| Return to opening page |
. |
|||||
Invincible, Bad, DangerousWell it was a thriller - the world's TV audiences waited for 90 minutes for the result of a Californian Jury to be made public. As so often news values become distorted and other important issues fail to attract sufficient attentions. Having some sympathy with the vulnerable we try to address that gulf and today draw attention to the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) , at (Ulsan, Republic of Korea. Scotland, with the (Edinburgh based) Salveson firm, was a major player during the hey day of this trade. Today the firm is no longer involved, its activities are confined to storage and transportation. Although most Britons despite being fed on whalemeat during the dark days of World War 2, are mainly at the thought of killing and eating these leviathons, there remains an organisation with a differing agenda. Taken
from a fact sheet published by NOAA in 2002.
Since 1985/86 there has been a worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling. Shortly after phasing out its commercial whaling program, Japan unilaterally elected to resume whaling in the southern hemisphere under the guise of "scientific whaling," to study stock structure. In 1994 Japan expanded its activities to the North Pacific. The products of this research program are sold to Japanese consumers. In recent years, Japan has claimed that the stomach contents of whales must be examined to understand predator/prey relationships in the ocean ecosystem, and to collect evidence relevant to its hypothesis that whales eat too many fish and are causing major declines in fish stocks. The United States, many IWC member countries, and the IWC's scientific committee dispute this claim. The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization and other fishery management organizations and scientific bodies have stated that the decline of world fish stocks is primarily due to overfishing by man. Nevertheless, Japan persists in this claim. While Japan initially focused its lethal research on minke whales, the smallest of the great whales, in April 2000 it expanded its program in the North Pacific to include the lethal take of two additional species, sperm and Bryde's whales. Japan's research program now results in the killing of up to 600 whales—540 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, and 10 sperm whales per year. More than 6,200 whales have been killed since Japan began research whaling in 1988. In late February 2002, Japan announced a proposal to expand its lethal scientific whaling program in the North Pacific to include 50 sei whales and an additional 50 minke whales. The sei whale is considered a Protection Stock in the IWC and is listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Japan has sought a commercial whaling quota of 50 minke whales for more than a decade; under its new proposal, would-be coastal whalers will become research whalers. The United States and many other nations continue to be deeply opposed to Japan's lethal scientific whaling program. The United States particularly objects to the proposed expansion to take a new species of whale in 2002, and, along with 17 other IWC members, has formally called upon Japan to withdraw its proposal to expand the program. Below is an alternative view. The Facts, "Facts" and Fiction of Scientific Whaling (from "Science & Technology In Japan", Vol. 8, No. 31, July 1989) Fukuzo Nagasaki The following article was compiled from two interviews conducted with FUKUZO NAGASAKI, executive director of the Institute of Cetacean Research. Both scientific and political viewpoints are expressed, and it should therefore be clarified that Nagasaki is a scientist, not a politician. The Institute of Cetacean Research was established as a non-profit organisation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries in October 1987, to undertake scientific research on whales following the introduction of a moratorium on commercial whaling. A parable tells of three blind men confronted by an elephant. One touches the leg, and concludes the elephant is built like a tree. The next grasps the trunk and believes the elephant to be a giant snake. The third strokes the side, and describes a solid wall. A parallel exists here with the controversy over commercial whaling. No matter how long or hard proponents and opponents debate the subject, they never seem to be looking at the same animal. There are, of course, several aspects which have to be brought into perspective - ethical, cultural, scientific and political - and objectivity is inevitably compromised by one's order of priorities. It is also in the nature of believers in causes to practice selective myopia, intentionally or otherwise seeing only those "facts" which support their particular foregone conclusions. Japan is a proponent of whaling, and stands accused of bending facts to suit its ends as much as anyone. Unfortunately though, many of Japan's accusers outside the scientific community have little understanding of whom or what they are really opposing. I say "unfortunate" not only for misrepresented Japan, but also for the conservation movement which, by spreading misinformation, has stabbed itself in the foot. The fragile footing on which much opposition is founded is then shored up by misleading journalism. In an age when we are inclined to revere the printed word as gospel truth, it is little wonder that an already complex scientific dispute has become further clouded by emotions fueled by inaccurate insinuation. It is, for example, widely believed by the general public in the West that Japan flagrantly ignores the International Convention of Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), established in 1946. This is not true. The controversy recently reached a zenith with the launch by Japan of a scientific whaling program. (Again, the media like to put "scientific" in quotations. This implies "Believe that, if you can!", while exonerating the journalist of any obligation to defend his libellous insinuation.) Against this confused, and often sordid, backdrop, let us look at the "facts" as Japan sees them with regard to the scientific and political aspects. Cultural and ethical aspects are best dealt with elsewhere. The "Facts" Japan makes no secret of its hope to resume commercial whaling as soon as possible, and is now conducting scientific research to help the International Whaling Commission (IWC) determine the advisability of a partial lifting of its moratorium from 1990. Certain points should be noted here. Firstly, if and when this happens, Japan will only harvest the relatively plentiful minke whale. We believe that stocks of other species, in particular the bryde's whale, may be sufficient to support future exploitation, but population analyses are presently insufficient. In fact we have no clear idea of stock size for any species other than minke. More importantly, we have at present absolutely no intention of catching such species as blue or sperm whale in the Antarctic, because of their low stock levels. This fact is ignored by media sensationalists as statistics on the depleted stocks of these species make far more compelling reading than do estimates of the minke stock. For example, following this May's IWC meeting in San Diego, the "revelation" was made by the media that the blue whale stocks in the Antarctic were seriously depleted. Scientists have known this for over 20 years. And to talk of blue whales in the same context as the commercial whaling dispute is to imply by association that Japan wants to catch blue whales. The irresponsibility of such journalism is outrageous. Secondly, contrary to accusations, our scientific whaling program is in no way a disguised commercial operation. As if this claim needed support, a glance at the accounts should dispel any doubts (see Box I). And thirdly, there is a widely held misconception that Japan's scientific program runs counter to the spirit of the ICRW and to the will of the IWC which is responsible for enforcing the convention. As we will see later, Japan is at loggerheads not with the IWC but with the US, which condescendingly strives to compensate for what it sees as the IWC's failings. International Convention Japan's stance on whaling is to ensure the rational management and utilisation of whale resources on a sustained basis, and the orderly development of whaling. This conforms exactly with both the spirit and the letter of the ICRW (see Box II). The scientific research program likewise is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the convention, as contained in Article VIII (1). This adherence to the convention cannot be denied, but can be misrepresented. A popular British science journal, for example, recently stated that since the 1982 moratorium on whaling "several countries have managed to continue whaling by exploiting the small print in the IWC's rules." The term "exploiting the small print", with all its negative innuendo, is actually not true, unless one counts everything following a headline as "small print". Another term used with gay abandon is "loophole". Might I suggest that "exploiting small print" and climbing through "loopholes" are two arts of which the media themselves are masters. If dry, accurate reporting lacks colour, make it wet and inaccurate. Your editor will thank you. And adding to the farcicality of the loophole accusation is that up until the 1972/73 season, that same "loophole" of Article VIII was being used by other countries not legitimately as Japan had done, but to conduct what patently were disguised commercial operations. (The worst offender, ironically, was the US which, between 1965/66 and 1969/70, announced plans to catch up to 400 sperm whales and up to 340 gray whales in the name of scientific research.) The dry facts are these: The convention has three basic aims, which have no ranking in terms of importance. These aims are to conserve whale stocks, ensure their rational utilisation, and ensure the orderly development of the whaling industry. It is implicit in the convention that these aims be more or less harmonised. In reality, however, opponents of whaling have emphasised only conservation while others, particularly in industry, emphasise only utilisation. Neither side is correct. Objection to Moratorium At its 1982 annual meeting in Brighton, England, the IWC adopted a moratorium on all commercial whaling, to take effect from 1986. Article V (3) of the ICRW, however, gives contracting governments the right of objection to amendments, and states that such amendments "shall become effective with respect to all Contracting Governments which have not presented objection (within a specified time frame) but shall not become effective with respect to any Government which has so objected until such date as the objection is withdrawn." This right of objection was exercised by Japan. In so doing, Japan did not, as many would believe, turn its nose up at the authority of the IWC. Such lofty bodies as the United Nations give a certain elite the right of veto, a right frequently exercised by the US. Signatories to the Geneva Convention have been known to ignore that convention. But Japan neither vetoed nor ignored the IWC amendment; it merely exercised the right to object. The IWC is made up of government representatives, with scientists attending plenary sessions only as observers. There is, however, a Scientific Committee which meets prior to the IWC plenary meeting and serves in an advisory capacity. Japan's objection to the moratorium stemmed from the fact that the Scientific Committee meeting in 1982 never even considered the need for anything as drastic as a moratorium. The moratorium was proposed and adopted by government representatives without a scientific basis. The hot subject among scientists at the 1982 meeting was the minke whale in the Southern Hemisphere, which Japan and the USSR were still catching commercially. The Committee submitted to the IWC an estimate for the total abundance of minke in the Southern Hemisphere of 260,000, a number which, in the opinion of Japan, was large enough to support continued commercial whaling. (The International Decade of Cetacean Research [IDCR] has been conducting a sighting program for minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean since 1978/79 funded by the IWC. Mainly reflecting improvements in sighting methodology, IDCR estimates of minke have gradually increased and amounted to about 700,000 following the 1988/89 survey.) The IWC moratorium which followed, however, applied to all species. It made no differentiation between the robust minke stock and the depleted stocks of some species already classified as protected. Of course there were probably some scientists who were in favour of a moratorium, maybe even for minke, but it was not a majority opinion of the Scientific Committee. If it had been, it would have been reflected in the scientific report to the IWC, but there was nothing. Uncertainty The key word in the moratorium was "uncertainty". The IWC asserted that because reliable data were lacking on whale populations, it would be irresponsible to continue setting catch quotas until such data became available. This view is reflected in the contingent clause stating that the IWC would undertake "comprehensive assessment" of whale stocks by 1990, using the best scientific data available. By "comprehensive assessment", the IWC meant looking at whale stocks from every angle, including both conservation and utilisation. Following the moratorium's adoption, Japan engaged actively in Scientific Committee discussions of the catch-stock relationship for various whale species, but some members continued to claim "uncertainty". This fear was impossible to dispel as even Japan conceded that available data, derived mostly from commercial operations, were hopelessly unreliable. Whalers naturally target larger whales in areas of high population density. Both camps - proponents and opponents - therefore stuck to their guns with neither able to produce persuasive evidence in support of their cause. It was clear that a consensus of opinion was impossible, and in all Scientific Committee reports since 1982, two diametrically opposed schools of thought have been omnipresent. On one side are the scientists of Norway, Iceland, the USSR, Japan, S. Korea and Peru - the whaling nations - and, on the other, scientists led by the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Australia and N. Zealand. There has been nothing in between. We are completely polarised, and it has been impossible to reach any consensus, even on minor points. Clearly there was a need to dispel the uncertainty by introducing some reliable data, derived from a non-commercial sampling. Studies of whale populations which rely on data derived from commercial catches are unrepresentative in terms of age, sex and distribution. With such unreliability built in, other parameters such as natural mortality rate cannot be estimated with any confidence. The principle parameters required in order to determine optimum levels of whale harvesting are: i) total population, and ii) rate of population change. The basis for assessing changes in population size is analysis of the age-sex composition. Clearer understanding of the population dynamics can then be obtained from natural mortality rate and pregnancy rate by age. It is important to note that in the research plan which was subsequently to be drawn up by the Japanese government, age-specific rates, rather than rates by age group, were included at the request of scientists opposed to whaling, not because we believed it necessary. Anti-whaling biologists said that natural mortality was essential for population analysis, and that it should be age-specific. This was to prove significant as determining age-specific parameters requires far larger samples than determining those same parameters by age group. These biologists were well aware of this fact, and there are two conceivable reasons why they made this request. Either they believed that the sample size would outrage the public and force Japan to back down, or they believed we would give up in despair at the impossibility of the task. But of course it backfired on them, because we said "OK, we'll do it". Research Plan In 1987, the Japanese government drafted a research plan based on representative sampling following a well designed procedure. The Institute of Cetacean Research was subsequently established, with the intention of enacting this plan from the 1987/88 season. The main aims of the plan were: i) to gather basic data which could be used for the comprehensive assessment of minke stocks in the Southern Hemisphere, ii) to gather data on various large whales in Antarctic waters such as fin and sei whales, and iii) to gather basic information on the ecosystem in Antarctic waters. Basically, the plan involved concurrent sighting and sampling in two areas, designated IV and V, these to be covered partially by the billiard method. Samples would be taken of minke feeding close to the pack ice and also of migrating schools offshore. The most valuable information anticipated from the survey was natural mortality rate by age. This would be estimated from a sample size of 1,650 taken over two consecutive seasons, or 825 each season. There would then be a recess of two years, and again another 1,650 samples would be taken over two seasons. The two sets of samples could then be compared to calculate natural mortality rate by age. We believed the sample size to be rather small for calculating age-specific natural mortality, and predictably biologists who had proposed calculating this parameter said it was impossible. But with the help of mathematicians we showed, to our satisfaction at least, that age frequencies and mortality could be figured out on a theoretical basis. By then combining samplings and simultaneous sightings, we could extrapolate these relative figures with ease to obtain absolute figures. This plan it was which really put the cat among the pigeons. While no one could deny the desirability of hard scientific data, opponents in the US split into those who cried the sample size was far too large and those who cried it was far too small for the parameters Japan hoped to obtain, and as such the project might as well be scrapped. The intention of the US had always been quite clear: it wanted Japan to abandon the research program. However, since the time the research plan was proposed, there has seemed to be no unified opinion even in the US camp. Some opponents have said that 825 or even 300 samples are too many. Meanwhile, chief biologists in Washington have publicly stated that to figure out natural mortality by age, it is necessary to take at least 10,000 samples, and probably 20,000. If this need were clearly explained, perhaps we could agree to shelve the program, but it is difficult not to be suspicious as some of these biologists are the same ones who insisted on our determining age-specific parameters in the first place. Another opposition banner was also unfurled at this time, which has since gained unwarranted credibility. The claim that all data can be obtained without lethal sampling owes its aura of credibility to a scientifically illiterate public which believes scientists today can tell your favourite TV program just by examining a toe nail clipping. Undeniably, much useful information can be gleaned without resorting to killing. Total abundance, for example, is best estimated by sightings. But assessing population dynamics is quite a different matter. It is vital to have data on age-sex composition and pregnancy rate by age, and at present there is no practical means of telling a whale's age without killing it. In the case of baleen whales such as minke, age can only be determined by counting the annual rings in the ear-plug, while for toothed whales the teeth reveal the age. Non-scientists believe that blood and skin samples reveal all, but even in the case of humans, for which clinical samples have abounded since the first surgeon took up his knife, we still cannot determine age from blood and skin alone. If and when a non-lethal method can be shown to be practical in the field we will gladly abandon killing. In fact, with the advance of science it is inevitable that such a method will eventually emerge. However, the politics of the situation have obliged Japan to resort to a second line of defence for lethal sampling which we wish was not necessary: lack of time. The IWC is to begin its comprehensive assessment in 1990, and scientific data is thus needed rather urgently. US Threats Yet despite being pressed for time, the Japanese government chose to postpone the original plan and to conduct a smaller-scale feasibility study. This change of tack resulted from political considerations, and marked the final retreat in the face of a storm which had been blowing for some years outside of the IWC. The whaling controversy had become politically charged and thrown into the same arena as trade disputes, for exploitation by political opportunists. Chiefly responsible for whipping up the storm was Washington, which had taken the hard-nosed stance that if Japan didn't stop whaling in whatever form, it would lose the right to fish in US waters. This threat, manifested in 1979 as the Packwood-Magnusson Act, was highly effective: Japan promised to withdraw its objection and to cease all commercial whaling from the end of the 1987/88 season. The US, of course, is not the IWC, and as far as the latter is concerned, Japan could have continued both its objection and commercial whaling. But the US has never been averse to throwing its weight around, either overtly or covertly, and in this case was covertly prodding the Japanese government very hard beneath the table. In fact, even the apparent coincidence of US opinion and IWC opinion on many matters is not so coincidental. The political and economic weight of the US gives it enormous influence over IWC members, to the degree that sometimes they appear to be one and the same. It is said that the US controls, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of IWC votes, in particular those of members which have no interest in, and know little or nothing about, whales. But ironically, once Japan had submitted to the brutal Packwood-Magnusson Act, the Act was to lose all its teeth. The Act was conceived at a time when Japan took a sizable catch of bottom fish in US waters, but the US fishing fleet was improving rapidly, and was eventually adjudged capable of catching all US fish on its own. The real reason, of course, was the trade deficit, not technological capability, but the effect was the same: from 1988, all quotas for foreign fleets were scrapped, and the Act became an anachronism. Japan now takes almost no fish in US waters because it has almost no quota, so the ever resourceful US has been obliged to dream up a new weapon, the Perry Amendment Act. Now the threat is that if Japan doesn't stop killing whales, the US may impose a complete ban on all imports of Japanese fisheries products. It is this kind of high-handed threat from Washington which has dominated back-room talks on whaling since 1982. While the IWC as a body should remain impartial to its members, and while Japan sincerely hopes that it will, it is sometimes hard to believe that the opposition is not stacking the deck. Japan will continue to respect the democratic authority of the IWC, and will continue to push its case at IWC meetings, but we cannot help feeling sometimes that our carefully drafted speeches are falling on deaf ears. But we have no intention of changing our minds; we are thinking our own way. It would be wrong, however, to believe that we are conducting this research for pleasure. It takes a lot of money and energy, and ties up large boats and capable biologists. So perhaps the one thing we and our opponents agree on is that it's all rather stupid! Nonetheless, the research program will not be a complete waste of time and effort. Scientists worldwide, not just in the IWC, will share our results, and whatever it is that our research uncovers cannot help but be of some value to the scientific community - if, of course, they choose to understand it. San Diego If there is a moral to this tale, it was learned in San Diego this spring. That moral might variously be read as "where there's a will, there's a way", or "adversity spawns ingenuity". Japanese and other IWC scientists are developing some extremely interesting management methods for whale stocks. These methods show that with absolutely no information on population parameters, we can still manage stocks well enough to enable catching without endangering those stocks. One such method, which was well accepted by the IWC's Scientific Committee, was developed by Prof. Shoichi Tanaka, a bio-mathematician formerly of Tokyo University. Tanaka's management concept is not so difficult, but requires lengthy computer simulations. His technique appears to be a contradiction: even with no information in your hand, you can manage a stock extremely well. It's an empirical method which uses two parameters. One is the level of population and the other is which way it is moving, up or down. It is not necessary to know absolute abundance; the only data you need are on the trend of the stock over a period of time. If the stock is increasing slightly while you are taking 200, you can increase the catch from 200 to 210, while the stock continues to increase. This adaptive empirical methodology thus puts weight not on the total abundance of stock but on the direction of the stock. It's a whole new concept of management. Predictably, a US biologist in San Diego, who is a powerful force on the Scientific Committee, tried to turn our new weapon against us. If, he argued, the IWC approved this new method of management, there would be no need for us to continue our scientific research to determine natural mortality rate. But according to Tanaka, his method would require perhaps 30 or 40 years before a stable yield point for a stock could be ascertained. However, with some idea of population size and natural mortality rate, we could fix stable catch quotas in 5 or 10 years with ease. In fact, it is his opinion that commercial operations could resume from this year. Of course, opponents of whaling would say that the moral lesson which Japanese perseverance teaches is "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" HISTORY AND PURPOSE The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed in Washington DC on 2nd December 1946 (Click HERE to view full text). The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. The main duty of the IWC is to keep under review and revise as necessary the measures laid down in the Schedule to the Convention which govern the conduct of whaling throughout the world (Click HERE to view the full text). These measures, among other things, provide for the complete protection of certain species; designate specified areas as whale sanctuaries; set limits on the numbers and size of whales which may be taken; prescribe open and closed seasons and areas for whaling; and prohibit the capture of suckling calves and female whales accompanied by calves. The compilation of catch reports and other statistical and biological records is also required. In addition, the Commission encourages, co-ordinates and funds whale research, publishes the results of scientific research and promotes studies into related matters such as the humaneness of the killing operations. MEMBERSHIP Membership of the IWC is open to any country in the world that formally adheres to the 1946 Convention. Each member country is represented by a Commissioner, who is assisted by experts and advisers. The Chair and Vice-Chair are elected from among the Commissioners and usually serve for three years. (Click HERE to view the full Membership list). The present Chair is Com. Henrik Fischer from Denmark and the Vice-Chair is Horst Kleinschmidt from South Africa. SECRETARIAT The IWC has a full-time Secretariat with headquarters in Cambridge, England. There are currently 17 members of staff which include the Secretary, Dr Nicola Grandy, Head of Finance and Administration, Head of Science, Computing Manager and supporting staff. (Click HERE for contact details). MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES Each year, usually in May or June, the Annual Meeting of the Commission is held, either by invitation in any member country, or in the UK - the Secretariat's base. In 2000, the meetings were held in June/July in Australia. They were held in London in July 2001 and the 2002 meeting was held in Shimonoseki in Japan in May. A Special Meeting was held in Cambridge in October 2002 at which Iceland was readmitted to the IWC and a catch limit was set for the aboriginal subsistence hunt on the Bering-Chukchi- Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales. The 2004 meeting was held in Sorrento, Italy. The 2005 meeting will be held in Ulsan, Republic of Korea, in May/June. The Commission has had three main committees - Scientific, Technical, and Finance and Administration. A new Committee (the Conservation Committee) first met in 2004. There are also Commission sub-committees which deal with aboriginal subsistence whaling, Infractions (breaking of regulations) and other ad hoc Working Groups to deal with a wide range of issues. Commissioners may opt for their countries to be represented in any or all of these activities and most choose to do so. THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE An important feature of the Convention is the emphasis it places on scientific advice. The Convention requires that amendments to the Schedule ‘shall be based on scientific findings’. To this end, the Commission has established a Scientific Committee. The Scientific Committee comprises up to 200 of the world's leading whale biologists. Many are nominated by member governments. In addition, in recent years it has invited other scientists to supplement its expertise in various areas. The size of the Committee, as well as the subject matter it addresses, has increased considerably over time. In 1954, it comprised 11 scientists from 7 member nations. At its annual meeting in Berlin in 2003 it comprised over 170 participants (including some 39 invited participants); 30 member nations were represented. The Committee meets in the two weeks immediately before the main Commission meeting and it may also hold special meetings during the year to consider particular subjects. The Scientific Committee's report provides an annual review of the major issues affecting cetacean conservation. It is published each year as a supplement to the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. The subject matter considered by
the Committee is largely determined by the scientific needs of the
Commission. These are expressed in broad terms in the Convention text
and are to:
encourage, recommend, or, if
necessary, organise studies and investigations relating to whales and
whaling;
collect and analyse statistical
information concerning the current condition and trend of the whale
stocks and the effects of whaling activities thereon;
study, appraise and disseminate
information concerning methods of maintaining and increasing the
populations of whale stocks.
The Scientific Committee has established a number of sub-committees and working groups to discuss the major topics currently on its agenda, including: Revised Management Procedure; Aboriginal subsistence whaling
management procedures;
Bycatch; Assessments of nominated species/stocks; Stock definition; Environmental concerns; Whalewatching; Sanctuaries; Special permits; Small cetaceans. The information and advice the Scientific Committee provides on the status of the whale stocks form the basis on which the Commission develops the regulations for the control of whaling. These are contained in the Schedule and require a three-quarters majority of the Commissioners voting. Any changes become effective 90 days later unless a member state has lodged an objection, in which case the new regulation is not binding on that country. This procedure may be used when a government considers its national interests or sovereignty are unduly affected. The regulations adopted by the Commission are implemented through the national legislation of the member states, who appoint inspectors to oversee their whaling operations and may also receive international observers appointed by the IWC. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT There are many stocks or populations of the thirteen species of 'great whales'. Many have been depleted by over-exploitation, some seriously, both in recent times and in earlier centuries. Fortunately, several of these are showing signs of increase since their protection. (Click HERE for current population estimates) Whales, like any other animal population, have a natural capacity for increase and a natural rate of mortality. A stock remains more or less in equilibrium at its initial level because these two factors balance one another. If the number of whales in a stock is reduced then recruitment increases, possibly as a result of greater food availability, by higher pregnancy rates, earlier maturation, increased survival rates or a combination of these factors. In 1975, a new management policy for whales was adopted by the IWC based on these characteristics. This was designed to bring all stocks to the levels providing the greatest long-term harvests, by setting catch limits for individual stocks below their sustainable yields. However, because of uncertainties in the scientific analyses (in part due to the difficulty in obtaining the complex data required) and therefore the precise status of the various whale stocks, the IWC decided at its meeting in 1982 that there should be a pause (the ‘moratorium’) in commercial whaling on all whale stocks from 1985/86. A Revised Management Procedure (RMP) has been developed subsequently, which the Commission accepted and endorsed in 1994 but has yet to implement. This balances the somewhat conflicting requirements to ensure that the risk to individual stocks is not seriously increased, while allowing the highest continuing yield. It is an important step in the development of wildlife resource management in that it takes into account the inevitable scientific uncertainty and requires only relatively simple to obtain information (knowledge of population size, past and present catches, and stock identity). The Commission is currently examining ways to complete a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) that incorporates scientific aspects of management (the RMP) with those designed to ensure that regulations are obeyed. The pause in commercial whaling does not affect aboriginal subsistence whaling which is permitted from Denmark (Greenland, fin and minke whales), the Russian Federation (Siberia, gray whales), St Vincent and The Grenadines (humpback whales), and the USA (Alaska, bowhead and occasionally off Washington, gray whales). SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH In addition to reviewing the research carried out by member nations and other research groups, The Commission sponsors and promotes international research. A major undertaking has been a series of ship surveys of the Antarctic minke whale stocks that began over 25 years ago. This has now been expanded into a new Southern Hemisphere research programme called SOWER. Other funded research includes work on developing and improving new techniques such as photo-identification studies, acoustic and satellite/radio tracking of whales and genetic analysis of populations. The Scientific Committee has been concentrating on a 'Comprehensive Assessment' of whale stocks, defined as an in-depth evaluation of the status of the stocks in the light of management objectives. It was this latter emphasis that led to the development of the Revised Management Procedure. The Committee is also working to assess the effects on cetaceans of environmental change such as global warming and pollution, and whalewatching activities. A summary of recent activities of the Scientific Committee is given in the Editorial of the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. As part of their response to the decision for a pause in commercial whaling, some member governments have implemented major research programmes which may include the sampling of whales caught under special permits which the Convention allows them to grant. DOLPHINS AND PORPOISES The Commission has since its inception regulated the catches of the large whale species, but the smaller species of whales, dolphins and porpoises (commonly known as 'small cetaceans') are also members of the same zoological order of Cetacea. Member governments hold different views over the legal competence of the IWC to regulate direct and incidental catches of small cetaceans. However, they are working to promote cooperation between the coastal and range states to conserve and manage these species also. Although the Commission does not set regulations for small cetacean management, the IWC Scientific Committee addresses matters of the conservation of small cetacean species at its annual meetings. Papers addressing small cetaceans are published in the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management and in special volumes. LIST OF MEMBER NATIONS (Total 62)
An interesting excercise is to identify the land-locked nations in the above list. An further view below. The Whalemeat Association of Great Britain is an organisation dedicated to combatting the plethora of untruths and misinformation surrounding the harvesting of whales for human consumption. Whereas most people have no objection to the wholesale slaughter of sheep, cows and other mammals, and happily conspire to empty the sea of cod and herring, there seems to be a general consensus that the killing of whales is intrinsically wrong. The origins of this fallacy are two-fold. On the one hand, the word "whale" is generally taken to mean those beautiful black and white killer whales at Sea-World (eg "Free Willy") or the ugly but vastly more impressive Blue Whales, both of which are purportedly threatened with extinction. Of course these are not the whales we are referring to at all, the ones currently being culled by the Norwegians are an entirely different species, ugly little whales which are about as threatened as garden ants, so arguments about extinction cut no ice with us. On the other hand, even if these whales were threatened with extinction - so what? Species have come and gone since the beginning of time, both with and without human help. Ever seen a Brontosaurus in the flesh? No. Nature's way is the survival of the fittest - and right now, the fittest is us. Getting rid of the whales would simply leave more fish for us - but this is not really an issue, there are plenty of small ugly whales that no sensible person cares about, just waiting to be served up with chips and ketchup. Do try one of our delicious recipes. Whale
in a wok
For
4 servings
600 g whalemeat cut into strips 1 red pepper in strips 3 stalks of celery in small pieces 10 sliced mushrooms 1 small tin of sliced bamboo shoots 1 sliced onion 3-4 tablespoons of soya oil 1 teaspoon of grated ginger 1/2 dl soya sauce 1/2 teaspoon cornstarch flour 1 dl vegetable stock salt and pepper Warm the oil in a wok or deep frying pan. Add the meat and fry quickly until brown. Sprinkle some salt and pepper on the meat. Remove the meat from the pan and keep it warm. Fry the vegetables quickly until soft. Stir ginger, soya sauce, vegetable stock and flour together. Pour the mixture into the pan and let it boil. Add salt and pepper to taste. Add the fried meat and serve with jasmine rice. |
||||||
| return to
meditations |
top |
|||||