Whaling

28 février 2008

Bowhead whale hunting in Alaska: public consultations in the United States

Alaskan natives continue their traditional subsistence hunt of the bowhead, a baleen whale exclusive to the Arctic Ocean. The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has proposed an annual quota of 67 whales for the 2008 - 2012 period. As many as 15 unused strikes can be transferred to the following year up to an annual maximum of 82 whales, not to exceed a total of 255 landed whales for the five year period.

This proposition takes into account the needs of natives and the variability of hunting conditions from one year to the next. These whales belong to what is known as the Western Arctic population that inhabits the Bering Sea in winter and the Beaufort Sea in summer. The proposed catch rate is considered negligible in light of current abundance trends; this population is presently made up of over 10 000 bowhead whales. An independent team of researchers published a report in 2007 that actually recommended removing this population from the U.S. endangered species list.

The NMFS proposition is open to public consultation until March 3. A final decision will be made public around March 14. The proposition is based on authorized International Whaling Commission (IWC) quotas identical to those of the previous five-year period. These quotas are shared between Alaskan villages and Russian communities of the Tchouktche Peninsula. The NMFS and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) jointly manage quotas in the United States. [NMFS, Gerber et al.]

Pour en savoir plus

On the NMFS site:

20 septembre 2007

Eastern Pacific grey whale population has not yet recovered

Intensive XIX Century whaling decimated many whale populations. Some populations, such as the Atlantic grey whale, completely disappeared. Although the western Pacific grey whale population is still on the verge of extinction, scientists believed that the eastern Pacific population, found in the Bering Sea and along the west coast of North America, had recovered and had even attained the carrying capacity of its environment. A recently published report by Stanford University Ph.D. student Liz Alter and her team has revealed that this population, presently evaluated at 22 000 animals, was likely three to five times more plentiful during the pre-whaling era.

Genes that retrace the pass

The research team studied genetic diversity in order to estimate this population's pre-industrial size; the larger a population, the more genetic variability is accumulated, and this variability is maintained over a very long period of time. By comparing 10 regions of the genomes of 42 grey whales, Alter and her colleagues discovered that genetic diversity was way too high to come from a population of a mere 22 000 animals. Using available genetic models, the researchers calculated that the initial population was between 76 000 and 118 000 animals.

Whales play a key role

The reduction of the grey whale population through whaling—from 100 000 to only 20 000—led to profound changes in their ecosystem. Because of their unique feeding method, grey whales are a key species in the marine ecosystem. These “bulldozers” use their short baleen to filter sediment. As they rise to the surface, long plumes of mud and crustaceans they failed to capture trail behind them. Near the surface, these prey become accessible to seabirds. The grey whale population was therefore once possibly able to “feed” a million birds.

Climate change responsible

Earlier data led researchers to believe that at 22 000 the population had attained the carrying capacity of its environment. In fact, mortality spikes combined with the sighting of many thin whales led researchers to believe that there were too many whales and not enough available food. However, the new data supports another explanation of the changes in the population's dynamics between 1999 and 2001. Climate change, that affects ecosystems on a large scale, may have contributed to an increase in Arctic Ocean water temperatures, consequently reducing the availability of grey whale prey. The eastern Pacific grey whale is therefore still in need of protection. Further studies of their complex habitat are required to ensure their survival.

Pour en savoir plus

On the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Site:

30 août 2007

Iceland abandons commercial whaling

Iceland has just announced that it will be terminating its commercial whaling programme; this programme had resumed just one year ago. Iceland's fisheries minister, Einar K. Guofinnsson, affirmed that he will not be issuing new quotas, at least as long as markets are not favourable to whale products and Japanese markets remain closed to Icelandic whale meat. Last year Iceland had lifted an embargo that had been in place since 1986 by setting quotas for 30 minke whales and 9 fin whales. However, only seven whales of each species were actually killed due to low demand.

Whale meat: a healthy choice?

Potential buyers of whale meat had expressed a desire to have contamination test results made public in order to ensure the meat's quality. Minke and fin whales have life expectancies of between 50 and 100 years respectively. As a result, they accumulate toxic substances for many decades through a process known as bioaccumulation. Furthermore, due to the fact that these two species are high up in the food chain and that contaminant concentrations are amplified with each level up the food chain, they accumulate higher levels of contaminants in their fatty tissues than many other animals. This phenomenon is known as bioamplification.

Divergent opinions regarding whaling

The latest announcement by Iceland's fisheries minister has not received unanimous approval. While countries opposed to whaling are pleased, Icelandic whalers are not comforted by this news. According to them, the government should not be deciding whether or not the market is favourable. Gunnar Bergmann Jonsson—who leads a minke whaling association—doubts the logic of being able to find a market for whale meat when the product itself is not even available.

Scientific whaling is in as much trouble as commercial whaling

Iceland also conducts a scientific whaling programme that targets minke whales. Said programme was scheduled to take place over two years starting in 2003 and result in the harvesting of 200 animals. Yet, after four years of hunting, the quota has not yet been attained. The meat from this hunt is also sold on the open market. [ABC News, Greenpeace]

Pour en savoir plus

On ABC News site:

21 juin 2007

A survivor who reveals secrets about the longevity of his species

A harpoon fragment dating back to the XIX Century was found in a bowhead whale that was captured last May near Barrow, Alaska. The animal, which had survived a similar attempt on its life over one hundred years ago, carried the projectile lodged in its right scapula beneath its thick layer of blubber.

The fragment was found by the crew of captain Arnold Brower Sr. during the subsistence bowhead whale hunt carried out by Alaska Inuit. Bowhead whales are in the right whale family. The projectile is likely from a harpoon manufactured in New Bedford, Massachusetts, a major whaling centre at the end of the XIX Century. Researchers from the New Bedford Whaling Museum estimate the whale's age at between 115 and 130 years, the harpoon found in the whale having gone out of production in 1885.

Subsistence whaling, managed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), supplies scientific data as well as being a major source of food for the Inuit people. It is supervised by the International Whaling Commission, which recently renewed a quota for 225 whales to be harvested by 10 Alaskan villages over a period of five years.

The discovery of this harpoon fragment, while spectacular, is not a first. Five well documented cases of fragments from traditional whale-hunting tools recovered from recently killed bowhead whales have also been reported in scientific literature, suggesting life-spans in excess of 100 years of age in some cases. These anecdotes have been validated by the work of a team of researchers working on this species. Bowhead whales hold the record for longevity for cetaceans and could even live to the ripe old age of 200 years.

Researchers use a wide range of methods to determine a whale's age. Growth layers in teeth are used for toothed whales, while the age of baleen whales is often determined by analysing a wax plug in the ear. The bowhead whale has neither teeth, nor ear plug. Consequently, researchers had to develop another method, this one based on the gradual transformation of aspartic acid in the lenses of their eyes. [Anchorage Daily News, National Research Council of Canada, New Bedford Whaling Museum]

Pour en savoir plus

On Anchorage Daily News site:

7 juin 2007

59th meeting: the moratorium is upheld, but what is the future for the IWC?

A total of 71 of the 76 member countries were in attendance at the 59th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that was held in Anchorage, Alaska from May 28 to 31. The IWC was created in 1946 to manage whaling activities and whale populations, most of which had been decimated by intensive harvesting. In 1986 the IWC established a ban on commercial whaling, with subsistence hunting quotas for aboriginal communities in Alaska, Eastern Siberia, Greenland and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Japan's tentative compromise

Having formally objected to the moratorium, Iceland and Norway continue to hunt commercially. Japan captures over 1000 whales annually under a scientific whaling permit; meat from this hunt is sold in national markets. At the 2007 meeting Japan proposed to end this hunt if, in exchange, the IWC allowed its coastal communities to hunt and locally consume minke whales. This tentative compromise was rejected by the IWC and Japan has threatened to leave the Commission; a threat this country has made several times in the past.

For the past 20 years, pro-whaling countries, Japan in the lead, have been calling for the ban to be lifted and sanctuaries to be abolished. These proposals garnered 51 percent of the vote and were adopted as a resolution in 2006. Although a 75 percent vote in favour of a resolution is required for the ban to be lifted, this situation once more brings to light the polarization that exists between member countries that defend their respective positions and demand that their points of view and interests be heard. The IWC is therefore in a deadlock—if not in a situation of calling into question its very existence—as it is becoming increasingly difficult for the opposing factions to converge towards consensual decisions.

Three informal meetings to develop new possibilities

Consequently, three meetings took place outside the IWC in the months leading up to the annual meeting. The Japanese government met with pro-whaling countries in February in Tokyo to restate the initial role of the IWC, which is to manage a resource and, therefore, allow for its exploitation. However, Japan also agreed that a consensus should be sought within the IWC before proceeding with a vote on propositions. A symposium organized by the Pew Foundation was held at the United Nations in New York City in April. Independent experts, as well as those within the IWC were invited to analyze options for the conservation of whales and to search for new solutions for the future of the IWC. In the same spirit, Latin American countries met in Buenos Aires in December to also affirm their will to develop whale-watching activities instead of commercial whaling. Participating countries give a positive note, underlining several convergent points for the three meetings. [IWC, Bloomberg, Le Monde]

Pour en savoir plus

On IWC site:

19 avril 2007

Subsistence hunting for beluga whales in Northern Quebec 2007: a tense season

Inuit hunters in Nunavik, Northern Quebec, plan to defy quotas set by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) aimed at conserving the endangered beluga whale populations of Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay.

Despite the fact that the will to conserve beluga whale stocks for future generations is common to both protagonists, the situation is becoming increasingly tense. After 20 years of regulations and chronic exceeding of quotas, communication problems and an increasing concern for the survival of the Inuit culture associated to traditional hunting are adding to an already complex situation.

A misleading mix

DFO estimates the Western Hudson Bay beluga whale population at around 60 000; it does not appear to be threatened. The Eastern Hudson Bay population is estimated at 3 100 and, according to COSEWIC, is endangered. The Ungava Bay population is estimated at less than 200, is also endangered and is protected under the Species at Risk Act, as are the beluga whales of Eastern Hudson Bay. In 2001, DFO models predicted the extirpation of the Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay populations by 2010 or 2015 if hunting pressures were not eased. Since then, lower quotas and the closing of Eastern Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay to all hunting activity has checked the decline of these populations and supplied a glimmer of hope for their recovery.

These three populations are very distinct from a genetic point of view. In the summer they frequent the shores of the Hudson, James and Ungava bays. In the fall, all three populations migrate towards Hudson Strait where some of them spend the winter, only to return in the spring to their respective territories to give birth. It is during their passage through Hudson Strait that 20 to 30 percent of kills target animals from the endangered Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay populations. For the Inuit that observe the whales and hunt them along the shoreline, this seasonal influx of beluga whales leads them to believe that beluga whales are abundant, shedding doubt on the scientific methods used to count them.

Why are these populations at risk?

Nunavik beluga whale populations underwent a sharp decline due to commercial hunting that was terminated at the beginning of the XX Century. Only subsistence hunting has since been authorized and has been managed since the mid-1980s. Annual capture quotas are set for each village or community by taking into account the most recent estimates for each population. Seasonal restrictions and the closure of certain zones are also used.

These quotas have constantly been surpassed. From 1996 to 2000, 240 captures were authorized per year, yet between 267 and 302 animals were taken, depending on the year. In 2001, 395 beluga whales were taken, despite a quota of 370. Quotas have been more faithfully respected since 2002, although they have still been surpassed every year. The exceeding of quotas has led DFO officers to take legal action against unlawful hunters. Furthermore, the three-year management plan, in place from 2006 to 2008 also includes a measure whereby quotas surpassed one year will be cut back the following year by the number of animals that exceeded the quota.

What do the Inuit want?

The Inuit feel that their economic and cultural way of life is threatened; in these Arctic regions, beluga whales represent an essential staple for certain families. The president of the Anguvigaq hunters and trappers organization has asked DFO to lift quotas, put a hold on its management plan and drop charges against hunters. Hunters have expressed their determination to continue hunting even if, by doing so, they are breaking the law. This painful deadlock will require a consensus to ensure both the survival of beluga whales and of hunting traditions in Northern Quebec. [Nunatsiaq News, Fisheries and Oceans Canada]

Pour en savoir plus

On Nunatsiaq News site:

22 mars 2007

Japanese whalers forced to leave Southern Ocean

Special collaboration: Genevièvre Laprise

The Japanese whaling fleet leaves the Antarctic Ocean after a fire aboard its mother ship.

For the first time in 20 years, Japan had to shorten its whaling season. All Japanese whalers had left Antarctic waters by the end of February. The Nisshin Maru, the fleet's main vessel, managed to restart its engines that had been shut down since February 15. A major fire had broken out in the engine room, forcing the evacuation of the crew and costing one crew member his life.

During a press conference in Tokyo, Takahide Naruko, an official representative of Japan's Fisheries Agency, declared that, “…given the damage to equipment from the fire, continuing whaling would be difficult.” He further added that the reduced number of whales taken, 505 minke whales and 3 fin whales as opposed to objectives of 850 and 10 respectively, would not have a major effect on the price of whale meat.

The controversial Japanese scientific whaling programme, which is run by the Institute of Cetacean Research, has many opponents. The governmental organization recently published a letter denouncing the actions of certain environmental groups. This letter accuses groups like Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace of terrorism, stating that they are responsible for dangerous harassment of Japanese whaling ships. These accusations follow a declaration by Japan's Fisheries Agency that, “We don't think there was any direct connection. On the other hand, we can't say for certain that there was none.” New Zealand naval authorities, called in to intervene during the fire, have declared that it is unlikely that Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace are responsible for this incident. The anti-whaling groups, that were harassing the Japanese fleet a few days earlier, were not present in the area on the day the fire occurred.

Greenpeace sent a radio message to the Nisshin Maru to the effect that, “We acknowledge your grief at the loss of your crew member. But this must be the last time your government sends you to the Southern Ocean to hunt whales and threaten the Antarctic environment. For the sake of the environment, the whales and your crew – never again!” The Nisshin Maru is scheduled to return to Japan by the end of March. An investigation and inspection of the engine room will enable authorities to determine the true cause of the fire. [The Register]

Pour en savoir plus

15 février 2007

Japan organizes a meeting to push for the lifting of the whaling ban

This week Japan invited the 72 members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to an impromptu meeting in Tokyo. Most countries opposed to commercial whaling—including the United States, Australia and Great Britain—boycotted the meeting; in total 34 countries declined the invitation. The main topic of discussion at the meeting was a strategic plan to ensure the lifting of the worldwide ban on commercial whaling. The results of this meeting, which was held from February 12 to 14, will be presented to all IWC members at the annual IWC meeting to be held next May.

This week's meeting calls for the “normalisation” of the IWC in accordance with the terms of the “St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, adopted by a slight majority at the last annual meeting in June 2006. This declaration stipulates that the IWC should return to its original mandate: the sustainable management of commercial whaling that ensures the protection the cultural heritage rights and the economic development of coastal communities. According to the organizers of this week's meeting, the debate around commercial whaling is dominated by emotions. For their part, countries and organizations that are opposed to whaling denounce Japanese propaganda and are worried about a poorly managed scientific hunt, which they describe as a smokescreen for the eventual resumption of commercial whaling.

Between an untenable status quo and the absence of a solution to the crisis, the IWC is spinning its wheels; without a clear prospect for the resumption of commercial whaling, a parallel international organization of exclusively pro-whaling countries could be created. For now, IWC management tools (moratorium, sanctuaries, etc.) have not been able to control whaling activities that have been taking place since 1986. For several years now, the IWC has been attempting, without success, to come up with new management strategies that all member countries can agree on. This would lead to the lifting of the ban and a resumption of commercial whaling. It remains to be seen if this hunt can be carried out in a sustainable manner in light of the whaling activities of centuries past that brought all great whale populations to the brink of extinction. [New York Times]

Pour en savoir plus

19 octobre 2006

Iceland begins commercial whaling

The Icelandic Fisheries Ministry declared this week that it would begin issuing permits to whalers for a total catch of nine fin whales and 30 minke whales from now through August 31, 2007. The hunt could begin as early as this week. This is to be a commercial enterprise for the purpose of exporting whale meat. Iceland will thus become the second country, after Norway, to commercially hunt whales after declaring its official opposition to the international whaling ban that has been in place since 1986. This hunt is strongly criticized. Most scientists reject the theory that it is possible to protect commercial fish stocks by controlling whale populations. Furthermore, the fin whale is an endangered species. Finally, the market for whale meat, either local or for export, is nearly inexistent in Iceland.

Iceland had stopped commercial whaling in 1982 when the international moratorium was put in place; three years later it ceased all whaling activities. It left the IWC (International Whaling Commission) in 1991 only to rejoin in 2002 declaring a “reservation” to the moratorium. Iceland began whaling for scientific reasons in 2003; this type of hunt is also carried out by Japan. A total of 161 minke whales have been killed under Iceland's quota of 200, which means that whalers can still take another 69 minke whales before the end of the scientific whaling season in August 2007.

The fisheries minister has declared that the decision to begin commercial whaling does not threaten cetacean populations. According to Iceland's estimates there are over 43,000 minke whales and 25,000 fin whales in Icelandic coastal waters. Based on these numbers, established quotas represent 0.2 percent of minke whales and 0.04 percent of fin whales in the North Atlantic. According to the minister, this commercial activity is “therefore consistent with the principle of sustainable development.”

Like its northern neighbour, Norway, Iceland emphasizes that the hunt is necessary in order to control minke whale populations so they do not increase to the point of threatening fish stocks. This argument is strongly condemned by a majority of scientists specialized in the study of marine food webs. As a result of the complexity of predator-prey interactions, it is impossible to conclude that a reduction of whale populations will protect commercial fish stocks. On the contrary, due to the fact that the main predators of fish are other species of fish, a reduction of marine mammal populations could eventually lead to a drop in commercial fish stocks. During the most recent IWC meeting in June of 2006, supporters of a resumption of commercial whaling—Japan, Norway and Iceland in the lead— succeeded in having the IWC adopt a resolution stating that the 1986 moratorium was no longer necessary and that whales now constitute a threat to fish resources. Although these countries were not able to convince the requisite three quarters of members to lift the ban, it was the first time in 20 years that a resolution so clearly opposed to the moratorium garnered the support of the majority of IWC members.

Conservation groups are outraged by this announcement. Greenpeace condemned the decision of Iceland's authorities, emphasizing that the fin whale is on the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List. Furthermore, the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) is surprised and disappointed by the decision. They insist that there is no market for whale meat in Iceland and there is no possibility to export it to Japan, the largest world market for whale meat. Earlier, in 2003, Iceland was unable to export the products of its scientific whaling programme to Japan. This trade had been planned despite the fact that it is illegal under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Japan is already having difficulty selling the thousands of tonnes of whale meat and blubber—the by-product of its own scientific whaling programme—in its local markets. Although these products were valued in the past, sales and prices have been steadily dropping in recent years. Changes in Japanese tastes combined with growing concern about contaminants contained in whale meat are behind this transformation. Several years ago PCB levels measured in minke whale blubber extinguished any hope that Norwegian whalers would be able to sell their thousands of tonnes of this product to the Japanese. [BBC, IFAW]

Pour en savoir plus

On the BBC News site :

19 octobre 2006

Iceland begins commercial whaling

The Icelandic Fisheries Ministry declared this week that it would begin issuing permits to whalers for a total catch of nine fin whales and 30 minke whales from now through August 31, 2007. The hunt could begin as early as this week. This is to be a commercial enterprise for the purpose of exporting whale meat. Iceland will thus become the second country, after Norway, to commercially hunt whales after declaring its official opposition to the international whaling ban that has been in place since 1986. This hunt is strongly criticized. Most scientists reject the theory that it is possible to protect commercial fish stocks by controlling whale populations. Furthermore, the fin whale is an endangered species. Finally, the market for whale meat, either local or for export, is nearly inexistent in Iceland.

Iceland had stopped commercial whaling in 1982 when the international moratorium was put in place; three years later it ceased all whaling activities. It left the IWC (International Whaling Commission) in 1991 only to rejoin in 2002 declaring a “reservation” to the moratorium. Iceland began whaling for scientific reasons in 2003; this type of hunt is also carried out by Japan. A total of 161 minke whales have been killed under Iceland's quota of 200, which means that whalers can still take another 69 minke whales before the end of the scientific whaling season in August 2007.

The fisheries minister has declared that the decision to begin commercial whaling does not threaten cetacean populations. According to Iceland's estimates there are over 43,000 minke whales and 25,000 fin whales in Icelandic coastal waters. Based on these numbers, established quotas represent 0.2 percent of minke whales and 0.04 percent of fin whales in the North Atlantic. According to the minister, this commercial activity is “therefore consistent with the principle of sustainable development.”

Like its northern neighbour, Norway, Iceland emphasizes that the hunt is necessary in order to control minke whale populations so they do not increase to the point of threatening fish stocks. This argument is strongly condemned by a majority of scientists specialized in the study of marine food webs. As a result of the complexity of predator-prey interactions, it is impossible to conclude that a reduction of whale populations will protect commercial fish stocks. On the contrary, due to the fact that the main predators of fish are other species of fish, a reduction of marine mammal populations could eventually lead to a drop in commercial fish stocks. During the most recent IWC meeting in June of 2006, supporters of a resumption of commercial whaling—Japan, Norway and Iceland in the lead— succeeded in having the IWC adopt a resolution stating that the 1986 moratorium was no longer necessary and that whales now constitute a threat to fish resources. Although these countries were not able to convince the requisite three quarters of members to lift the ban, it was the first time in 20 years that a resolution so clearly opposed to the moratorium garnered the support of the majority of IWC members.

Conservation groups are outraged by this announcement. Greenpeace condemned the decision of Iceland's authorities, emphasizing that the fin whale is on the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List. Furthermore, the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) is surprised and disappointed by the decision. They insist that there is no market for whale meat in Iceland and there is no possibility to export it to Japan, the largest world market for whale meat. Earlier, in 2003, Iceland was unable to export the products of its scientific whaling programme to Japan. This trade had been planned despite the fact that it is illegal under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Japan is already having difficulty selling the thousands of tonnes of whale meat and blubber—the by-product of its own scientific whaling programme—in its local markets. Although these products were valued in the past, sales and prices have been steadily dropping in recent years. Changes in Japanese tastes combined with growing concern about contaminants contained in whale meat are behind this transformation. Several years ago PCB levels measured in minke whale blubber extinguished any hope that Norwegian whalers would be able to sell their thousands of tonnes of this product to the Japanese. [BBC, IFAW]

Pour en savoir plus

On the BBC News site :

22 June 2006

58th annual meeting of the IWC: a call for the “normalisation” of the Commission

The annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) took place between June 17 and 20 on the island of St. Kitts and Nevis, in the Caribbean Sea. A total of 67 of the 70 member nations were present. Discussions and voting once again demonstrated the discord that divides this organization, with whaling nations on one side and those formally opposed to whaling on the other.

The most significant portion of this meeting was the vote surrounding the “St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration” that called for the “normalisation” of the IWC. A weak majority of 33 in favour, 32 opposed (with one abstention) supported this text, which is a synthesis of the position defended by Japan. The Declaration states that the IWC should return to its original purpose, which was to manage whaling, that the whaling ban is not necessary, that several stocks are abundant and that sustainable whaling is possible and should be carried out in order to protect cultural rights and the economic development of coastal communities. The text also calls for the use of international scientific standards for the management of whaling, all the while using scientifically questionable arguments to plead its case. For instance, the text states that whales threaten the food security of coastal nations because they consume huge quantities of fish. This statement is far from representing any scientific consensus as to the role of cetaceans in the marine food web. Several countries that voted against the adoption of this declaration formally disassociated themselves from it after the result of the vote was declared.

Another demonstration of the impasse in which the IWC finds itself is the discussion surrounding the “Revised Management Scheme”. These discussions are at a standstill and no activity is planned for the coming year. Member countries must accept this management plan before the moratorium can be lifted. It includes measures to ensure quotas are respected (such as observers aboard whaling ships, genetic tracking of killed animals, etc.) and whaling methods meant to minimize animal suffering.

The “St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration” raises the spectre of the collapse of the IWC. Without the clear prospect of an eventual resumption of commercial whaling, a parallel international organization comprised solely of whaling nations may someday be created.

The Declaration also mentions the importance of not returning to the historic over-harvesting that characterized whaling in the past. Yet, the obvious question is what an increase in whaling would mean for several whale populations that have been weakened by past whaling and are now faced with new threats related to human activities, such as chemical and noise pollution, increased shipping and climate change, especially since pro-whaling countries, Japan in the lead, continually question the pertinence of these IWC conservation issues. [IWC]

I want to know more

On the IWC site:

2 mars 2006

Investigation into the decline of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population

Scientists working for the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are undertaking a status review of the Cook Inlet beluga whale population in Alaska. This small population is isolated from other Arctic beluga whales. The purpose of the review is to determine if the population requires special protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

There were approximately 1300 beluga whales in Cook Inlet in the 1970s. Thirty years later less then 280 have survived. Until recently, aboriginal hunting was believed to be responsible for the decline. U.S. authorities actually refused to place the Cook Inlet population under Endangered Species Act protection in 2000 for this very reason. For seven years the harvest quota has been set at one and two beluga whales per alternate year. It was believed that this measure would allow the population to grow at a rate of two to four percent per year. This has not occurred. In fact, according to NMFS survey data, the population is not growing at all.

NMFS biologists will attempt to determine the reason for this serious decline. They will consider all possible causes, including noise generated by shipping traffic—commercial, recreational and tourism—, regional development, waste discharge and the impacts of oil and gas development. NMFS biologist Brad Smith has stated that none of these causes stand out as the main one for the moment.

The NMFS will maintain a low harvesting quota of one to two beluga whales per year until 2009. Only one aboriginal community will be allowed to kill the whales. For the biologists, it is essential that they determine the cause, or causes, of this decline; the Cook Inlet population is at a level that renders it vulnerable to natural catastrophes. [CNN]

Pour en savoir plus

On CNN.com:

10 November 2005

Japanese whaling: twice as many minke whales to be hunted in the Antarctic Ocean

As it does every year, a fleet of six Japanese whaling vessels has left port destined for Antarctic waters. Within the context of the second phase of its scientific whaling programme, JARPA II, Japanese whalers will kill 850 minke whales and 10 fin whales.

Therefore, despite protests raised during the most recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), Japan has gone forward with its project to expand its scientific whaling programme in Antarctica. JARPA II is the older of Japan's two scientific whaling programmes; it was initiated in 1987 with the goal of studying the biological parameters of minke whales and their role in the Antarctic ecosystem. Japanese representatives presented the second phase of JARPA II last June. With a six-year duration, this newest phase increases the annual Antarctic minke whale kill from 440 to 850 and will add 50 humpback whales (none to be taken in the first two years) and fin whales (ten for the first two years). With questions concerning the foundation of this scientific hunt and the necessity of killing whales to study them, several IWC member countries and environmental groups have asked Japan to abandon its programme or review its methods. However, this pressure does not appear to have had the desired effect.

Scientific whaling is permitted under IWC rules. In fact, the convention signed in 1946 authorizes member countries to give out scientific whaling permits and sell whale products on the open market. Last year's catch yielded nearly two million kilograms of meat to the Japanese market and brought in over CN$31 million in profits. According to the Japanese government, these profits were used to finance their research projects. Faced with these numbers, many critics question the true basis of scientific whaling, believing it to be nothing more than commercial whaling in disguise. [ENN, Reuters]

I want to know more

On Environmental News Network (ENN):

30 June 2005

57^th IWC meeting: whaling nations lose ground

The 57^th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) held last week in Korea—a country with reservations concerning whaling—, was marked by decisions that were squarely in favour of whale conservation.

Yet, from day one of the meeting Japan attempted to return the Commission to its original mandate: the management of commercial whaling. For several years now, Japan has stated that it is dissatisfied with the conservation tangent that the IWC has been taking and—since they cannot find satisfaction—has been threatening to pull out. Therefore, the Japanese commissioners proposed the deletion of numerous discussion topics that were on the meeting's agenda linked to whale conservation, such as sanctuaries, whale watching, whale killing methods, small cetaceans, health issues and the Conservation Committee. This proposition, along with another Japanese proposition to change voting procedures to a secret ballot, was rejected by a majority of member countries.

One long-awaited point of discussion for this 57^th meeting was the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), a plan to monitor whaling activities. The adoption of this plan would allow for the lifting of the commercial whaling ban. The IWC chairman noted that the working group was not in a position to put forward a proposal for an RMS this year. Japan then proposed its own RMS, which was defeated by a vote of 29 against, 23 in favour, with 5 abstentions. Therefore, lifting of the ban does not seem as imminent as appeared to be the case at the close of the previous IWC meeting. At the time, members had adopted a resolution that committed the IWC to completing the plan and possibly adopting it this year.

Another hot topic on the agenda was the second phase of Japan's Antarctic scientific whaling plan known as JARPA II. As rumours over the past weeks suggested, Japan proposed to expand its annual catch of minke whales within the parameters of the programme from 440 to 850, and to add 50 humpback whales (none in the first two years) and 50 fin whales (10 in the first two years). Several members of the Commission, the Scientific Committee and numerous environmental organizations continue to question the value of hunt. In a 44-page report, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) denounces one inconsistency: according to this organization, killing the animals is an archaic method for fulfilling research objectives, especially considering that Japan is on the cutting edge in matters concerning technology. In the same light, member countries once again adopted a resolution encouraging Japan to abandon this programme or to review it so as to conduct the research in a non-lethal manner.

Other important topics were also discussed over the course of the week. Japan's proposition to allow small scale, coastal community commercial whaling—to a maximum of 150 minke whales—was rejected. The Scientific Committee expressed concerns about grey whales and the Sakhalin oil and gas development project and will support all conservation efforts for this endangered population. The Scientific Committee examined the state of endangered small cetaceans, including the vaquita and the Dall's porpoise, even though member countries are divided when it comes to the IWC's competence with regards to the management of small cetaceans.

Once again this year, the meeting polarized members with pro-whaling countries like Norway, Japan and Iceland calling for a lifting of the whaling ban based on cultural interests, and on the other side, countries in favour of whale conservation. [CBI, ENN, ENS]

I want to know more

On IWC site:

21 April 2005

Whaling: Norway increases its quota while Japan hopes to double theirs

Norway will likely experience a record whaling season this year with an increased quota of 797 minke whales. Last year, 542 minke whales—of a quota of 670—were hunted over the course of a shortened season. Norway hopes to increase its kills in part to protect its commercial fishery and to bolster national trade in whale products. To accomplish this, the Norwegian whaling fleet of 30 boats will not only benefit from the higher quota, but also from a longer season, which began last Monday instead of in mid-May. Thus, whale products will be offered for sale during the entire whaling season. The season will come to a close at the end of August. Another novelty for the whaling programme: ships will head to sea without the government inspectors who normally monitor whaling activities to ensure that the techniques employed to kill the whales are humane. Whaling boats will instead be equipped with electronic sensors to record the number of harpoons deployed and the number of whales killed.

Meanwhile, according to reliable sources, it appears that Japan is set to propose a new Antarctic scientific whaling plan to the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The plan would see the number of minke whales hunted increase from 440 to 800. Furthermore, the plan would also propose the killing of 10 humpback whales and 10 fin whales. While Japanese authorities were not able to confirm this rumour—as the details of their proposition cannot be unveiled before it is submitted to the IWC—they nonetheless declared that their research programme must evolve and that the entire ecosystem must be studied. This would bring to six the total number of species taken by Japan within the context of its two scientific whaling programmes. Along with minke whales, Japanese whalers in the Pacific Northwest also hunt Byde's whales, sei whales and sperm whales. It goes without saying that, although it has yet to be confirmed, this rumour has provoked the anger and disapproval of anti-whaling countries and groups such as the Humane Society International (HSI). This organization, which fights to oppose the hunting of marine mammals worldwide, has been waiting for several months on a judgement from the Australian Federal Court to bring a court case against the Japanese Whale Company, which is illegally hunting minke whales in Australia's Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. The HSI has attempted to obtain the support of the Australian government, which prefers to engage in diplomatic discussions with Japanese authorities.

IWC member countries will be able to voice their opinions on the Japanese proposition during the next annual meeting set to take place in South Korea from June 20 to 24. [Whales Online, Planet Ark, HSI, CBC]

Pour en savoir plus

On Planet Ark site :

14 October 2004

CITES member countries reject whale trade

The annual conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was held in Bangkok, Thailand from 2 October to 14 October 2004. A total of 160 member countries participated. Three resolutions concerning cetaceans were studied and voted on during the conference.

Two resolutions concerning minke whales were proposed by Japan. The first called for the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to conclude and adopt the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), a plan for the management of whaling activities. This resolution was rejected by a vote of 63 against, 57 in favour with 13 abstentions. The second resolution put forward by Japan proposed the lifting of the ban on the trade of meat and other products derived from Northern Hemisphere minke whales. This proposition implied transferring minke whales from Annex I, which generally bans all international trade of species listed, to Annex II, which allows for trade through export permits. Japan justifies its position by stating that minke whales are numerous, that trade would be closely monitored and controlled using genetic fingerprinting and that whales consume large quantities of fish. Japan added that the adoption of this resolution would simply maintain the status quo, officially allowing Japan, Norway and Iceland to carry on with their trade. Opponents, such as Australia, argue that it would be very difficult to efficiently monitor this trade and that the adoption of this resolution could harm relations between CITES and the IWC. The resolution was rejected by a total of 67 votes against, 55 votes in favour and 14 abstentions.

Finally, a resolution concerning the Irrawaddy dolphin was proposed by Thailand. This species–native to both fresh and salt waters of Asia–numbers only 1000 individuals. Its survival is heavily threatened by habitat destruction and accidental entanglement in fishing gear. International trade in live specimens, which began in the 1970s, is on the rise. Given the fragile state of the species, Thailand believes that trade threatens the survival of the few remaining populations. Therefore it proposed a ban on international trade by transferring the Irrawaddy dolphin from Annex II to Annex I. Certain countries, including Japan, Norway and Gabon, have stated that they are against this resolution. They affirm that several thousand of these dolphins remain and that including them in Annex I would not counter the main threats faced by this species. Despite this, the resolution was accepted with a strong majority of 73 votes in favour to 20 votes against, with 8 abstentions. This decision pleases several conservation organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund U.S. and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. [ENN, WDCS]

I want to know more

CITES site :

26 August 2004

Ham, sushi, hamburgers and meatballs…made from whale meat?

Although the Norwegian whaling season was set to end on August 31 of this year, whalers put away their harpoons a few weeks earlier than expected. During the three-month season Norwegian whalers killed 543 minke whales. The quota set by Norwegian authorities was for 670 minke whales. Consequently, the Norwegians did not reach their quota this year. Curiously, Norway is looking to increase this quota and encourage the consumption of whale meat in coming years.

The organization that manages the sale of whale products halted the 2004 whaling season stating that the whales already killed in coastal waters were sufficient to satisfy the demand. Quotas for the three coastal zones were filled; 89 minke whales killed in the North Sea, 323 in the Barents Sea and 113 off Spitsbergen. It was the offshore quota that was not fulfilled. Of a quota of 145 minke whales, less than 20 were harpooned around Jan Mayen Island, near Greenland.

Despite this, Norway may increase its annual quota to 745 minke whales in 2005. The Norwegians believe that the management scheme established by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) upon which they base their quota is often too conservative. According to Norway, not only is it important to avoid hunting too many whales so as not to endanger them, it is just as important not to hunt too few and risk compromising the commercial fishery. However, this hypothesis is highly debatable. In 2004, Daniel Pauly and Kristin Kaschner of the University of British Columbia published an article on the interactions between fisheries and marine mammals. They concluded that, globally, whales consume non-commercial fish species in areas where fishing does not occur.

Beyond a desire to protect fisheries, the Norwegians also want to increase their kills of minke whales in order to encourage internal trade in whale products. Nation-wide distribution of whale meat is burdensome given the limited volume. The annual consumption of whale meat per person is estimated at 200 g, the equivalent of one meal. To increase demand, Norwegian authorities hope to launch a campaign to promote the consumption of whale meat in the form of whale ham, whale sushi, whale hamburgers and whale meatballs. [Le Soleil, Nature, High North Alliance].

I want to know more

On Whales Online:

29 July 2004

Annual meeting of the IWC: a step towards lifting the moratorium?

The International Whaling Commission held its 56 annual meeting in Sorrento, Italy from July 19 to 22. The Commission’s Danish president, Henrik Fischer, set the tone right from the beginning by stating that members must honour the IWC’s mandate by agreeing on a procedure and timeframe for the progressive resumption of commercial whaling. This declaration polarized the IWC more than ever.

It wasn’t until the very end of the meeting that members adopted a resolution committing the IWC to completing its Revised Management Scheme (RMS) and possibly adopting it at the next meeting, which is to be held in 2005. The RMS is the procedure that would be used to calculate whale stock abundance and to set quotas. The adoption of the RMS would lead to a lifting of the moratorium and the progressive resumption of commercial activities.

Some moderate anti-whaling countries and conservation groups are in favour of the official resumption of commercial whaling in order to ensure proper control and monitoring of these activities by the IWC. They are worried that if members do not come to a consensus and the moratorium persists, certain whaling countries will withdraw from the IWC and hunt outside of its control. Other anti-whaling countries believe that the RMS is not rigorous enough to prevent abuse and poaching. As for whaling countries, several of them are becoming impatient with the inertia of discussions and the "conservation" tendency the IWC has taken on in recent years. As it stands, Japan has stated that it will withdraw from the IWC in 2006 if it is still dissatisfied with the organization’s decisions.

Of the conservation issues dealt with, the IWC’s scientific committee has declared that undersea noise generated by military sonar and oil and gas exploration is the cause of a growing number of cetacean deaths. Several environmental groups that ardently defend this point of view applauded the declaration. This month, once again, military exercises were believed to be the cause of the stranding of 200 melon-headed whales off the coast of Hawaii and the stranding of two other whales in the Canary Islands. Scientists have recommended the establishment of marine protected areas to protect marine mammals from undersea noise.

Members also adopted various resolutions on proposed whaling methods. A Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues will be integrated into the IWC. Its goals will be to set better criteria for determining the death of an animal as well as improving present whaling practises. This resolution was adopted in response to the "Troubled waters" report that was signed by 200 organizations from 58 countries that criticized present whaling methods.

The 2005 annual meeting will be held in Ulsan, Republic of Korea.

I want to know more

13 May 2004

Whaling season opens in Norway…opponents protest

The Norwegian whaling season began on Monday, May 10. Norway will hunt a total of 670 minke whales this year. The season will end August 31 and most of the minke whales will be hunted in the Barents Sea, north of Norway.

Norway is the only country in the world still hunting whales commercially despite the international moratorium on whaling that was decreed by members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1982. Whale meat is a highly prized traditional Norwegian food. Blubber, on the other hand, is neither consumed nor used in Norway and remains stockpiled in freezers. Hopes of exporting this product to Japanese consumers were quashed in May 2003 when Japan refused to import Norwegian whale blubber due to the high levels of PCBs that it contained.

A large number of environmental groups are opposed to whaling activities. Last March, a report entitled "Troubled Waters"–that was signed by 200 organizations representing 58 countries–criticized present-day whaling methods. Several of these organizations are participating in a campaign to ban whaling, hoping to pressure the IWC into putting an end to all commercial and scientific whaling.

The IWC will be holding its 56^th annual meeting in Sorrento, Italy from July 19 to July 22, 2004. This commission was created to manage whale populations for a sustainable whaling industry. Members have been working for several years to develop a management plan known as the Revised Management Scheme. However, many member countries are increasingly adopting a "conservation" alignment. The establishment of a conservation committee last year had the effect of satisfying anti-whaling countries, while frustrating those that were for the hunt. These countries–finding that their voices are not being heard–regularly threaten to pursue their activities outside of the IWC. [BBC]

I want to know more

On BBC site:

22 April 2004

CITES questions the sustainability of narwhal hunting activities in Canada and Greenland

The CITES Animals Committee held its annual meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa during the first week of April. CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) drafts regulations concerning trade in endangered plant and animal species. During their meeting, members of the Committee examined available information on animals that are traded internationally (Appendix II) in order to identify potential problems related to commercial activities and to find solutions. This year the exploitation of narwhals by Canada and Greenland and associated commerce were evaluated.

The Animals Committee had already conducted a similar study on narwhals in 1995 and–seeing as how Canada and Greenland were relying on information dating back to 1979–had recommended that both countries carry out new surveys to establish quotas. New surveys were carried out only recently and the results bring to light troubling information concerning the state of narwhal and northern beluga whale populations. These results undermine the sustainability of hunting, particularly in Greenland. Contrary to what was previously shown, there is no shared Baffin Bay narwhal stock. Instead, there are probably five distinct populations in Eastern Canada and two in Western Greenland. These new surveys also demonstrate that populations in Western Greenland have been heavily decimated by regular minimum annual catches of 662 narwhals and 577 beluga whales.

The Committee once again this year put forward recommendations to Canada and Greenland to compensate for problems related to narwhal hunting. One of these recommendations is the inclusion of new surveys in any data used for the management of this activity. The two countries have six months to respond to the recommendations. If the Committee is not satisfied with the answers it receives, it will recommend appropriate action that could even include banning trade in narwhal products.

Therefore–for the first time in its history–leaders from Greenland passed a law a few weeks ago that will establish narwhal and beluga whale hunting quotas. Along with the quotas, the new regulations will limit hunting to licensed professionals only, prohibiting the killing of females and juveniles, the use of nets and establishing a minimum calibre for rifles. No quotas have yet been officially set. However, considering the results of the new surveys, researchers from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) recommended quotas of 135 narwhals and 100 beluga whales in Western Greenland, which represents one fifth of what is presently being hunted. This new Danish government law is not popular among hunters who question the reliability of surveys and who consider that present hunting levels should be maintained.

In Canada, although the problem appears to be less serious, it does warrant concern. Two narwhal populations are hunted in Canada by Nunavut Inuit communities: the Hudson Bay population and the Baffin Bay population. The skin and blubber–known as maqtaq–is consumed by the Inuit people or exchanged with other communities. As for the tusks, they are worth a lot of money. Hunting activities are jointly managed by the Nunavut Management Board and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. In 1998, 45 narwhals were landed in Hudson Bay of a quota of 55. On Baffin Island, 236 narwhals were landed of a quota of 467. Landed whales represent only a portion of the narwhals that are actually killed. According to one study, three out of every ten narwhals are lost during hunting. Aerial surveys counted 34 000 narwhals at the surface in the Baffin Bay area in 1979 and 1 400 in northern Hudson Bay in 1984. These estimates do not take into account animals that were diving and cover only a portion of the distribution areas of the two populations. [WDCS, Nunatsiaq, MPO]

I want to know more

On WDCS site:

18 March 2004

A new report condemns whaling methods

A recently published report takes a critical look at present-day whaling methods. Entitled "Troubled Waters", the report has been signed by 200 organizations from 58 countries. According to the authors–including popular naturalist Sir David Attenborough–this publication presents scientific and impartial proof that there is no humane way of killing a whale.

The report’s authors strongly criticize the absence of international regulations concerning whaling methods. According to their evaluation, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has never established rules with regards to maximum time allotted to pursuit, number of weapons or projectiles used on an animal, upper limits on acceptable time to death, rate of instant death and the number of animals hit but not recovered. Also, according to the authors, the established IWC criteria to determine an animal’s death are inadequate. This evaluation is supported by a group of scientists and veterinarians specialized in physiology and anatomy. They also judge that methods used are inappropriate for the larger species of whales.

The publication of the "Troubled Waters" report launches a campaign to ban whaling. More than 140 organizations from over 50 countries will participate in this campaign to put pressure on the IWC to end commercial and scientific whaling operations.

Pro-hunting countries and organizations have reacted to this criticism of whaling methods. In a press release, the secretary of the High North Alliance–a Norwegian organization that defends whaling–affirms that modern whaling is both humane and respectful of the environment. He also maintains that whales killed in the wild suffer far less than farm animals.

The debate over the lifting of the whaling ban is increasingly dividing IWC member countries. Members have been working to develop a whaling management plan, known as the Revised Management Scheme, for several years now. This plan is to include–among other elements–directives on "humane" whaling methods. The adoption of the Scheme is a sine qua non condition for the lifting of the ban. [ENN, High North Alliance, WDCS]

I want to know more

30 October 2003

Japan Refuses to Import Icelandic Products

At the end of its first whaling season in 14 years Iceland is already facing serious problems financing its scientific whaling programme through the sale of whale products. To begin with, the meat has not solicited much more than a lukewarm response from local consumers. Also, according to a confidential Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) source, Japan has refused to import Icelandic whale products. Trade in whale products was planned, despite the restrictive rules of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Japan is having trouble selling thousands of tonnes of whale meat and blubber from its own scientific whaling programmes to Japanese consumers. Although these products were valued in the past, sales and prices have been falling steadily in recent years. Changes in consumer preferences and growing concerns about contaminants in whale meat are at the root of this decline. As a matter of fact, PCB levels measured in minke whale blubber last May, had already extinguished any hope Norwegian whalers may have had of selling their thousands of tonnes of this product to the Japanese.

Various analyses carried out by different researchers on meat samples from both Japanese and Norwegian markets have revealed that these products contain alarming levels of contaminants. Powerful toxic contaminants–such as PCBs, DDT and other pesticides, along with heavy metals such as mercury–have been measured in concentrations that exceed acceptable limits for human consumption. The disastrous effects of these products on human health are well documented: nerve damage, developmental disorders, reproductive disorders, immune system suppression, cancer, etc. Moreover, several countries that consume whale and marine mammal products recommend that pregnant and nursing women refrain from consuming, or reduce consumption of, these products.

After six weeks of whaling in the Northeast Atlantic, Iceland harpooned 36 minke whales, of a quota of 38. Difficulties faced by Iceland in selling its products will likely compromise planned expansion of its whaling programme in coming years and limit plans to extend its programme to include species such as fin whales and sei whales. [WDCS, HSUS, IFAW]

I want to know more

On WDCS site:

21 August 2003

Icelandic Whalers Go Minke Whaling

Three Icelandic boats left port on Sunday to go whaling. When Iceland rejoined the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in October of 2002 it clearly stated its desire to recommence commercial whaling after 2006 and to carry out scientific whaling until then. During the annual meeting of the IWC in April of 2003, Iceland presented its whaling programme to the Scientific Committee. The plan proposed taking 100 fin whales, 50 Sei whales and 100 minke whales in the fall of 2003.

On August 6, Iceland’s fisheries minister announced a revised scientific whaling programme. Over the course of their six week mission, researchers will kill only 38 minke whales from a population estimated at 43 000 by the IWC. According to the minister, this decision demonstrates Iceland's willingness to be constructive and to compromise when it comes to whaling issues. Iceland is heavily dependent on marine resources and the carcasses will mainly be used to study the whales’ food in order to evaluate the impact of whales on fish stocks. As for whale products that can be exploited, they will be sold in local markets as provided for in the IWC regulation on scientific whaling.

Last Monday, Iceland harpooned its first minke whale of the programme. This has created a good deal of controversy within the IWC, the various conservation groups concerned and the country itself. Iceland completely abandoned whaling in 1989 and several Icelanders have since turned to a new, flourishing industry: whale watching. This industry now brings in several million dollars per year, and tour operators are worried that renewed whaling will compromise their livelihood. Conservation groups, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), are firmly opposed to the resumption of whaling and are putting pressure on Iceland to abandon its project. The scientific value of the program is also being questioned. [BBC, High North Alliance]

I want to know more

BBC News site:

26 June 2003

Annual Meeting of the IWC: Members are Divided

Once again this year the annual meeting of the IWC (International Whaling Commission) ended in discord. The meeting was held from June 16 to 19 in Berlin, Germany. Pro and anti-whaling nations were not able to come to a common agreement.

Although it was created in 1946 to improve the management of commercial whaling activities, several resolutions adopted by the Commission since the moratorium was announced in 1982 have taken on "conservationist" overtones. This has led to the frustration of whaling nations such as Japan, Norway and Iceland that are unable to obtain satisfaction. Japan has threatened to withdraw from the Commission after members adopted a resolution to create a Conservation Committee. This Committee would have the mandate to evaluate problems faced by cetaceans, such as accidental entanglement in fishing gear, ship strikes, contamination and climate change.

Whaling nations also presented their scientific whaling programmes during the meeting. Japan proposes to broaden its annual hunt of 400 minke whales in the Antarctic and maintain its hunt in the western North Pacific. The latter programme involves the killing of 150 minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales, 50 sei whales and 10 sperm whales to study the feeding ecology of these cetaceans. Iceland presented a similar scientific whaling programme with the killing of 100 minke whales, 100 fin whales and 50 sei whales. Considering the value of this scientific hunt, the possibility of using non-lethal methods to study the same questions, uncertainty surrounding the evaluation of whale populations and a possible hidden agenda for commercial whaling, the Commission adopted a resolution, by a slight majority, encouraging whaling countries to abandon their scientific whaling programmes.

Once again, propositions for the creation of sanctuaries for the whales of the South Pacific and the South Atlantic failed to gain the necessary three-quarters majorities to be adopted, although they did obtain a majority of the votes. As for the Revised Management Scheme to control commercial whaling activities in the event of a lifting of the moratorium, it has yet to be completed; though the Commission maintains that the work is ongoing.

Finally, it was during this meeting that subsistence-whaling quotas for aboriginal communities in the United States, Greenland, Russia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines were established. It is worth noting that Canada withdrew from the IWC in 1982 when the moratorium was first announced. However, the subsistence whaling of narwhals, belugas and bowhead whales still takes place in Canadian Arctic waters. [IWC]

I want to know more

On IWC site:

24 April 2003

Scientific Whaling: Science or Smokescreen?

Phil Clapham and his colleagues, all members of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) published an article in the March edition of BioScience that seriously criticized the scientific whaling programme carried out by Japan since the establishment of the whaling moratorium in 1986. They maintain that this programme does not include testable hypotheses or other performance measures, that the data collected are not necessary for the management of whale populations, that the data are not submitted to an independent review, that more useful information can be gathered without killing the animals and that this programme sacrifices more whales than would be permitted by IWC quotas if there were not a moratorium.

This article is part of a debate that began last year, in May 2002, when 21 scientists published an open letter addressed to the Japanese government in the New York Times in which they urged Japan to suspend its scientific whaling programme. William Aron and two of his colleagues responded to this letter in an article published in BioScience. They stated that the scientists that signed the letter to the New York Times were more motivated by their personal opinions than by scientific fact. Thus, the article written by Clapham and his colleagues reconfirms the credibility of the authors of the New York Times letter by supporting the critical arguments that they summarized. Moreover, Clapham and his colleagues point out that Japan’s scientific whaling programme is being used to fulfil commercial objectives.

Japan annually hunts approximately 700 whales within the context of its scientific whaling programme. Recently, Japanese whalers returned from Antarctica with approximately 440 minke whales. They will now be proceeding with the other part of the scientific whaling programme. First, they will spend 40 days along the country’s northeast coast to hunt 50 minke whales. Then, in May, the fleet will depart for three months of whaling in the eastern North Pacific to kill 100 more minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales, 50 sei whales and 10 sperm whales.

Norway also hunts around 700 minke whales each year in the North Atlantic. This is a commercial hunt. Norway objected to the moratorium and is therefore not bound by it.

Iceland recently rejoined the IWC making its objection to the whaling ban, a condition of its membership. Iceland wants to resume commercial whaling by 2006. Until then, scientific whaling is being discussed, with proposed annual takes of 100 fin whales, 50 sei whales and 100 minke whales. International conservation organizations are opposed to this project, as is Iceland’s tourist industry, specifically its whale-watching sector. [Clapham et al. 2003, Briand et al. 2002, Aron et al. 2002, ENN, BBC]

I want to know more

Clapham et al., March 2003, Whaling as Science, BioScience, Vol. 53 No. 3, p. 210-212.

10 April 2003

Iceland Announces its Proposal to Begin Scientific Whaling

Last week Iceland submitted its proposal to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to begin scientific whaling. According to the plan Iceland will hunt 100 fin whales, 50 sei whales and 100 minke whales annually. The fin whale and the sei whale have both been designated as endangered by the IUCN (World Conservation Union).

Those in favour of the scientific hunt justify their support by stating that the research aims to investigate cetacean diets, distribution and numbers. These arguments are the same as those put forward by Japan, which hunts several hundred minke whales per year. However, those who are against the hunt claim that information concerning all of these subjects can be collected without killing whales. Japanese market interest for Icelandic whale products played an important role in the decision to resume whaling.

Conservation groups, like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), condemn the project. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is concerned about the effects this hunt may have on Iceland’s whale-watching industry. Greenpeace warns that whale populations are just beginning to recover from years of exploitation, breed slowly and are jeopordized by other human threats such as pollution and climate change.

The next IWC meeting will be held in Berlin, Germany in June of 2003. [Environment News Service]

I want to know more

On Whales Online:

27 February 2003

Illegal hunting of dolphins for human consumption in Peru

Mundo Azul (Blue World), a non-governmental organization in Peru, has launched a public awareness campaign to inform people about the problem of illegal dolphin hunting. According to Mundo Azul, this hunt for human consumption kills at least 1000 dolphins per year along the Peruvian coast. There have been reports of the meat being served in restaurants.

The hunting of dolphins, along with the consumption and sale of dolphin meat has been prohibited by Peruvian law since 1996. At the time, the government passed a law in response to the drastic rise in the number of dolphins taken in the 1980s and early 1990s. In 1993, it was estimated that 15 000 to 20 000 dolphins were killed annually. The following species are now protected: the dusky dolphin, the common dolphin, the bottlenose dolphin, Burmeister’s porpoise, the tucuxi and the Amazon river dolphin. It is even illegal to take the meat of beached animals or those caught in fishing gear as it is impossible to determine the source of this meat once it finds its way onto the open market.

I want to know more

16 January 2003

Makah grey whale hunt: new ruling

An appeals court has reversed the June 2002 decision concerning the hunt for grey whales by the Makah tribe of Washington State. According to the final judgement that came down in December, the Makah must halt all hunting, which is illegal as it violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The federal government must now carry out environmental impact studies after which the hunt will be permitted only if it is deemed to respect the MMPA. The environmental associations that had filed the suit are satisfied, but the Makah plan to appeal the decision.[ENS]

I want to know more

On Whales Online:

12 December 2002

Iceland to resume whaling

Iceland intends to resume whaling by 2006. They made the announcement on the day after being readmitted as a member nation of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) last October. Even though Iceland is now free to hunt whales like Norway, it promised to respect the four-year delay in order to let the dust settle after the controversy over their reinstatement as a member of the IWC. Iceland whalers are unhappy. They would have liked to resume whaling this year. On the other hand, whale-watching tour operators are against the resumption of whaling, which they say threatens their industry. Iceland could recommence scientific whaling before 2006; the Icelandic government has not yet reached a decision on this issue.

The whaling controversy is not new in Iceland. In 1986, it attained a climax when environmental activists sank two whaling boats in Reykjavik harbour. From 1986, the first year of the whaling moratorium, to 1989, Iceland could have hunted 60 whales per year for scientific research purposes, and then all hunting was banned. Iceland left the IWC in 1991. [ENN]

I want to know more

On Whales Online:

24 October 2002

Iceland joins the IWC

Iceland joined the International Whaling Commission (IWC) at a special meeting that was held in Cambridge, UK, on October 14, by a vote margin of one. Iceland joined with a reservation to the moratorium on commercial whaling. This means that Iceland will be free to legally resume whaling like Norway. Iceland was a member of the IWC up until 1991. At that time it had agreed to be bound by the moratorium on commercial whaling established in 1986.

With Iceland’s membership, the number of member countries favourable to whaling has once again increased. Anti-whaling environmental groups are outraged by this situation. They question the usefulness of the IWC if countries have the option of staying or leaving, respecting or disregarding the moratorium. Some environmentalists allege that IWC decisions are based on politics rather than on whale conservation.

The main goal of the October 14 meeting was to evaluate quotas for the hunting of bowhead whales in the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort seas by aboriginal populations. A consensus was reached: from 2003 to 2006, up to 280 bowhead whales may be landed by these populations. This quota will be subject to re-evaluation as of 2004. At the same meeting, IWC members rejected, by a vote of 19 to 16, with two abstentions, the proposition to allow four Japanese coastal communities the catch of 50 minke whales annually until the Commission finalizes the Revised Management Scheme (RMS).

Following the special meeting, another meeting was held from October 15 to 17 to discuss issues related to the RMS that had remained outstanding since the previous annual meeting. The RMS is the management system that will apply if the moratorium is lifted. Thirty-seven of the 49 member states were represented at the meeting. [IWC, ENS]

I want to know more

10 October 2002

Labelling errors on whale products sold in Japanese markets

The London based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) is investigating whale products sold in Japan. This agency recently brought up the issue of the erroneous labelling of three products found in Japanese markets. Two of these products were labelled "minke whale skin from Greenland" while a third was labelled "whale skin from Russia". DNA analysis undertaken by the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research concluded that an error had indeed occurred at the packaging plant. The "minke whale skin from Greenland" was in fact Dall’s porpoise hunted in Japanese waters, and the "whale skin from Russia" was Antarctic minke whale taken by Japanese whalers. Even though Japanese whaling is technically legal, there is concern that errors in labelling could facilitate overstepping of quotas and poaching of protected cetacean species. The Japanese government insists that its DNA monitoring system, which was designed to eliminate illegal trade, is reliable.

However, according to EIA, widespread illegal trade in cetacean products is still going on in Japan. Of 980 whale products analysed by the Japanese Institute of Cetacean Research, only 24 percent were properly labelled. Nearly 60 percent of the whale products did not identify species, while 9 percent were falsely labelled. Also, according to EIA, large quantities of dolphin and porpoise meat are being fraudulently sold as whale meat. For consumers, this false labelling is all the more serious considering the high levels of contaminants contained in small cetacean meat.

EIA maintains that Japanese hunts of dolphins, porpoises and small whales are contrary to International Whaling Commission recommendations and contradict the principle of sustainable utilization of marine resources. Japan insists that a majority of Japanese support sustainable whaling and want to consume whale meat.[ENS]

I want to know more

Environment News Service website:

15 August 2002

Norway resumes export of whale products

A shipment of minke whale meat and blubber has left Norway and is headed for Iceland a year and a half after the announcement of the resumption of export. This shipment, of eight tonnes, is the first containing whale products to leave Norway in 14 years.

Norway had resumed the commercial hunt of minke whales in 1993 after having officially stated its opposition to the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling. The CITES Convention (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) prohibits the international trade of endangered species. Norway and Iceland are not bound by this convention with respect to minke whales, as they filed objections to the fact that certain populations of whales are listed in Annex 1 of the Convention, which prohibits international trade. Up until recently, Norway had followed a self-imposed ban on the export of whale products for fear of a backlash of public opinion.

Since 1993, Norway's commercial hunt has only supplied their domestic market with whale meat. Norwegian whalers have put pressure on their government for the resumption of the export of whale products. The Norwegian Seafood Export Council estimates that Norwegian companies have lost 9.8 million Norwegian crowns (CN$ 1.7 million) due to the ban since the resumption of whaling in 1993.

The delay between the announcement by the Norwegian Government in January 2001 and the first shipment of whale products is due to the necessity of completing the genetic catalogue that includes the "signature" of every animal that has been hunted by Norway in recent years. This measure is to ensure the origin of whale products found in the market place and constitutes a form of protection against poaching. [High North Alliance, Whales Online]

I want to know more

On Whales-online:

13 June 2002

Makah grey whale hunt: judgement

An affiliation of environmental associations that had filed a request for an injunction has failed in its attempt to stop the Makah tribe of Washington State from hunting grey whales. A federal judge has rejected their request. The plaintiffs argued that this hunt threatens both the whales and human safety. Although the court is sensitive to their concerns, the rights of the Makah, which are clearly stated in the Neah Bay treaty, outweigh them. The groups involved that disagree with the hunting of grey whales by the Makah, have filed a notice of appeal. [ENS]

I want to know more

Whales online (archives):

30 May 2002

Whaling: the 54^th annual meeting of the IWC, the status quo persists

The 54^th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) took place from last May 20 to 24. The ban on commercial whaling was not lifted. As it stands, the Revised Management Scheme for whaling, which has not yet been completed, must be accepted before the Commission will consider lifting the ban. Representatives of the IWC agreed to hold a special meeting next October to continue working on this plan. As for the proposed whale sanctuaries, one in the South Pacific proposed by Australia and New Zealand and the other in the South Atlantic proposed by Brazil, they did not receive the three quarters of votes required for their adoption. Among other points of order on the agenda, Iceland was refused entry into the IWC. This country, which withdrew from the Commission, will continue to assist IWC meetings as an observer. And so the status quo with respect to whaling remains. The next meetings will be held in Berlin, Germany in June of 2003.[IWC]

I want to know more

On Whales online (archives) :

18 April 2002

Whale meat : beware of toxic contaminants

The Japanese have launched a campaign to promote the consumption of whale meat. The campaign is targeting young people. Hundreds of people lined up for free samples of whale products distributed in Tokyo’s youth fashion district. The samples included whale stew, deep fried whale meat and blubber recipes. This promotional campaign is a means for the Japanese to stimulate support for the resumption of commercial whaling.

However, Dr. Sharman Stone, Australia’s Parliamentary Secretary for the Antarctic, warns against this campaign. Whale meat contains high levels of toxic contaminants. Whales feed relatively high up in the food chain. Also, these animals live long lives. There is therefore a strong likelihood that they will accumulate and concentrate large quantities of contaminants dumped into the oceans by humans. According to Dr. Roger Payne of the Whale Conservation Institute, the highest concentration of endocrine disrupting compounds ever found in any animal came recently from a minke whale, the very species most hunted and consumed by the Japanese. [Environment News Service]

I want to know more

Environment News Service site:

7 March 2002

Japan to add sei whales to its whaling programme

Japan has announced that it will add a new species to its North Pacific whaling programme: the sei whale. They have set a quota for 50 sei whales for the 2002 whaling season between June and October. This season's programme already included 100 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales and 10 sperm whales (resumption of whaling of these last two species began in 2000). The Japanese have killed 246 whales in the Pacific North West over the course of the past two years. They also kill 400 minke whales annually in the Antarctic.

Sei whales have been hunted in the past. The North Pacific population dropped from pre-whaling numbers of 63 000 to present estimates of approximately 14 000. Conservation groups list this species as endangered. Groups that are typically opposed to Japanese whaling are obviously outraged by this project. This announcement comes as members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) are meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, to discuss possibilities of how to regulate any future whaling. The possible lifting of the ban on commercial whaling will be debated at the 54^th annual meeting of the IWC that will take place in Shimonoseki, Japan, this May. [Environment News Service]

Environment News Service Site:

17 January 2002

Makah whale hunt challenged

Conservation groups have filed a legal challenge against the U.S. government over the killing of grey whales by the Makah tribe off the coast of Washington. Over the summer, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had broadened grey whale hunting permit conditions. The plaintiffs claim that these conditions increase the threat to grey whales as well as to human safety. They also claim that the government has failed to adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of this hunt. [ENS]

I want to know more

8 November 2001

Whaling: the Japanese en route for the Antarctic Ocean

A fleet of five Japanese whalers left the port of Shimonoseki in the south of Japan on November 6, heading for Antarctic waters. It was the opening of their annual scientific hunting programme that will last six months. The goal is to harvest 400 minke whales. This programme, which respects conditions laid out by the International Whaling Commission, has raised a general outcry from anti-whaling countries like New Zealand, Australia and the United States as well as environmental groups like Greenpeace. The second part of the Japanese scientific whaling programme, which will take place in May and June in the Pacific Northwest, aims at harvesting 100 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales and 8 sperm whales. [Associated Press]

I want to know more

11 October 2001

Japan: open season on small cetaceans

The dolphin hunting season opens during the months of October and November along Japan’s coast. Hunters harvest around 20 000 animals per year, most of them are Dall’s porpoises. The main purpose of this hunt is to produce meat for human consumption. The demand for dolphin meat rose following the international moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the IWC (International Whaling Commission) in 1986.

This hunt is not sustainable for several populations of small cetaceans. The Dall’s porpoise, for example, is now showing signs of overexploitation. The striped dolphin was also overexploited along Japan’s coast between 1940 and 1980. Over the years as many as 22 000 dolphins were killed annually. The present annual quota is 725 striped dolphins. The striped dolphin quota is never attained despite heavy demand for its meat. This is indicative of a steep population decline.

During its most recent annual meeting, last July, the IWC passed a resolution urgently calling on Japan to stop hunting dolphins in its coastal waters. Japan formulated an objection to this resolution, but agreed to supply IWC’s scientific committee with data in order to render its activities more transparent.

The hunting of small cetaceans also raises concerns for human health. The meat is very contaminated by pollutants like PCBs, DDT and mercury. In fact, a toxicological study has revealed that 52% of cetacean meat available on the Japanese market is unfit for human consumption due to high contaminant levels.

The hunting methods used are also under fire because they often imply a slow, painful death for the animals.

The IWC’s authority over the management of small cetaceans is contested by several of its members. There is no international organization responsible for the supervision of small cetacean conservation and management issues, be they hunting, by-catch or habitat degradation. [Perrin, W. L., Selected examples of small cetaceans at risk, in Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals, edited by Twiss and Reeves; Associated Press; IKAN; WDCS; EIA]

I want to know more

16 August 2001

The WWF supports controlled whaling

Last week, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) voiced its disappointment with the results of the most recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) which was held at the end of July in London. WWF deplores the IWC's inability to put in place measures for the control of international whaling activities.

According to this environmental group, the anti-whaling nations should propose an acceptable compromise to pro-whaling nations. The first step is to agree on the content of the Revised Management Procedure. This plan would open the door to a limited whale hunt.

Furthermore, the wildlife trade monitoring network, TRAFFIC, a joint programme of the WWF and IUCN (the World Conservation Union), has just published a report underlining progress made by Norway concerning its control trade scheme for whale products. This programme includes, among other things, a genetic catalogue of all whales legally hunted by Norway, a measure aimed at controlling whale meat found on the international market. Last January, Norway announced its intention to resume international trade in whale products. The genetic catalogue should be completed before the resumption of trade with Japan. [WWF, TRAFFIC, High North Alliance]

I want to know more

2 August 2001

Whaling: fifty-third IWC Conference, still no accord

The International Whaling Commission held its fifty-third conference from July 23 to 27 in London. Discussions are more and more difficult and tension is building. First of all, the ban has not yet been lifted. The ban was voted on in 1982 and put into place in 1985-1986 in order to allow the IWC Scientific Committee to evaluate whale stocks for the purpose of eventually setting quotas. Next, adoption of the Revised Management Scheme was postponed. This plan which includes, among other things, an inspection and observation system for ensuring that quotas are respected, is an indispensable condition for the lifting of the commercial whaling ban. Member countries were required to study recommendations which had been put forward at a special meeting held in Monaco last February concerning the Revised Management Scheme for commercial whaling.

The number of IWC member countries hoping for a lifting of the ban is growing every year. Some countries are interested in commercial whaling, stating that certain whale populations could support whaling. Other countries that do not hunt whales believe that the legalization of limited commercial whaling is the only way to efficiently control this activity.

Some member countries made allegations that Japan had bought the votes of poorer countries, such as certain Caribbean states, and that it would continue this type of recruitment in order to attain the 75% of votes necessary to obtain a lifting of the ban at the next meeting. The Japanese delegation denied these allegations saying that it is normal for countries that depend on marine resources to be in favour of commercial whaling.

Other important points that were discussed included whale sanctuaries and world-wide whale population estimates. It is important to note that the IWC must soon modify its estimates of the Antarctic minke whale population which is presently hunted by the Japanese Last year’s estimate of 760 000 is presently under revision by the IWC’s Scientific Committee. Also, two motions proposing the creation of whale sanctuaries, one in the southern Pacific proposed by Australia and New Zealand and the other in the southern Atlantic proposed by Brazil, were rejected.

Japan put forward an objection to an IWC resolution that strongly encouraged it to cease hunting dolphins in its coastal waters. However, the Japanese delegation did agree to furnish data concerning this hunt in order to render its activities more transparent.

The 2002 annual meeting will be held in Shimonoseki Japan. [ Kyodo Japan, The Associated Press, Ananova, Asia Times]

I want to know more