|
On to killing whales in the name of science and a messy
debate.
Lunch is as taxing as ever… many fail to find food and there
is much queuing.
Post lunch, the meeting room is full (in fact fuller
than ever before – there are now 70 parties to the IWC) and it is quite cool.
We open the meeting with some notices and Japan saying that someone on
their delegation has received a threatening email. The email says something like
‘We know who you are now and you are fragile’. Japan says that security steps
have been taken. The UK, US, Mexico and Italy support Japan in this matter.
The scientific committee Chair, Arne Bjorge, then progresses further
through his report and this brings us into the scientific hunts of Japan and
Iceland.
New Zealand asks what ‘95.6% efficiency’ means in the Antarctic
minke whale hunt. Japan replies that after animals were taken they were then
randomly sampled… and they had lost sight of animals after tracking.
The
SC Chair completes his review of special permits (scientific whaling) and we
move to actions arising and there are three power points to follow; one from
Japan on its ‘scientific’ Antarctic hunt (JARPA II) and another on its
‘scientific’ North Pacific Hunt (JARPN) and, finally, one from Australia on its
non-lethal investigations.
Japan begins to describe the Antarctic
‘feasibility study’. They describe apparently shifting stocks and state that
minke whales are being displaced by growing stocks of fin and humpback whales.
New Zealand notes that 0.3% of the population was taken last year in
JARPA and asks what this proportion is based on. The reply is that this is based
on JARPA data.
New Zealand says that they did not hear a number and this
is not based on anything approved by the scientific committee.
This is
based on JARPA data for Antarctic area 3-5 - i.e. 228,000 animals, says Japan.
Austria raises a point about biomass change. Japan retorts that there is
no proven decline between estimates in Antarctica. The Scientific Committee is
looking at this. Sweden asks how long JARPA II will continue. It will be
reviewed every six years, says Japan.
Australia now chips in. The
commissioner asks: With respect to fin whales, we have no agreed estimate for
fin whales so how can 10 be 0.01% of the population as Japan claims?
Japan says in 1987 they launched the first phase of JARPA and fin whale
abundance estimates have been obtained. Estimates are not agreed by scientific
committee but, they say, our estimates are consistent. Australia says that the
fin whale is listed as endangered species and they are very concerned that there
is no agreed abundance estimate.
The Belgium alternate commissioner
eloquently comments on the assertion that minke whales have been pushed south by
growing stocks of fin and humpback whalers and states eloquently is only a
hypothesis. He says that Japan should explain the difference between agreed
facts and hypotheses.
Japan now presents the JARPN II power point.
Almost immediately they come to the suggestion that there is a
relationship between increasing whale stocks and declining fish stocks. We are
then shown many pictures of the animals that are eaten by the whales and which
are also ‘popular foods’ in Japan.
A short film clip is shown of a minke
whale around a fishing boat – as an illustration of
competition.
Multi-species management says Japan will seek to maintain
1. an optimum balance between fish stocks and whales
2. Recovery of
fisheries resources and
3. sustainable utilisation of whales
Australia
says it is seriously hard to take this power point demonstration seriously. No
assessment of the impacts of the fisheries is provided – without an assessment
of fishing effort this is ‘close to farcical’ he adds. Japan says they will
clarify this.
The alternate commissioner for Brazil agrees with Australia
and says that whales and fisheries have been depleted as the same time. He calls
it ‘biological nonsense’.
Mexico says that it is dangerous that no
fisheries data have been presented.
Japan says that its fishing efforts
have been decreasing. He says that they did not say that whales were the only
reason for the decline…. but this cannot be ignored. He also agrees that the
video of the curious minke whale is not enough to show competition and refers to
the graphs that were also shown. The video, he says, is only one part of the
evidence.
Norway congratulates Japan on its modelling and their scientist
notes he is impressed by the quality of their research. Firm conclusions cannot
be drawn yet says the spokesman but there is a relationship between whales and
fisheries and this needs further investigation.
Monaco says that there
is much respect for much Japanese science in other disciplines… but it is not
the whales that cause depletion of whale stocks but, as every reputable marine
scientist knows, it is industrial fisheries that cause declines.
Luxembourg asks to see the film of the curious minke again in slow
motion. (Some muttering breaks out at this unusual and audacious
request).
Japan says that arguments may be too generalised on both sides.
Competition varies from region to region he adds.
Portugal says that the
Japanese model is too simplistic.
Gabon mentions FAO as a competent
organisation… passionate views… living marine resources…. The model developed by
Japan is very simple….dioxin in chickens… Newcastle disease… fish resources are
the only alternative… food security needs….food chain… where do we place the
whale before or after the human being?
US (Alternate Commissioner Doug
DeMaster) states that his delegation continues to be opposed to lethal
scientific whaling. He also notes the importance of having current and new
programmes thoroughly reviewed. This review should be the responsibility of the
scientific committee.
The Chair then mumbles to the Secretary … ‘we could
go on with this all night’. His microphone is on, the whole room hears this and
there is some laughter.
‘Point of order’ calls New Zealand and he asks if
we are now asking question or making general comments. The Chair says questions
only.
Dominica asks Japan how, in light of the precautionary approach,
does this provide vital information?
Antigua insists that St Vincent to
take his place in the list of speakers: He says we delight in scientific
research… however there seems to be a deliberate attempt to rubbish the work of
Japan… we can work together with Japan.
The Chair says only questions
now, not general debate.
Iceland thanks Japan for its substantive
presentation and associates with Norway. Multi-species research is regarded as
very important by Iceland.
Brazil says that we seem to be in the general
debate.
Switzerland says before you start any scientific research you
normally need to decide on what data you want and then how long the study will
go on for but, in this case a rolling programme of work is proposed for every
six years, why is this?
Denmark: it is quite clear that the presentation
is simple, what can you do in ten minutes? He adds we are beating around the
bush if we deny that whales take fish stocks.
Senegal speaks for the
first time and thanks Japan for its work. He has a ‘small question’ – mention
was made of the relationship between whales and fisheries?
Japan now
replies to all questions:
To Luxembourg’s request for slow motion, he
says that he can have the film and look at it over and over again if he likes.
(Laughter.) To Portugal’s question about how whales are increasing despite fish
stock decline.. he says the logic in Japan’s 200 mile zone is the other way
around. One hypothesis is that whales are increasing and they are eating living
marine resources….
Japan goes on to ask the US why there is a special
case from them to phase out lethal research on whales but not other species. He
adds that the Japanese find this US position very odd.
To Dominica he
says the precautionary approach is one of his favourite topics and he would be
pleased to give a lecture about this, but he won’t, he says kindly, but Japanese
research is important in this regard.
To Switzerland he says the timing
of the research with a six-year period is to allow them to review it every six
years.
To Senegal, he says they are not naming any particular animal as
responsible for what is happening in Japanese waters, this is why they are doing
their research… and in the Ecosystem approach the top-down effect is important
and marine mammals are at the top… (and so forth).
Australia now gives a
presentation, via their minister, on their non-lethal research, mentioning first
that 6800 whales were killed in 1987-05 in JARPA and that this resulted in very
few peer-reviewed publications. He lists the numbers of whales that will be
killed in the current Japanese programme, stressing the take of 50 endangered
fin whales. He also mentions the socio-economic benefits of whale watching based
on humpback whales in ‘his part of the world’.
Australia is happy to
share its non-lethal approaches to research with others and he describes the
various methods.
He concludes that lethal sampling is not required to
fill any important data gaps. The final slide shows that more information can be
found at www.save.ourwhales.gov.au
Japan now makes quite a few
comments:
1. There are many peer-reviewed papers and submissions to the
Scientific Committee from their research but western journals often will not
publish research from lethal research;
2. Data from JARPA may not be required
for management under RMP but it is useful for other matters and it could improve
the RMP itself;
3. Re: Whale watching we will handle this matter later;
4.
The current criteria for defining endangered species is based on terrestrial
animals and is not suitable for whales. Japan will challenge the IUCN’s
classification of fin and humpback whales;
5. Concerning non-lethal research,
we agree it is useful for somethings but we cannot seem to attach a tag to
minkes. Have Australia attached satellite tags to whales he asks?
6. Studies
of faeces does not show how much, where and when whales ate
7. DNA (biopsy)
study for aging is limited… [lethally obtained] ear plugs are better
8.
Concerning pollution studies.. biopsy gives some idea but different pollutants
accumulate in different tissues, so for total picture need to sample different
organs.
9. JARPA and JARPN have substantive non-lethal components.
Gabon says that he would like to know what the goals are of the
Australian study.
St Vincent asks is any aspect of the work conducted by
Japan can be used in science.
Iceland says that scientists in one study
failed over many months to collect any faeces – so what is being proposed is
impractical.
Australia now replies:
1. Material from JARPA has
gone to the scientific committee but the review of JARPA I had not been
completed before the beginning of JARPA II.
2. None of the work done
under JARPA is required for the key work of the IWC, whales do not need to be
slaughtered to provide such data. Japan is being very honest in saying that they
want an ecosystem model and want to manipulate the ecosystem but this is a
different aim to that of the IWC.
3. Japan apparently respects that these
are listed endangered and threatened species but then says that categories are
inappropriate – so does Japan think that the IUCN [the body that categorises
populations] has got this wrong.
4. Satellite tags can give much useful
data and he would be pleased to give these devices to Japan buth with one
caveat… that they cease lethal whaling.
5. Australia has very successful
faeces collection skills (some laughter) and invites Japan to visit the
Antarctic division in Hobart
6. A precautionary approach to dealing with
whales would tell you that collecting hundreds of ear plugs is not an effective
scientific approach and does not relate to the core work of the IWC – this is a
wasteful way to collect data.
7. Pollution levels in whales provide an
important issue for those that eat whales.
8. They are aware of Japan’s
non-lethal research and the Minister calls on Japan and Australia to work
together to build non-lethal and important scientific programmes.
9. To
Gabon, Australia states that they have quite clear goals that are core IWC
mandates.
10. Australian research is predominantly
peer-reviewed.
A long discussion says the Chair. He tries to move to the
general debate but Japan wishes to reply to Australia. He thanks Minister
Campbell for his answers and says that with respect to the IUCN listings, yes,
Japan does not think that they are applicable to marine animals. He adds that
they need to know the total picture of contaminants for ‘food safety issue’ and
also how they vary in different parts of the body. Antarctic minke whales have
very low levels of contaminants – so it is ‘one of the safest, cleanest meats
that we can find on this globe’.
Japan finally notes that non-lethal
research between Japan and Australia is already ongoing via the SOWER cruises.
This involves international participation.
Australia replies to the
reply, he notes that he only asked one question and this was not answered. He
repeats it: does Japan not think that humpbacks and fins are either endangered
or vulnerable? Japan says that he did answer that and they are not happy with
the current criteria.
There is a tea break (but no biscuits).
During
the tea break a press conference with the Australian minister in the middle
breaks out in the corner of the room.
Outside it is hot and humid. Dark
clouds are gathering and many millipedes are marching.
| 
