In the following blog post Adele Major, Web Editor, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, explains why Greenpeace does not believe sustainable whaling is possible and provides links to more video evidence:
Last I read you are an “environmental blogger” so logically I would assume you are interested in the actual environmental impact of whaling, rather than entire threads devoted to your interpretation of an inconclusive piece of footage on a pro-whaling website.
Is sustainable whaling possible?
I am not a marine mammal expert, and don’t claim to be, although I have read a lot about this issue. However the information below was prepared by John Frizell, whale campaigner and Greenpeace’s representative at the IWC, who is an expert on issues related to whaling.
“Everywhere whaling has been practised, including around the coast of Japan, it has lead to depletion of whale populations. That’s why Japan started Antarctic whaling in the 1930s, their own coastal waters were already showing marked drops in catch after 30 years of whaling using imported technology.
The statistics say it all. The blue whales of the Antarctic are at less than 1 percent of their original abundance, despite 40 years of complete protection. Some populations of whales are recovering but some are not.
Only one population, the East Pacific grey whale, is thought to have recovered to its original abundance, but the closely related West Pacific grey whale population is the most endangered in the world. It hovers on the edge of extinction with just over 100 remaining.
For this reason we believe commercial whaling should not be attempted again. In the case of the Southern Ocean, the IWC has made it a whale sanctuary where no whaling is permitted. So Japan’s ‘research’ program is gathering data to set commercial catch limits on a population for which commercial whaling has been forbidden.
Recent DNA evidence shows that the impact of commercial whaling may be even worse than previously thought. Most estimates of historic whale population size have been extrapolated from old whaling figures, but this method is often very inaccurate, argues marine biologist Steve Palumbi of Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station in California, USA.
In 2003 Palumbi and his colleagues used DNA samples to estimate that humpback whales could have numbered 1.5 million prior to the onset of commercial whaling in the 1800s. That number dwarfs the figure of 100,000 previously accepted by the IWC based on 19th century whaling records. Humpback whales currently number only 20,000.
In the case of the Southern Ocean, Japanese delegates to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) constantly refer to a 1990 estimate of the Antarctic minke population of 760,000. But that figure was withdrawn by the IWC in 2000 because recent surveys found far fewer minkes than the older ones. The new estimates are half the old in every area that has been resurveyed. The IWC’s scientists do not understand the reasons for this and so far have not been able to agree a new estimate. A substantial decline in Antarctic minke population has NOT been ruled out.
Additonally, whaling is no longer the only threat to whales. The oceans, or rather, human impacts on the oceans, have changed dramatically over the half-century since whales have been protected. Known environmental threats to whales include global warming, pollution, overfishing, ozone depletion, noise such as sonar weaponry, and ship strikes. Industrial fishing threatens the food supply of whales and also puts whales at risk of entanglement in fishing gear.
Expectations for the recovery of whale populations have been based on the assumption that, except for commercial whaling, their place in the oceans is as secure as it was a hundred years ago. Sadly, this assumption is no longer valid. This is why we believe that whaling in all forms must be stopped.”
This year, fin whales will be added to the hunt. Fin whales are the second biggest creature on earth after the blue whale, and are listed as ‘endangered’. There is no justification for hunting an endangered species. Very little is known about southern fins and most civilised cultures recognise the need to preserve biodiversity and conserve species that are endangered and protected (such as in Australian waters which they migrate through).
By the way, in the interests of a balanced approach for your readers, I would suggest you also link to our footage, available in longer form here and with a voiceover here. And since it seems you are also an expert on maritime navigation regulations and are calling for the resignation of Captain Sorensen based entirely on this piece of video, you can read his own account of his actions, click here.
As I have mentioned previously, Greenpeace is committed to a long history of non-violent protest and ramming is not a tactic we use.
End of text from Adele Major.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks Adele.
I note that you claim no expertise on the issue of whales.
Do you support the aims of the WCW?
http://www.worldcouncilofwhalers.com/publications/media_pack.htm#whatistheWCW
+To support indigenous and local peoples whose cultural traditions include the sustainable use of whales;
+To promote respect and understanding of the world’s rich and varied cultures; and
+To encourage and support sustainable management practices based on science and the traditional ecological knowledge of Indigenous and Local Peoples.
This is another interesting analysis,
http://www.earthscape.org/p3/friedheim/friedheim.html
Maybe there is more than one point of view? Would Greenpeace accept a consensus of opinion?
Who is Greenpeace that we should be interested as to whether they will accept a “consensus” of opinion (whatever that might be).
Cathy
Incredible. The last statement says it all. “…ramming is not a tactic we use.” So why did they use it? I’ve just taken the opportunity to review their video for the umpteenth time, and check out their captain’s explanation for the first time.
There’s no doubt they could easily have avoided being anywhere near the Nisshin Maru, but they chose to put themselves in that position.
It’s hard to know what exactly was going on because none of the videos go back far enough, but it looks like the Sunrise may have been trying to force the Nisshin Maru to turn away from the supply ship.
Given that Greenpeace’s stated modus operandi is to harass the Japanese, it is quite possible that they turned to intercept the Nisshin Maru’s course not long before the videos start. Technically then the Nisshin Maru should have turned to starboard to pass the Sunrise on the port, but the rules aren’t really designed with provocateurs in mind.
The rules also say that the boat with right of way may take evasive action. Looking at the videos, even if you take the highly technical point that the Nisshin should have given way, ramming them because they didn’t is the same as ramming someone with your car because they didn’t give way to you at an intersection. Try running that argument in court and see how far you get!
You really can’t accept anything that Greenpeace says. They say that there were really 1.5 million humpback before commercial whaling began, and commercial catches were understated by 1,500%. Yeah, I’ll buy that too.
Greepeace has in the past, by their own admission in their own Press Releases from Switzerland, sabotaged scientific experiments aimed at developing better varieties of rice for poor farmers in South East Asia. We should in my view thus scrutinise claims to be resting on their history of “high principle” in the light of those myopic past actions, and other similar counterproduct stunts, such as nutritional misinformation about Golden Rice, never corrected.
detribe, are you aware of any reliable, independent scientific research that shows that the extra nutrients in the GMO “Golden Rice” can be absorbed by the people who eat it (its target audience being people who are already nutrionally impoverished)?
Hunting of wild whales is not sustainable any more than harvesting any shared, scarce resource is.
It is a tragedy of the commons in its most obvious form.
The problem is that nobody owns whales. The reason why other food animals like cattle are not in short supply is that most of them belong to someone. Killing other people’s cattle is illegal.
A good comparison is the North American Bison (Buffalo). They were hunted to near extinction when they existed only as wild herds. Nobody could claim ownership, therefore nobody had any interest in any other method of hunting other than killing as many bison as possible as quickly as possible. (if you didn’t, somebody else would).
A few specimens kept by zoos were able to breed into the commercial bison herd in North America which now numbers over 300,000.
Bison are no longer endanger of extinction. Like whales, they are a commercially valuable species any nobody has any interest in seeing them become extinct.
The major problem with whales (and fish) is that they are a lot harder to fence in than cattle or sheep are.
When we solve this problem then the whales will be saved.
If Greenpeace were really serious about conservation this is what they would they would be directing their efforts toward. But they aren’t. Greenpeace are opposed to the killing of whales in principle and commercial harvesting of animals in general. Therefore they don’t bother directing their energies towards anything useful, and instead run around like a bunch of feral uni students preaching emotive arguments everywhere they go and trying to convince people that whales are more valuable than humans.
yobbo, as you say, globally mobile whales require an agreed global plan. What specific actions do you suggest that Greenpeace takes instead?
How could a lobby group persuade govts of the world to participate in protecting whales? (note that the Bison fell under the jurisdiction of a single nation-state which makes it easier to address. Local populations of less mobile whales are sometimes well protected eg Mexico, and dugongs, or sometimes driven to extinction eg China river dolphins)
Increased global whale numbers could impact on global fish stocks.There is no argument that whales are not a significant factor in the marine food chain.
For many coastal dwellers in developing countries fishing is their only survival. Should whales be culled to preserve fish stocks at a sustainable level? Or should traditional fishing communities be allowed to starve?
Rog – please enlighten us with details of some research that demonstrates whales impacting on global fish stocks.
I take it then that your other cause célèbre (besides Greenpeace bashing) is rallying for the impoverished coastal fishermen of developing countries who have seen their modest livelihood dessimated by enormous commercial fishing vessels coming from far and wide?
Rog – I’m stunned at your gross level of ignorance or is it just fog machine tactics.
Bloody big ships with satellite nav and grenade harpoons are not indigenous and local peoples doing their local culture thing. Are you saying that Icelanders, Norwegians and the Japanese will starve without whaling.
Whales depleting fish stocks my foot – are you really that stupid. Should have stayed in school Rog. Mankind has vastly overexploited marine resources. There has been considerable recent research documenting depletions worldwide.
As you acknowledge Yobbo – the practicality of fencing in and privately owning whales is a tricky one… and well – I don’t imagine Greenpeace see that as a solution to which their conservation efforts would be effectively applied.
Here’s an idea though, what about if international bodies agreed upon a region, say, a SANCTUARY where all parties agreed to leave things well alone? Uh, actually, doesn’t something like that exist down in the Australian Antarctic Territory? Isn’t that where the whaling fleet is?
Now, Rog, do you reckon that such a sanctuary might be something like a black hole for the world’s fish stocks? No, it wouldn’t would it, it would be something like an area where nature could do its thing like it has for millions of years, and sustain a complex ecosystem.
Phil,
1. You wrote “considerable recent research documenting depletions worldwide” – I’m not doubting you, but what about posting some links? I know there is some data at the ABARE site for bluefin tuna and orange roughly.
2. And in support of Rog, there are whales that eat fish and whales that eat other whales and even whales that eat sharks. But does any one have any good data on impacts on numbers of fish species?
You need to get your eyes checked Phil Done, along with any other organs that have ceased to function.
I said *There is no argument that whales are not a significant factor in the marine food chain*
Nobody including/especially Greenpeace has any idea about about whales! Its just a cause celebre!
So whats’s the “scientific whaling” about then?
Rog? What you *said* (vis “There is no argument that whales are not a significant factor in the marine food chain”) is relatively meaningless. That is slight of hand, spin.
What you subsequently said (“Should whales be culled to preserve fish stocks at a sustainable level? Or should traditional fishing communities be allowed to starve?”) is ignorant. But I’m not implying that you are ignorant. Quite the opposite – I’m sure that you are well aware of the nonsense that you are spinning in support of your… who? employer? personal political beliefs? Where do your allegiances stand Rog? What are your causes célèbre?
In 1999 Dr. Michael Stoddart Chief ANARE Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division said, “The UN had established the International Whaling Commission in 1946 to try to control international whaling, and with some success. Whale stocks are now everywhere recovering, even though complete international agreement to ban whaling was never obtained.”
Australian Antarctic Division have recently set sail south to better calculate what present whale populations are;
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=76494
All nonsense?
Plankton is at the bottom of the food chain for most fish and ocean mammals and birds. Whales help to regulate plankton population abundance. This doesn’t mean that whale predation reduces plankton numbers. The important role of key predators is that they help to maintain healthy and robust populations of prey.
there are a number of factors that regulate populations of a species: conditions and essential resources (eg sunlight, nutrients, habitat space), competition *within* a species, competition *between* species, predator behaviour (eg hunting and consuming patterns, preferences for certain prey) and decomposers (who release nutrients for reuse). Plankton includes animal plankton of numerous species that prey on phytoplankton (plants who produce the energy upon which the entire food chain depends).
Due to these complex interactions, there are many case studies where culling a species may have no or minimal impact. The easiest animals to cull or for predators to catch are sick, elderly and young (and during vulnerable breeding stages). Therefore :
Predators, who have evolved with their prey, can actually make a population more robust by culling the genetically weakest individuals
Culling individuals may not have the desired effect. By reducing competition within the species, culling may reduce rates of natural mortality, allowing the population to remain constant. Species interactions can change, eg by substituting alternative prey because the competitive balance has changed. Culling can have an unpredictable effect: eg the population numbers or a previously non-dominant competitor may have been regulated by the consumption preferences of the predator. Remove the predator and its preferred prey may start to dominant its competitors, with further flow on affects for the entire ecosystem.
Due to these extremely complicated patterns, whales may actually perform an important role that creates an abundant and genetically diverse supply of plankton that maintains abundant fish stocks. Eradicating whales to see if this is in fact the case is a dangerous experiment indeed.
The largest impact on fish populations is habitat removal (mangroves are important fish nurseries for most of the fish we eat) and degradation (of reefs and ocean floors which are also important habitats); and overfishing.
Dr. Michael Stoddart ref was ABC but I cant post it (questionable comment)
Rog the IWC is the international commission that’s open to membership by all nation-states, that’s grounded in scientific research (it’s committee has 200 of the world’s leading whale biologists) and who seeks to establish whaling levels that are sustainable (ie that conserve the species and genetically distinct local populations of species).
Accordingly, the IWC resolution:
*does not support LETHAL research
*does not support Japan’s so-called research programme
When you read Japan’s state intentions for it pseudo-research (commercial catch), there is no possible need to kill whales for such research, in fact, by killing the whales (who have such long breeding cycles and complex social structures), they’re jeopardising such reserch, were it actually the genuine intention.
Rog, re your quote above, no it’s not necessarily nonsense, but it doesn’t support the point you were trying to make. Let’s consider it:
“The UN had established the International Whaling Commission in 1946 to try to control international whaling, and with some success.”
INTERPRETATION: some (a small/moderate quantity) success in controlling international whaling. This does not say that whale population numbers have recovered to the stage where the world can resume commercial whaling.
“Whale stocks are now everywhere recovering”
INTERPRETATION: It’s a happy sign that a reduction of hunting led to an increase in whale numbers. However this does not say that whale numbers have recovered to a point where we can safely resume commercial whaling, or any whaling at all.
The link you included is for a general purpose research trip, including checking on populations of krill. “We will be looking at everything from viruses through to whales and the underlying physical environment.” This article does not support whaling or suggest any increase in populations. Indeed, the fact that they’re doing more research on whale numbers suggests, as IWC maintains, that we don’t know if whale numbers have recoverd to a point tosupport whaling activities.
It is all very well to list a littany of “known environmental threats to whale populations” as Adele Major, Web Editor, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, has done above. But lets take a good look at the character, scale, and the realistic probable frequency of whale deaths (each year) of;
global warming (zilch), pollution (in Antarctica?), overfishing (?), ozone depletion (zilch), noise such as sonar weaponry (headache maybe, death zilch), and ship strikes (a dozen?). Industrial fishing (of krill?) threatens the food supply of whales and also puts whales at risk of entanglement in fishing gear (10 a year?).
As the old song goes, “Bullshit, was all the band could play”. Either Greenfarce has a comprehension deficit or they think we do.
More information on the Australian Antarctic Division (it is not necessary for people to reinterpret my position from the articles linked)
Minke Whale populations
Recent observational studies suggest the population of minke whales in the Southern Ocean may have declined. However, visual counts of minke whales have led to varying population estimates. During BROKE-West, scientists will use passive acoustic technology to correlate suspected minke whale vocalisations with visual observations. The catch is that no-one knows what minke whales sound like.
Sonabuoys will be used to listen for unidentified sounds that could come from minke whales. Scientists will then determine if the sounds can be correlated with visual observations. The technique has proved successful with humpback, fin and blue whales. If minke vocalisations are recorded, the team could deploy passive acoustic devices under the sea ice, to monitor populations throughout the year. The acoustic devices will also provide the team with a snapshot of the other ‘vocal’ marine life in the survey region.
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=17
Jen’s question:
Net losses: Industrialized fishing hits fish stocks
Analysis of data from five ocean basins reveals a dramatic decline in numbers of large predatory fish (tuna, blue marlins, swordfish and others) since the advent of industrialized fishing. The world’s oceans have lost over 90% of large predatory fish, with potentially severe consequences for the ecosystem. These findings provide indirect support for goals established at the UN’s World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last year. UN officials argued that three-quarters of the world’s fisheries were fished to their sustainable limits or beyond, and made proposals for the restoration of depleted fisheries by 2015. Data on predatory fish are important as they are not dependent on datasets from commercial fisheries, which can be unreliable.
Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities
RANSOM A. MYERS & BORIS WORM
Nature 423, 280–283 (2003); doi:10.1038/nature01610
————-
Global Patterns of Predator Diversity in the Open Oceans
Published online July 28 2005; 10.1126/science.1113399 (Science Express Reports )
Boris Worm 1*, Marcel Sandow 2, Andreas Oschlies 3, Heike K. Lotze 1, Ransom A. Myers 4
1 Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4J1; Leibniz Institute for Marine Science, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany.
2 Leibniz Institute for Marine Science, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany.
3 Leibniz Institute for Marine Science, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany; National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK.
4 Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada B3H 4J1.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Boris Worm , E-mail: bworm@dal.ca
The open oceans comprise most of the biosphere, yet patterns and trends of species diversity are enigmatic. Here, we derive worldwide patterns of tuna and billfish diversity over the past 50 years, revealing distinct subtropical “hotspots” that appeared to hold generally for other predators and zooplankton. Diversity was positively correlated with thermal fronts and dissolved oxygen and a nonlinear function of temperature (~25°C optimum). Diversity declined between 10% and 50% in all oceans, a trend that coincided with increased fishing pressure, superimposed on strong El Niño Southern Oscillation-driven variability across the Pacific. We conclude that predator diversity shows a predictable yet eroding pattern signaling ecosystem-wide changes linked to climate and fishing.
Ian, I guess you have God in your pocket. How else could you so confidently ignore scientific factual evidence? Or you’re being paid so well as a puppet of IPA’s donors that you really truly don’t give a toss.
I had hoped that there was a genuine chance to have an intelligent exchange of views, but I see that the IPA affiliates here would experience too much cognitive dissonance if they tried to open themselves up to information that conflicts with the mandate of their chosen occupation.
To Think Objectively and also Richard,
If my name, and that I work for the IPA is relevant, then let’s be completely open and honest here.
If you are not going to argue the issue, but instead make accusations about vested interests and infer motivations, could you please let us know exactly who you are.
Who exactly is ‘think objectively’ and who is ‘Richard’?
Jennifer. I’m just a concerned individual. Actually, I *have* been arguing the issue(s), and more than once, tried to bring it back to the thread of your original blog post. Many individuals here, rather than “argue the issue” objectively, are making unsubstantiated emotive statements that demonstrate nothing more than their personal politics.
The fact that you work for the IPA is more than relevant – it is central. I understand that the IPA do not publicly disclose their funding, but there is plenty of information around that points to funding from corporations with a less than stellar environmental record. That would suggest that your opinion is not an objective one, nor therefore, this blog.
“Think Objectively” RE Your Golden Rice Evidence Question- YES. but as this drifts away from the thread topic I’ll leave it at that.
Jennifer, there is no point asking for the affiliations of Think Objectively or Richard. You’ve fallen for the oldest trick in the book. You’re playing fair while they’re playing dirty. Asking them questions would be like trying to harpoon…well not like, but would be…trying to harpoon red herrings.
All they’re doing is trying to complicate and divert the issue and take it away from Greenpeace’s immoral behaviour. They know that if you have a dint on your bow it’s because you rammed someone, not the other way around. And people who deliberately ram other people’s ships are only interested in getting their own way. Next time, only give them a link, don’t spray graffitti around your site by reproducing their cant.
Richard,
1. I am also a concerned individual, I care about the truth and I care about the environment and I care about whales.
2. This blog is neither funded, promoted or supported by the Institute of Public Affairs.
3. Now be a bit more specific, if it matters that I work for the IPA, tell us who you work for and your full name?
Otherwise, let us stick to the issue and not infer motivations.
FOR the sixth year running, the fisheries ministers of the European Union have ignored warnings from scientists to stop fishing North Sea cod, raising serious questions about how scientific advice is regarded in Brussels.
To prevent North Sea cod from disappearing altogether as it did in the 1990s off Newfoundland in Canada, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, based in Copenhagen, advised eliminating cod fishing in the North Sea. “The warning from the scientists is as stark as it gets,” says David Read, vice-president of the Royal Society in London.
But when the ministers haggled over the issue in Brussels in late December, they lowered the cod quota by only 15 per cent from last year’s allowed catch of 27,300 tonnes – and offset that with large increases in the quota for fisheries such as Norway lobster, which catch many cod by accident.
Read says that unless the ministers stop ignoring scientists, “there will soon be no cod for them to haggle over”.
From issue 2533 of New Scientist magazine, 07 January 2006, page 4
Deep-sea fish species decimated in a generation
18:00 04 January 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Debora MacKenzie
At least five species of deepwater exotic fish – only caught since the 1970s – are now on the critically endangered list, according to Canadian scientists. The researchers say many other species are likely to be similarly endangered and, worse, there seems little hope of saving them.
Most commercial fish, such as cod, live on the continental shelves. But overfishing in the 1970s led fishing vessels to move on to a hitherto-unexploited wealth of strange-looking fish on the slopes of the continental shelves, down to 1600 metres.
The bonanza was short-lived. Most of these fisheries peaked after five years and collapsed after 15, says Jennifer Devine, a fisheries scientist at Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland. The deep-sea species reproduce slowly, often not until their late teens, so they do not recover readily from excessive fishing.
Scientists have always feared they would be easy to deplete – and those fears have now been realised. In the first analysis of its kind, Devine looked at data on five species of deep-water fish from surveys by the Canadian government’s fisheries department between 1978 and 1994.
Roundnose and onion-eye grenadier were once commercially fished, but are now taken almost entirely as accidental by-catch alongside Greenland halibut, another deep-water fish that has also begun to decline. The other three species analysed – blue hake, spiny eel and spinytail skate – have only ever been taken as by-catch.
But that was enough. Between 1978 and 1994 the five lost between 87% and 98% of their initial abundance. Further data from 1995 to 2004 for the grenadiers showed they declined still further – 93.3% for the onion-eye and an astonishing 99.6% for the roundnose over 26 years. Their average size has also halved, showing that few fish are getting a chance to mature and breed.
Political horizons
“This happened in a single generation of these species,” Devine notes. The danger of extinction depends on the rate of decline per generation. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature calls any species that declines 80% or more within three generations due to a continuing cause ”critically endangered”.
The data on the five species show that in three generations they will decline by 99% to 100% – i.e. they will go extinct. And they are unlikely to be the only species at risk, notes Richard Haedrich, who heads the lab at Memorial University where the research was done.
“The way forward is to close some areas to fishing entirely,” Haedrich told New Scientist. But these fisheries are mainly in international or shared waters and are controlled by international groups such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation and the European Union, which face massive political pressure against limiting fisheries. “The decades we would need to close these areas to get recovery far exceeds the political horizons of these agencies,” Haedrich notes.
The EU has just provided an example. Independent scientific advice recommended that “fishing pressure should be reduced considerably” for all deepwater species. But the European Commission recommended a cut in deepwater fishing effort of only 20%, and EU fisheries ministers meeting in Brussels, Belgium, in late December 2005 reduced that to just 10%.
They did set quotas of zero for roundnose grenadier. But most of those are caught by accident alongside Greenland halibut – and the Greenland halibut quota was virtually unchanged.
Journal reference: Nature (vol 439, p 29)
Marauders continue to plunder the oceans
THE biodiversity of the oceans is as seriously threatened as ever, despite efforts to conserve it, according to two new reports. Plans to set up protected areas are proceeding woefully slowly, illegal fishing is thriving, and international pledges to improve matters are achieving little.
Both reports focus on the high seas beyond the 360-kilometre limit of national exclusive economic zones (EEZs). The high seas are especially problematic because they are not governed by any single nation, which means the rules are often complicated and difficult to police.
One way of protecting marine life is by establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) in which fishing is restricted. Marine biodiversity needs global protection, “and building a global network of MPAs is fundamental to that”, says Gilly Llewellyn, programme manager of oceans at conservation group WWF-Australia. “One of the current gaps and biggest challenges is to establish MPAs on the high seas.”
At the first international MPA conference, held in Australia at Geelong, Victoria, last month, delegates from 60 countries discussed progress. It made depressing listening. Louisa Wood of the Sea Around Us Project, based at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, presented the first comprehensive global data on MPAs. In 2003, the 5th World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, organised by the World Conservation Union, set a target of protecting 20 to 30 per cent of the world’s marine habitats by 2012. Wood reported that the 5000 or so MPAs protect only 0.5 to 1 per cent of marine habitats. At this rate of progress, even the 20 per cent target will not be achieved until 2085.
“From what I can see there is little will among governments to do more than issue statements calling on states to act”
The second report, commissioned by the Australian government, the International Transport Workers’ Federation and WWF International, gives a tantalising insight into illegal fishing on the high seas. Though details are murky, it is clear that this is a big business, turning over an estimated $1.2 billion annually.
The report, co-authored by Netherlands-based fisheries consultants Matthew Gianni and Walt Simpson, lays bare precisely where these companies and individuals are based. By trawling through Lloyd’s Register of Ships in London, the repository for information about the world’s shipping, Gianni was able to identify around 2800 vessels, accounting for some 15 per cent of the world’s large-scale fishing fleet, that are operating under a flag of convenience (FOC) or listed as flag “unknown”. FOCs represent a loophole in international law that allows a ship owner to pay a few hundred dollars to register a vessel in a country that does not enforce international maritime law strictly. Some FOC countries do not even have a coastline.
Many nations have significant economic interests in illegal fishing through companies and citizens who operate ships flying FOCs. Taiwan tops the list, and Spain is in fourth place (see Diagram) despite the European Union having signed up in 2001 to a UN plan that requires governments to act against any of their citizens involved in illegal fishing. Signatories are also committed to improve monitoring of vessels, and not to flag a vessel found to have been involved in illegal fishing. “These are states generally considered to be responsible in terms of action to regulate fishing on the high seas,” says Gianni. “Yet companies within their jurisdiction own and operate vessels fishing illegally with impunity.”
Kelly Rigg an expert on illegal fishing with the Varda Group, a Netherlands-based environmental consultancy, agrees that governments have done little to curb illegal fishing. “From what I can see there is little will among governments to do more than continue to issue statements calling on states to act.”
“The fact that new boats are being specially built for illegal activity shows the critical need for something to be done”
Fernando Curcio, the general director for fisheries resources at the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries says his government is committed to curbing illegal fishing by its nationals. But he says that tracking down offenders is difficult. “What can you do against a national who is located in a tax haven like Vanuatu or the Cayman Islands?” he says. Also, vessels can change their FOC or name or company location in 24 hours, making them even harder to track down, he says.
Figures from Gianni’s report herald a shift from using older vessels to building new craft specifically for illegal fishing. Of the 51 fishing boats over 24 metres built in Taiwan between 2001 and 2003, 50 ended up registered in FOC countries, and worldwide more than 100 large-scale fishing vessels built since 2000 were immediately registered in FOC countries. “The fact that new boats are being specially built for illegal activity demonstrates the absolutely critical need for something to be done,” says Australian fisheries minister Ian Macdonald. He believes the FOC system must be eliminated. “FOC nations – generally small or third-world countries – get a few hundred dollars for the licence, yet they are giving unscrupulous fishing organisations a ticket for more than a billion dollars of illegal fishing a year.”
But that will be difficult, given the lack of any universally accepted definition of an FOC, says Vincent Bantz, an expert in the law of the sea at the University of Queensland, in Brisbane, Australia. He suggests that there should be stronger enforcement of the duty of flag states to control and monitor their vessels under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
He is also hopeful that more radical reforms may be on the way, such as a global fisheries management organisation that would manage fish stocks on the high seas. “This organisation might also flag fishing vessels itself,” he says, “That is possible – but it’s not going to happen any time soon.”
From issue 2524 of New Scientist magazine, 07 November 2005, page 12
In-depth accounting
To protect marine life effectively, policy-makers need to know exactly what’s out there, and where. Gathering this information is the ambitious goal of the Census of Marine Life (CoML), a 10-year project based in Washington DC that began in 2000.
Now at its halfway point, the census involves 1700 scientists from 73 nations working on 17 different projects. They have created more than 50 linked databases containing 5 million records on the distribution of 40,000 marine species. For example, there are maps of the distribution of more than 400 species of stony coral. And new species are rapidly being discovered by the project, with the tally of new marine fish increasing at the rate of at least two a week. In March, a CoML team reported the discovery of an entirely new family, genus and species, of sea-floor worm, named Torquarator bullocki.
One of the projects, called Tagging of Pacific Pelagics, focuses on the open ocean ecosystem from the perspective of large predators. More than 2000 animals from 21 different species, including sharks, turtles and tuna, have been tagged so far and are being tracked. “Ultimately we can see where the niches of these species overlap,” says Kristen Yarincik, of CoML. “That is important for identifying potential areas for protection.”
The CoML researchers aim to expand the 14 global-scale projects. But first they will have to figure out how much global coverage is needed for a representative sample. “We know you can’t survey the whole ocean in 10 years, but we really would like to be able to draw some global conclusions in our 2010 report,” Yarincik says.
I am prepared to take Jennifer at her word that although she works for the IPA – this blog is her personal creation and her personal opinion and unsponsored by the IPA.
Now back into the rhetorical fray on issues we hold dear … en garde !
Jennifer, I’m currently not on anyone’s payroll. I am interested in sustainability (social, environmental and economic) and I explore that topic. I’m not a member of any environmental organisations or lobby groups. I have a corporate background with organisations that have nothing to do with whaling or IPA. I have no vested interests other than the opinions that I’ve expressed here. I have studied business, plus sciences relevant to sustainable development which is my ongoing interest.
But as per my message above to Ian, I note there is little interest in a mutual learning exchange on this forum.
Jennifer how can you say “If you are not going to argue the issue” when in fact, I’ve been doing exactly that, more clearly, objectively and logically than yourself or your supporters? I’ve asked a number of questions which you’ve ignored because you can’t answer them without undermining your corporate-sponsored agenda.
Think objectively, Then why can’t you tell us your name? I don’t get how you can accuse others while remaining anonymous? It seems rather insincere. Do you not want those you know and love to know what you write on the internet? How much do you really care about the truth if you won’t even put your own name to what you write?
To quote Jennifer: the IPA “pay my salary which pays the bills while I research environmental issues of national significance” and “at the Institute of Public Affairs where I am paid to research and write on environmental issue of national significance”
So even if the IPA doesn’t expressly pay Jennifer to write this blog, her paid work clearly provides the subject matter, information, funds and time to write. Blogging in this manner is consistent with her paid activities. IPA are successful campaigners and this blog fits the trend of corporate blogging to reach a greater audience.
If you don’t think IPA directly or indirectly supports Jennifer’s blog, than ask yourself the following:
What action would the IPA take if Jennifer’s blog contradicted the IPA agenda (as opposed to supporting it as it does).
The IPA pay her salary which pays her bills while she spends a lot of time everyday writing on this blog in a manner that supports the IPA agenda.
Think objectively, Why won’t you put your own name to what you just wrote?
My name is Laura O’Connell. I’m not going to give you my personal email address as I’ve been spammed before, this is why i remain anonymous on blogs.
jennifer why haven’t you answered any of the q’s I’ve put to you in a number of my posts?
Perhaps I didn’t know who you were. Perhaps I didn’t think your question was genuine. Perhaps I don’t read the thread carefully during ‘work hours’. Do you know how many people spam me? Send me hate mail. This blog is my hobby – because I care about freedom of speech and giving people an opportunity to put an alternative perspective. It is also an opportunity for me to post my thoughts and expose issues. But I don’t feel obliged to answer every question – particularly if the question is from someone who uses an anonymous name.
Contrary, my posts have been genuine and well reasoned. You’ve ignored questions (in online posts next to posts to which you’ve responded) which challenge the spin you put on issues.
Psychologically you would be uncomfortable; as a writer, lacking in credibility; and as a prominent employee of IPA, frowned upon, if you blogged from a perspective contrary to the position you take writing as an employee of IPA.
can you explain in what capacity you were emailed the pics by the Japanese shortly after the incident?
Can you honestly deny that you had a bias against greenpeace well before you posted the pics of the event?
Many company employment policies cover the employee’s action outside of work. Does IPA have a blogging policy?
I am the same person when I write for the IPA and when I write for this blog. So the conflict you seem to think should exist doesn’t seem to.
I always try and take an evidence based approach to issues.
I was probably emailed the pictures because it is well known I am sympathetic to whaling. Read the stuff I have had published on whaling including http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=199 and http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3634 .
It is also well know that I have little sympathy for Greenpeace. In my experience Greenpeace cares little for the truth, for example http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2633.
But this post began with information sent to me by Greenpeace because I am quite prepared to post what I don’t agree with. I am all for honest and open discussion – but that doesn’t mean I have to always be a part of the discussion.
At times I may simply provide a venue that some take far too serious for as Phil Done wrote just before Christmas: “And lastly thanks to Jen for the cyber-wall to scribble our graffiti on.”
I respect that. However, if you do take an *honest* evidence based approach, then, rather that claiming as you have that greenpeace intentionally rammed the japanese, why not acknowledge that the evidence is not clear enough (especially for any non-shipping collision expert) to make a certain, decisive judgement either way?
In my opinion, the evidence is clear.
Jennifer. I’ll believe that your blog is not supported by the IPA – although the politics of your blog mirror those of the IPA don’t they – because you are the same person as you say. I’m also prepared to believe that you have “no affiliation with ICR”.
However this incident of the collision between Nisshin Maru and the Arctic Sunrise has provided you with material for a bit of Greenpeace bashing – which is what this is all about really isn’t it. Especially when there is a team of dedicated commenters to rip into your subject matter, while you try to appear impartial.
But how can you or the IPA actually be impartial when your salary and bills etc are paid for by the likes of Greenpeace haters such as Monsanto?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs#Funding
As for my name – Richard will do, since most here (Cathy, Sea Dog, Rog, etc) also keep their (impartial?) comments ‘anonymous’. For the record, I have no affiliation with Greenpeace, and have never even given them money.
then you’re not being objective, but forming judgements based on your pre-existing bias. You’re entitled to dislike greenpeace’s activities but that does not excuse a biased interpretation of the facts or using your public position to promote spurious arguments to sway readers to your point of view whilst claiming that you promote honest discussion.
Were you completely honest, you would admit that the pictorial evidence cannot justify a black and white judgement of the incident.
Were you honest, regardless of whether or not you are sympathetic to whaling, you would also acknowledge that (irrespective of what the activists are up to) the Japanese have no legal or internationally accepted right to whale in the southern ocean sanctuary.
If you were honest it would appear, from the evidence presented here, that this is more about the IPA than whaling.
What do the IPA represent? – freedom of trade. So whaling is a battle between those who believe they have a freedom to trade and those who want to control or restrict trade.
What has Japan to gain from whaling? If you believe what you read there is no real market for whale meat in Japan.
Japan may be acting to preserve the principle of free trade. They could be adversely affected if non market forces were made legitimate in the market place. They may not want to set a precedent – it could restrict or even close down the supply of other seafoods like tuna.
In a free market people trade goods, services or commodities. Ideally it is a win-win transaction. Greenpeace want Japan to stop whaling, what are they offfering to trade? Freedom from GP perscution and harassment?
You could reverse the analogy, the Hells Angels ride into your sleepy little eco-village and hang around. They are there because they say they have a right to be there. They harass, deride, threaten, obstruct and generally make life uncomfortable for all. Honestly and objectively, should you move out of town to flee the Hells Angels?
Is Japan breaking the law? – make the claim then take it to court for an objective and proper judgement. GP are not without resources, it is not beyond their scope. Perhaps GP and others prefer to act outside the law.
Holey doley !
Rog – you are a true soldier of the right wing without any blinking or hesitation.
Take them to court ? Maybe they won’t show for the hearing. But if they didn’t show we might send a strongly worded letter. That would sure scare them. Maybe we might even rescind their membership of the tea club.
In a truly free market all costs are transparent and externalities internalised. You don’t get to pillage the commons for nothing. The new Rog international court of free trade will probably value the whales at 20 million apiece.
A friend told me about your blog. I tried to post comment but the submission didn’t like my content. Here’s what I wanted to post regarding the ramming incident:As well as the photos that you have received, the ICR have video footage as well. Visit the ICR’s website: http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea.htm
It’s quite clear from the Greenpeace video that the Greenpeace ship had clear view of both the Japanese ships. The Japanese shipped that was rammed by the Greenpeace ship had another large vessel on it’s port side.
In the Japanese videos, the Greenpeace ship, instead of turning to starboard to avoid collision, instead appears to have turned even further to port, to ensure a 90 degree collision with the Japanese ship.
Furthermore, the Greenpeace side is misquoting the rules of the sea.
Quote:
# Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.
This is what Greenpeace claims to have done, however the next part of the rule says:
# The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
The Greenpeace ship clearly turned to port to ensure collision, whereas turning to starboard would have avoided this – furthermore, the Greenpeace ship had plenty of time to do so.
I’m frankly amazed by their desire to broadcast all this to the world.
I’ve been having a discussion with Greenpeace’s representative to the IWC about the whaling issue in general at my blog:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/01/censored-by-greenpeace.html
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/01/response-to-greenpeaces-john-frizell.html
POSTED FOR DAVID WHO HAD BEEN UNABLE TO POST COMMENT (DENIED BY MY SYSTEM BECAUSE OF ‘QUESTIONABLE CONTENT’) AND THIS EMAIL WENT TO MY JUNK MAIL – WAS SENT AT 4PM YESTERDAY. SORRY DAVID.
Phil Greenpeace have >$US150M, why wont they take the Japanese to court?
They are free to do so.
Is it because they dont have a case?
How can Japan be found to be illegal without being convicted in a court?
Think Objectively said “Ian, I guess you have God in your pocket. How else could you so confidently ignore scientific factual evidence? Or you’re being paid so well as a puppet of IPA’s donors that you really truly don’t give a toss.
I had hoped that there was a genuine chance to have an intelligent exchange of views, but I see that the IPA affiliates here would experience too much cognitive dissonance if they tried to open themselves up to information that conflicts with the mandate of their chosen occupation.”
This comment opens up much bigger issues than just the topic of this thread – namely general corruption of Public Debate by ad hominem argument and personal attack. Anthony Brown has a recent essay about this bigger issue of corrupted policy debate and its bad consequences here:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs47.pdf
The Retreat of Reason, Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain
“For centuries Britain has been a beacon of liberty of thought, belief and speech in the world, but now its intellectual and political life is in chains.
Members of the public, academics, journalists and politicians are afraid of thinking certain thoughts. People are vilified if they publicly diverge from accepted beliefs,
sacked or even investigated by police for crimes against received wisdom. Whole areas of debate have been closed down by the crushing dominance of the moralistic ideology of political correctness.
Across much of Britain’s public discourse, a reliance on reason has been replaced with a reliance on the emotional appeal of an argument. Parallel to the oncetrusted
world of empiricism and deductive reasoning, an often overwhelmingly powerful emotional landscape has been created, rewarding people with feelings of virtue for
some beliefs, or punishing with feelings of guilt for others. It is a belief system that echoes religion in providing ready, emotionally satisfying answers for a world too
complex to understand fully, and providing a gratifying sense of righteousness absent in our otherwise secular society.
Ad Hominem Attacks (page 21)
The inevitable consequence of psychologising arguments is ad hominen attacks, attacking the arguer rather than the argument. Those who question the politically correct shibboleths are deemed a viable target for any personal abuse in either public or private. Those who critique politically correct nostrums are often denounced as extreme.
Guilt by Association: the Personal Form(p22)
Just as in Senator Joe McCarthy’s excessive hunts for communists, or the Soviet Union’s attempts to root out dissidents, the politically correct have a tendency to
assume guilt by association. If someone is deemed guilty of a thought crime, then anyone linked to them is often also considered guilty. This guilt by association argument has a very powerful effect in isolating those who break politically correct taboos because even closet sympathisers don’t want to be publicly associated with them.” END QUOTES
If we are going to take notice comments about self-interest and motivation like “Think Objectively’s” lets balance them objectively. Lets acknowledge. for instance, that Greenpeace itself works through other groups to keep it name out of news items:
Farmer Lobby Confirms Greenpeace Link.
Peter Hunt
The Weekly Times, Melbourne, 7 April 2004
“The Network of Concerned Farmers lobby group has confirmed it receives support from the international conservation group Greenpeace.”
Lets be clearheaded about the fact that both sides of policy debates include funding activities that can be questioned (particularly in the climate with Clive Hamilton’s “group” and water policy debate with ‘The Wentworth Group”. eg just recently, Alan Oxley highlighted WWF’s support for Tim Flannery who is part of “The Wentworth Group”.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17752118%255E601,00.html
“NEXT week the global debate on climate change comes to Sydney. Governments of the countries that consume most of the world’s energy, dictate the world economy, house most of the world’s people and which emit the largest share of greenhouse gases will meet to chart a new approach to climate change….
WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) has finally decided to enter the science debate. Its president, Rob Purves, has had his own foundation fund a new book by scientist Tim Flannery, the Australian humanist of the year in 2004 and author of the best-selling The Future Eaters. The book is The Weather Makers, the History and Future Impact of Climate Change. Bill Bryson and Jared Diamond have endorsed it, the former declaring on the cover: “It would be difficult to imagine a better or more important book.” ”
Rog – umm which court is that again?
Nation states do internationally illegal things all the time – all sides – depends whether you get away with it, or whether bigger interests like trade and self-interest get in the way of legality and morality. e.g. you can decide to not recognise boundaries or conventions that 90% of the rest of world do. You can spy on the other guy. You can dump goods in a protectionist market.
And any attempt to make things better globally will be met with the usual UN conspiracy stuff. (Why worry about a conspiracy – be more surprised if they actually organised something ahead of time).
And if the US doesn’t like it it will act unilaterally anyway.
So this brings us back to rubber boats in front of whalers in an attempt to get enough public opinion to change our politicians.
Very good point, Detribe. And as for Laura O’Connell(aka think objectively), my original post was a clear attempt to determine the specifics of Adele Major’s generalised claim that the survivability of whales had been fundamentally changed. You almost succeeded in changing the topic but have failed. This string started with a generalised statement of environmental threat by a Greenfarce employee and my post was an invitation to the scientific community and the green/left political community (they are obviously distinct) to provide substance as to the nature, scale and frequency of the listed threats. And it is a matter of record that after another 29 posts no further attempt has been made to provide this debate with specific information that would substantiate the Greenfarce claim.
I repeat the request; What is the realistic probability of whale mortality each year from the list of “threats” provided by Ms Major?
Either provide some specifics or crawl back into your hole.
And as for being on anyone’s payroll, tell that to my long suffering wife and kids, they could use a good laugh.
Laura O’Connell (aka think objectively) are you now, or have you ever been, a member of, or employee of, Greenpeace? I will gladly list the associations that I am a member or financial supporter. Will you do the same so readers of this blog may be properly informed on the background of all of us?
And spare us all the boorish “psych 101” crap.
Tell you what – there’s nothing better than a drill sergeant ream-out first thing in the morning by Motty to get yourself straightened out. I have personally done 20 push-ups, chopped down a small tree, shot something at random with Deliverance brand cross-bow and gotten a shorter hair cut in the last hour. And I want you all to address him as “Sir” in a very loud tone from here on. And that’s why we should keep the flag the same too !! You no-hoper dole-bludging bloody lay-abouts, greenies and druggies.
Mr Mott, SIR, I can now put my toy gun together blindfolded in two minutes (they wouldn’t let me have a real one).
If the basis of the “illegality” is a breach of the United Nations World Charter for Nature then the case could be taken before the UN.
Is there any valid reason why this has not been done?
Whilst we are on about “illegality” there is the UN Law of the Sea
http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/hseas.htm
Article 15
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(1) Any illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(a) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(b) Against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(2) Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(3) Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in sub-paragraph 1 or sub-paragraph 2 of this article.
Article 19
On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith. Article
Wow – another doozy!
Can I ask a simple question ( last time I tried this on another blog I was rounded on soundly )?
What laws/recognised conventions are the Japanese in breach of?
NB – not a trick question , just a genuine enquiry?
I’d like to know because the gist of Phil’s argument ( correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be that Greenpeace’s tactics are acceptable because;
1. the whales have to be protected
2. the whalers are breaking the law and only Greenpeace is prepared to do something about it?
I’m also happy to add that I totally oppose whaling. I don’t see that it’s justifiable or that anyones survival or wellbeing is dependent on it. It also appears to be a very inhumane practice.
Staying with the legal line;
Areva wins French court ruling against Greenpeace
01.10.2006, 03:25 AM
PARIS (AFX) – Nuclear engineering group Areva said the magistrates court at Chalon-sur-Saone, France, yesterday found Greenpeace guilty of obstruction and material damage in relation to the blocking by the environmental organisation of the transport of nuclear materials between two Areva sites.
Orders to pay fines and damages were given to leaders and militants of the association who, ‘following orders given from the highest level of Greenpeace’, blocked the transportation from Chalon-sur-Saône on Feb 19, 2003 of civil plutonium being sent for recycling, the company said.
‘Areva would like to reiterate that such commando-style actions illegally organized by Greenpeace jeopardize the safety of our employees and of the militants from the anti-nuclear organization themselves,’ it said.
Areva said that recycling plutonium reduces the toxicity of ultimate waste and saves raw materials due to its energy potential.
‘Plutonium transportations between the La Hague processing plant and the Melox recycling plant are considered to be among the safest in the world. In over 15 years, several million kilometres have been covered without accident, under armed escort and using trucks equipped with sophisticated safety systems and transport casks tested under the most extreme conditions,’ it said.
Jim – pls review earlier whaling posts this week – there is a substantial post on your question.
So Rog tell us what the naughty demonstrators do?
Sit in the road, hang some banners or try to blow up the shipment?
Nice diversion too – but let’s follow the bouncing ball.
No Ian, I have never worked for Greenpeace or any other environmental group or NGO, nor have I to my knowledge, ever donated money to GP, altho I am partial to men dressed in polar bear, panda or whale suits so its entirely possible that I may have once inadvertently given spare change to a GP man in a fluffy suit in a shopping mall, altho I can’t actually recollect ever having done so. I have already provided this background info, as requested by Jennifer. I don’t have a prominent name in the media or in industry circles, so don’t waste your time fretting over whoever you suspect I may be. My corporate background and associations would be, if anything, construed as right-wing!
So back to the whale issue then, you seem to want to decide your own non-expert statistics on whale population dynamics on this forum and ignore the fact that locally distinct whale communities are also important, not just total species numbers.
On the science and whether the whaling can be justified: why do you insist on overlooking the resolution of the International Whaling Commission? The IWC is the appointed international authority “set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling” “for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”. Surely you should side with the IWC given that they also support whaling?
The IWC is grounded in science, employs 200 world leading whale biologists, and citing concerns over whale numbers and important local populations, in its annual meeting of 2005 its members passed a resolution that strongly advised against the exact whaling by Japan that we are discussing here. (I have posted more details on this resolution elsewhere here). The IWC expressed particular concern that Japan would whale in a sanctuary – created especially for the protection of important whale stocks.
So if the international scientifically-based body with representative membership that exists for the purpose of maintaining whale levels to ensure the ongoing viability of whaling has grave concerns over this authorised whaling activity by Japan, then who are we to argue otherwise?
And if you’re willing to ignore the resolution of the IWC, no doubt you’re also willing to ignore the UN convention and CITES that seek to protect these species. And no doubt you also think that Japan is justified in refusing to recognise Australia’s sovereignty over Antarctic waters.
All this stuff about the IWC, just what exactly is the IWC?
Another one of Phil Dones tea parties. With bouncing balls.
read this;
THE OBJECTION PROCEDURE (Convention Article 5 (3))
Any government can ‘object’ to any decision which it considers to seriously affect its national interest, provided it is done within 90 days of notification of the decision. Should this happen, further time is allowed for other governments to object. The government or governments that object are not then bound by that particular decision. This mechanism has been strongly criticised as rendering the Commission ‘toothless’, but without it the Convention would probably have never been signed. In addition, without such a right (common to many international agreements), a government would still have been able to withdraw from the Convention and thus not be bound by any of the regulations.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/iwcmain.htm
Thanks Phil – will do so!
rog, u ask ‘What is the IWC?’ Ignoring your meaningless trivial remarks, its purpose is summarised in my post above. It is the international body “set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling”.
Govts can object or they can withdraw or they can not join in the first place. After all, membership to the IWC is open as no democratic international institution can force a nation-state.
Why presume to know better than an international scientific committee comprised of 200 world leading whale biologists? If their scientific majority expresses concerns and recommends that Japan cease whaling, as it has, then you should be concerned unless you presume to be in possession of superior knowledge or unless you support Japan’s decision to do whatever the hell it feels like irrespective of international consensus, and to fail to recognise Australia’s jurisdiction.
NEWSFLASH: John Howard again expresses his disagreement with Japan’s whaling and he thinks that Greenpeace have the right to express their views. From the SMH:
When asked if he supported Greenpeace’s presence in the area Mr Howard said: “I think the people have the right to express their view providing it is lawful, providing it is not provocative, providing it is not dangerous.
“Our views on Japanese whaling are well known. We don’t agree with it. We think the scientific justification lacks substance and we are very critical.”
He also said “this suggestion that the Australian navy vessel be sent there is quite absurd and won’t happen.” and the Defence Minister declared that it is a civil matter.
http://smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/PM-warns-both-sides-in-whaling-row/2006/01/12/1136956274337.html
So, the australian government doesn’t agree that GP are engaging in illegal activities, yet they disagree with the whaling.
The Australian Govt position regarding Greenpeace is that they support their to express their view providing it is not provocative or dangerous and that it is lawful.
Greenpeace have made a legal judgement on the legality of Japan without recourse to the law. They are acting outside the law.
Oh boring.
Is isn’t. Is isn’t. Is isn’t. Dum te dum te dum.
What law. Enforced and supported by whom?
Face it – it’s a grey area. The various “reasonably accepted” laws aren’t accepted by the rogue states here.
And we’re paralysed to act as our trading interests are at stake.
I know. Let’s employ 10 QCs to look at the law and launch a 20 year campaign through the UN.
I know let’s boycott eating whale products.
Brilliant !
Do you want a nice set of whale species or not?
Make a decision and stop sitting on your hands.
As usual Rog – you have no solutions except bleating.
PD: *what law*?
me: so how can whaling be “illegal”?
We now have a *nice set of whale species*
Do you have evidence that the minke whale is faced with extinction through excessive harvesting? In fact, you dont have any evidence of the population of the minke whale, this is just another bout of your tea party histrionics.
Whats wrong with the UN and the ICJ? Cant you people be bothered with the legal process? What is it – dont like to spend the money?
Define *rogue state* – is that a state that operates in defiance of the law?
Your only action is to applaud acts of piracy, that hardly constitutes as evidence of responsible decision making.
Lovely piece of puffery here, from New Zealand, linking whales and climate change. And subtle metaphors too, like equating a ton of coal with a harpoon!
——————————————-
Tackle climate change and save the whales
Thursday, 12 January 2006, 3:15 pm
Press Release: Greenpeace
Whaling protesters’ plea: Tackle climate change and save the whales
Southern Ocean Wednesday, 11 January, 2006 : As ‘Coal Pact’ meetings begin in Sydney, Greenpeace whaling protesters in the Southern Ocean called on Australia and Japan to take concerted action to tackle climate change to help preserve the environment and food chain which sustains the world’s whales, countless other species and of course people.
Shane Rattenbury, Greenpeace expedition leader on board the MY Esperanza in the Southern Ocean, said “While Greenpeace activists are risking their lives to defend whales from the Japanese whaling fleets’ grenade tipped harpoons in the Southern Ocean, climate change is silently altering the very environment the whales need to survive. Global warming is undermining their food chain and their breeding grounds.”
Scientists project that, if unchecked, climate change could lead to the extinction of 15-37% of all species on the planet by as soon as 2050.1 Whales are not immune, with climate change depleting their food chain by cutting krill stocks, altering the ecology of their breeding grounds and undermining the health of oceans generally.
Rattenbury said “Every tonne of coal we burn is yet another harpoon, contributing to a global extinction crisis unlike any seen before.”
“If our actions here are to save whales for future generations, we also need global leaders to seriously tackle climate change by quitting coal and meeting global energy needs with clean, renewable energy.”
“The ‘Coal Pact’ meeting beginning in Sydney today brings the Australian and Japanese Governments together and gives them a perfect opportunity to end whaling and move towards clean energy. Tragically for the whales, and for all of us, it seems that they would rather protect the coal and whaling industries than act in the interests of the global community and our environment.”
1. Feeling the heat: Climate change and biodiversity loss, Nature magazine, http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html
Rog – you’re an unconstructive ragger who wants the whales on this planet dead. Be condemned for offering ZERO as always.
Unless your uneducated mind has not being paying attention – we have historically hunted whales to extinction each time whaling is practiced. Many species are still close to edge. The scientific view of the vast majority of the nations involved is to stop whaling. I assume you know better or have personally rowed out and checked them all yourself.
The vast majority of nations have wished the practice to be stopped, including our Prime Minister, but the Japanese have thumbed their noses. The issues and details have been put forward at length in another post.
What’s wrong with the UN? I am am having a laughing fit – YOU asking about the UN. Mr UN conspiracy /UN doesn’t work from way back. What un-bloody-believeable hypocrisy.!
The law – well let’s take the Japanese to the Hague – what if they don’t show – who are you going to send to arrest them. Any ideas? Perhaps we can send some pirates as mercenaries. Bluebeard or redbeard?
Piracy – do you know what real modern day pirates actually do – usually by night or in stealth they board, shoot-up, loot, kidnap and murder. Slogan painting and getting in the way of grenade tipped harpoons in rubber boats don’t tend to be tools of trade.
Anyway desist arguing – your point is clear – you’d like Greenpeace jailed, fined and disbanded and all the whales dead – fair enough – your opinion.
To quote Legal Eagle from previous – you’ve obviously forgotten:
a summary of laws and regulations violated by the Japanese whaling operation:
• Violating the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
• violating the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling.
• targeting endangered fin and humpback whales that are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (CITES).
• in violation of the Australian laws protecting the Australian Antarctic Territorial waters.
• violating the IWC moratorium on the use of factory ships to process any protected stock which includes the whales they are hunting – minke and fin whales.
It is Japan that is violating international conservation law. The following list summarizes their violations:
1. The Japanese are whaling in violation of the International Whaling Commission’s global moratorium on commercial whaling. The IWC scientific committee does not recognize this bogus research that the Japanese are using as an excuse.
2. The Japanese are killing whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for whales.
3. The Japanese are killing whales unlawfully in the Australian Antarctic Territory
4. The Japanese are targeting fin whales this year and humpback whales next year. These are endangered species and thus this is a violation of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
5. The Japanese are in violation of IWC regulation 19. (a) The IWC regulations in the Schedule to the Convention forbid the use of factory ships to process any protected stock: 19. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a land station for the purpose of treating any whales which are classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10(c) provides a definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Table 1 lists all the baleen whales, including minke, fin and humpback whales and states that all of them are Protection Stocks.
6. In addition the IWC regulations specifically ban the use of factory ships to process any whales except minke whales: Paragraph 10(d) provides: (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships. This moratorium applies to sperm whales, killer whales and baleen whales, except minke whales.
It is not illegal to interfere on the high seas against their illegal whaling activities. In fact, we are legally authorized to do so in accordance with the U.N. World Charter for Nature.
The United Nations World Charter for Nature states in Section 21:
States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall…:
(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature, and the protection of the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdiction , or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
(e) safeguard and conserver nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
And finally, Section 24 states:
Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present charter are met.
This is what we are doing in the waters of the Southern Ocean. We are acting as individuals and non-governmental organizations to uphold international conservation law for the purpose of protecting the environment. In so doing, we are challenging a rogue pirate nation intent upon arrogantly violating international conservation law.
If you feel that a breach of the law has been committed then take it to a court, only a court can lawfully enforce the law.
Phil, I note that you have used the plural “we” in reference to the actions of Greenfarce. Do you have an undeclared interest here or is this just a by-product of high dudgeon?
The IWC is a self selected, unrepresentative body with a very high proportion of small maritime states that are beholden to Aust/UK et al. It has always had the stench of an ALP branch list at preselection time.
Any country can opt out of IWC at any time and can opt out of any provision. Any country can refuse to recognise a territorial claim made by another nation over ocean that is outside the territorial and fishing limits and beyond the continental shelf.
So your little list of broken provisions is no different to the numerous broken provisions of The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment by Australian states in their treatment of farmers. According to the Minister, there are no compliance provisions because the agreement is not binding. Ditto all the bumph from the IWC.
An international covenant does not become binding law in a country that has merely ratified it. It must also have specific enabling legislation, properly enacted in its own legislature, to create a legal obligation on the citizens of that country. No such legislation appears to have been passed in either Australia or Japan.
This is not the case for acts of piracy, reckless endangerment and negligence. So this line about unlawful acts to prevent other unlawful acts is nothing but the self rationalisation of the criminal mind.
And, Laura, of course the 200 scientists at IWC want more research, it is their meal ticket.
The alternative to lawful protest is bring on the Yakuza. Lets see some Bushido boogie on the high seas.
Just like Forestry is your meal ticket.
On meal tickets.. ..
Just all medical research is false if done by doctors.
All geological research is false if done by geologists.
All forestry research is false if done by foresters.
Come on – that’s b/s and outrageous. The usual tactic by you right wing guys is to withhold research funding so nobody is informed. Typical !
“self rationalisation of the criminal mind” – what a piece of hilarity – can hardly stand up for laughing – spare us the rhetorical b/s or save it for your Honours in Sophistry.
And yes like Rog with his 4 x 2 peace stick – we have the right wingers now resorting to personal violence as a solution. Ian wants the Yakuza who he probably has on standing offer contract for dealing with demonstrators anyway (sigh). Better still – why not harpoon them ? Even better let’s nuke the southern ocean and get all the whales and demonstrators in one hit.
So like Rog – be condemned for your inaction and preference for extinction. So much for foresters as conservationists.
P.S. That was the royal “we” – are not amused.
P.P.S. Not a member of any NGO, including Greenpeace, and have no vested interest in the matter. It’s personal. I would not want to belong to any club that would have me a as member.
Plagiarisng Marx Bros Phil? – Groucho would not be amused.
And re-popularised by Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” 1977.
Groucho & Woody both lefties so I’m sure you would not approve.
Plagiarism, piracy – there is no end to the perfidy of the modern enviro-warrior.
Ahem, why is everybody talking about whales? This whole “whale” thing is not about whales but fish. I’ve been reading the Japan Fisheries Website and aside from the fact that some of the links are broken, I feel as though I’m being lectured at by my high school headmistress, eg – intro “We, the Whaling Section of Japan, are dealing with a variety subjects, probably, more than you expect”
I didn’t know what to expect after that but here’s an example from the Q & A section:
Q Will research catches further deplete endangered species?
A “Certainly not, most species of whale are not endangered. In fact, based on scientific data endorsed by the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee, we can say that many species are abundant…”
here’s another Q & A.
Q What has been learned from Japan’s research programs?
A “Much has been learned about the feeding habits of whales through analysis of stomach contents. The research has found for example that whales are consuming 3 to 5 times the amount of marine living resources as are caught for human consumption. In the waters around Japan we have a situation of declining catches in certain fisheries while at the same time the sampling from our research program reveals that minke whales are eating at least 10 species of fish including Japanese anchovy, Pacific saury, walleye Pollock and other commercially important species…”
In fact this “stomach analysis” occurs also on the ICR website see http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm wherein there are photographs of the stomach contents of slaughtered whales.
It is clear that there will not be any solution to this issue until we accept the real agenda of whale-killing nations. That is, fish, not whales. In fact, although I have never tasted whale, I can’t imagine it would taste too good -rather tough and tasteless like those overgrown turkeys that appear in the shops around Christmastime (which I wouldn’t eat either). According to other posts on other websites, only older Japanese eat whale, and young Japanese don’t have a taste for it.
What is the answer then? As awful as it sounds, the non-whaling nations will have to give fishing rights to the Japanese (and other whaling countries) equivalent of the amount of fish consumed by all these whales they kill. Only then will they feel not so hardly done by. In the process, non-whaling nations will have to eat less fish. This doesn’t bother me, I’m a vegetarian. I can’t stomach any of this brutality.
Will this happen? Going by history, not much happens without force.
Yours
Marine – Melbourne.