollars and cents - there's a definite emotional component that has to be considered. The anti-whaling strategies of the past have not fully won over public opinion in the pro-whaling countries and, according to the report, have even produced a boomerang effect. If you attack something with a strong cultural base without providing an alternative or substitute, or some sort of cultural "compensation", you face slow-building resistance and resentment. Which we are now seeing with Japan's recent actions and those of other nations who have a long history in commercial whaling.
Not to give up, but there needs to be a renewal in strategies, clever approaches in public relations, and diplomacy that rivals Middle East negotiations.
Two recent developments offer encouraging news for whales. Though not yet fully realized in terms of their ramifications, they are certainly steps in the right direction towards ensuring the long-term future of whales worldwide.
