TL: KILLING WHALES TO SAVE WHALES? SO: ECO (GP) DT: unknown Keywords: environment oceans fisheries whaling iwc antarctic japan norway / In the late 1970s, the IWC's Scientific Committee discussed a hypothesis that minke whales had been increasing in the Antarctic as a result of the decimation of blue whales there. This was thought to be possible since both species feed predominantly on krill. However, scientific work carried out in the early 1980s demonstrated that there was no data in support of the theory. Despite this, some scientists have since speculated that the minke whales have actually been impeding the recovery of blue whales. This speculation has become popular with promoters of whaling. Norwegian officials have said that their whaling will help the blue whales of the North Atlantic recover. Spokespeople for the Japanese whaling industry make similar claims for the Antarctic and have submitted a proposal to this effect to the 1993 meeting. However, they offer not a shred of evidence -- neither of a growth in minke whale numbers nor of a shortage of food for blue whales. Killing a whale of one species does not necessarily release the food it would have eaten to a whale of another species. Chances are that this food (often krill) would be shared among other whales, especially of the same species, and other predators such as fish, squid and seabirds. Since most of the other consumers - fish, squid and seabirds - have higher metabolisms and potential population growth rates than whales, they are more likely to take quick advantage of an increase in prey. Therefore any scheme to increase food availability to blue whales would require massive culling of all krill predators. Such a programme would not only be far beyond the remit of the IWC, it would be disastrous for the environment. The blue whale population was nearly made extinct by commercial whaling in the Antarctic - less than one per cent of the original population remains - but there is absolutely no indication that any failure to recover is linked to a lack of food. It was human impact on the Antarctic which caused the original problem by removing up to 95% of the baleen whale biomass within a century. The suggestion that we should attempt to correct the effects of nearly 100 years of poorly managed whaling in the Southern Ocean by turning to large-scale culling of other species in the ocean food web on the basis of an unsubstantiated hypothesis is scientifically absurd and, in "management" terms, grossly irresponsible. It benefits only those seeking to justify a return to commercial whaling. GREENPEACE calls upon the IWC to establish the proposed Southern Ocean Sanctuary as a matter of utmost priority. The Japanese counter-proposal, based on fallacious and unsubstantiated arguments about relations among whale species, should be firmly opposed. NO SIGN THAT WHALES PROTECTED BY THE MORATORIUM ARE INCREASING There is no evidence whatsoever for misleading statements made by officials from whaling countries that minke whales have increased everywhere since the moratorium came into force in 1986. The IWC's Scientific Committee has examined this question for each group of stocks it has studied in its "Comprehensive Assessments". These include the minke whales of the North Atlantic and Pacific, as well as of the Southern Hemisphere, and fin whales in the North Atlantic. But the Committee has found no sign that populations of whales under protection of the commercial whaling moratorium have increased since 1986. The reason is a combination of the slow growth rate of whales, the uncertainties in counting them, and the short time the moratorium has been in effect. During the Scientific Committee's "comprehensive assessment" of the North Atlantic minke whales in 1990, for example, the scientists concluded that: "...the slow growth rate of whale populations meant that there was no possibility that a substantial change in minke whale numbers had occurred since 1986." (1) These uncertainties apply to every whale population covered by the moratorium. For example, although the population of minke whales in the Antarctic has been extensively studied and counted, there has been no evidence of any increase during the 12 year period of study. No one knows why some depleted whale populations under protection may remain very small for decades before showing any signs of recovery. The blue whales of the Antarctic, for example, have been totally protected for 27 years and yet we still do not know what is happening to their numbers. The latest population estimate is about 700, less than one quarter of one percent of their numbers when whaling began in the Antarctic at the turn of this century. Given the slow reproduction rates of long-lived animals like whales, only a long-term programme of protection and monitoring can give an opportunity for populations to recover and confirm that recovery is really taking place. GREENPEACE strongly urges the continuation of the indefinite moratorium. Reference: Rep.Int.Whal.Commn 41, 1991, p. 67. WHALES ARE HARD TO COUNT Scientists are unable to determine accurately how many whales there are. Of the few populations for which there are estimates, those estimates are known to an accuracy of no more than plus or minus 50%. Since populations increase so slowly, it is impossible to tell if a population is growing or shrinking in the course of a few years' study. To obtain estimates, observers on-board survey vessels count all the whales that can be seen within the narrow strips visible from the survey vessels as they follow a predetermined zig-zag track. These counts are used to determine the number of whales per square mile within each strip - the "densities". These densities are considered to hold for the areas between the strips. When considered together they give numbers for the entire region under study. The population estimates come essentially from the equation: Population = [area under study/area surveyed] x number of whales in surveyed area. Because whales tend to cluster (as minkes do around the ice-edge in the Antarctic) the count is "stratified", a procedure that tries to eliminate the error caused by extrapolating from one population density to another. Still, the simple formula above is at the heart of all whale population estimates from ships or other vehicles. The total area of the observed strip is in practice always a very small percentage of the area of the survey region. Thus population estimates are based on sightings of a tiny fraction of the whales in the population. For example, at the 1992 IWC meeting Norway tabled a "point estimate" of 86,736 minke whales. This sounds very precise, but in fact it is based on about 60 vessel days of observations during which a total of 518 whales were seen. Since the number actually seen was so small, the slightest change in it makes a big change in the "point" estimate. Every whale seen in the Norwegian study, for example, changes this number by nearly 170 whales. There are also sources of errors which bias the estimates. For example, a whale within the survey strip may not be seen. Norway's scientists have shown great concern about this source of error. It would falsely reduce the apparent population size and thus any quotas. They have run experiments to estimate the size of this error and correct upwards for it. But another source of error is that minke whales are curious and approach ships. This phenomenon is known to all whalers, including Norwegian whalers, who call such animals "seekers", but the same scientists have shown little concern about this source of error. It would falsely increase the apparent population size and thus give bigger quotas. No experiments have been run to estimate the size of this error or to correct it. Antarctic counting flawed Estimates for the Antarctic also suffer from the imprecise nature of whale counting. Lacking precise knowledge about the possible boundaries between biological populations of minke whales in the Antarctic, the IWC has operated since the mid-1970s with six arbitrary management "Areas". These six Areas are mostly 60 degrees wide, running from the Equator to the ice edge. Minke whales are not spread evenly among these six Areas; almost 40% of them have been estimated in one particular Area (Area V in the Pacific). Minke whales gather to feed south of about 60 degrees South. This zone is where commercial whaling took place, and it is this zone that was surveyed. Attempts to count whales accurately in Area V have not met with much success. When the first count (1980/81) was repeated in 1985/86, preliminary results indicated there were 50% more whales than previously seen, which is a biological impossibility in terms of population growth. But if to some extent whales move from sector to sector in different years, then totals of counts in one area after another may be strongly biassed. The latest results give even more cause for concern as they show a five-fold discrepancy, a plus or minus 250% error, between two surveys: IDCR survey 1985/86: 280,000 (1) Japanese scientific whaling 1990/91: 56,000 (2) The difference does not mean that the whales have declined; it simply illustrates how uncertain these numbers are. The 1990/91 survey covered a total of 14,700 nautical miles and sighted 1,725 minke whales. Three men were in the crows nest at all times when sightings were being made and they were normally assisted by a further four (captain, gunner, quartermaster and researcher) on the upper bridge and two or three (chief engineer, radio operator and oiler)) on the platform above the ASDIC hut - a very comprehensive look-out indeed. Given such an enormous discrepancy, one would expect a crash research programme to find out what has gone wrong. At the least, conservative management would suggest using only the lower figure until the problem is resolved. Instead, there is a push by Japanese scientists to discard the figures from their own 1990/91 programme and use only the higher figures produced by the IDCR cruise. These flawed counts and the fact that the whaling industry is prepared to ignore a major survey when it produces facts that they do not like should be a cause for tremendous concern. References: 1. Figure adopted at June 1992 IWC Scientific Committee meeting 2. Document IWC/SC/44/SHB 8 submitted by Japanese scientists to 1992 IWC Scientific Committee meeting. CETACEANS RECEIVE SPECIAL TREATMENT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW "Agenda 21", the action plan agreed by the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, or the Earth Summit), included specific provisions confirming the special status of cetaceans under international law as highly migratory species and as marine mammals. "Agenda 21" said that marine living resources should be exploited so that they are held at or restored to levels producing the "Maximum Sustainable Yield" This, for whales, is thought to be at the very least 60% of their original numbers, but perhaps as high as 80%. But at the same time, it provided that the exploitation of marine mammals - including whales - can be regulated MORE STRICTLY, or even PROHIBITED altogether. The relevant section of "Agenda 21" says: Nothing in paragraph 17.75 above [which sets out the MSY provision] restricts the right of a coastal State or the competence of an international organization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals more strictly than provided for in that paragraph. (1) "More strictly" can only mean restoring stocks to, or allowing them to remain at, levels HIGHER than the MSY level. The wording of the paragraph also shows that the IWC's current moratorium on commercial whaling is entirely consistent with the UNCED agreement. UNCED also recognised the IWC as the appropriate international organisation to manage whaling, saying: States recognise: The responsibility of the International Whaling Commission for the conservation and management of whale stocks and the regulation of whaling pursuant to the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. (2) Since the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (which established the IWC) applies to "all waters", this text explicitly reaffirms what was intended by the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (Article 65) - that the IWC is the only "appropriate" organisation to manage the exploitation of these species. The organisation's global jurisdiction reflects the fact that whales are highly migratory animals which regularly migrate through many 200-mile fishery zones as well as the high seas. Minke whales in the eastern North Atlantic, for example, are believed to move every year between waters south of Spain and the Arctic. (3) If a migratory species were deemed to belong to any country into whose waters it wandered for a short period, then effective conservation and management would be impossible. For example, a country through whose waters whales migrated would be able to catch the entire replacement yield of the population, to the detriment of the interests of the other countries in the whales' range. References: (1) Agenda 21, Chapter 17, Section D ("Sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources under national jurisdiction"), Paragraph 17.76. A nearly identical paragraph was included in Section C of the same Chapter ("Sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources of the high seas"). (2) Agenda 21, Chapter 17, Paragraphs 17.62(a) and 17.90(a). (3) See, for example, "Winter records of the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata acutorostrata Lacepede 1804) in the southern North Atlantic", Professor E.D. Mitchell Jr, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Prov. Quebec, Canada, published in Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 41, 1991, pp 455-457.