Aussie Prime Minister John Howard (you may remember him from his forays into the whaling debate in the past) is currently in Japan for free trade talks.

John Howard recognises that

"... even without the free trade agreement Japan is our best customer"

Australia exports lots and lots of their unneeded surplus beef to Japan each year, in addition to "critically endangered" species that Australia sees fit to exploit commercially for the benefit of it's people (*1).

As is natural, Howard is hoping for more:

"... it will be beneficial if we can get greater access for our exports and of course we have to give something in return."

I'd like to see the Japanese negotiators get a signed declaration from Howard that representatives of his country will refrain from emotive language (*2) in relation to the whaling issue. This should not be so much to ask. After all, even without such a declaration I'm sure John Howard would expect representatives of his nation to conduct themselves with grace and dignity at all times anyway. Alternatively, Howard should acknowledge that such language is pure populism primarily aimed at fringe domestic constituents, and that Australia doesn't mean to cause any offence. I think the Japanese would accept such an admission with gratitude.

Howard has previously admitted that Japan's whaling activities are legal.

The main reason why Australia is against whaling today is because it no longer makes money out of it, and a certain noisy but politically important sector of Australian society is opposed to it.

Were Japan to make Australian tolerance of sustainable whaling a condition for the free trade agreement, Australia would once again have a financial incentive to act in accordance with the object and purpose of the ICRW. The sector within Australia that does not want humans anywhere to catch whales, be it sustainable or not, would of course be unhappy. However, average Joe Aussie who stands to benefit financially from further improved economic ties with Japan may finally see fit to set that noisy bunch straight. Fingers crossed, but unfortunately expecting such an outcome has but maybe a 5% chance...
(^_^)


(*1) On page 39 of this Hansard pdf former Environment Minister Ian Campbell refused to cease Australia's participation in the southern bluefin tuna fishery, noting that it would be "catastrophic for ... Australian fishermen and their families", and regarding the suggestion that Australia move to list the species (classified by the IUCN as "critically endangered") on to Appendix I of CITES, responded negatively, saying "... quite often internationally we are not able as a community of nations to get ideal results. Does that mean you should just pull up Australia's stumps and walk away?"

Given this position and Australia's position on the whaling issue, Australia's priority list appear to be as follows:

1. Australian profits
2. "Conservation"
3. True conservation???
4. Non-Australians???

A better list would look like this:

1. True conservation / sustainable use / Humans

But it's not to be...


(*2) For example, current Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull's recent description of whaling as "barbaric", and former Environment Minister Ian Campbell's ill-selected adjectives of "sick" and "obscene". Back in Australia, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has been accused of "dirty attacks", but that's to be expected in the domestic arena. In the international arena representatives of sovereign nations would be well advised to be more careful with their language.

Labels: double-standards, Ian Campbell, John Howard

There is little in the way of interesting news coming out of the Australian and New Zealand media. The story is only barely getting coverage in New Zealand, and while there are more reports coming out of Australia, a lot of them seem to originate from a single reporter (Andrew Darby - he comes up with some useful info from time to time).

So this update is just a brief round-up

1) Sea Shepherd left Australia around the 9th of January, and were reported to be ready to start "hunting" the whalers a week later (see Update #8). It's the 25th of January today and they haven't yet found them.

2) On the 15th, Ian Campbell unleashed a volley of rhetoric, saying "I will not grant permission to Japanese whaling vessels or support vessels to use Australian ports ... They are banned from Australian ports as long as I'm the Minister."

No big deal. The ICR vessels don't stop over in Australia on their way back to Japan, anyway.

3) Sea Shepherd responded again to Ian Campbell's previously coddling of the Greenpeace activists:

The water cannons are easily avoided. We have never been hit with them for the simple reason that we have not placed ourselves in the path of them. Greenpeace activists deliberately place themselves in the path of the water cannons for dramatic effect. ... We are not the victims down here and Greenpeace should not be trying to make themselves the victims. ... We are not interested in stories of people whining about how violent the Japanese are to people. If someone gets knocked into the water by a water cannon then that is the reason they came down here. Besides that is what survival suits are for.

4) Still, on the 19th, New Zealand "Conservation Minister" Chris Carter, issued a "yeah, and us too", in this press release:

"Japan's whaling fleet is not welcome in New Zealand ports".

Speaking at a reception onboard the Greenpeace vessel – Esperanza in Auckland today, the Minister also urged all parties involved in this year's whaling protests to exercise restraint.

Before entering a New Zealand port any ship carrying whale products would need to apply, under the provisions of the Marine Mammals Protection Act, for a permit from the Minister of Conservation.

Chris Carter said he would not grant such a permit and reiterated the New Zealand Government's strong opposition to Japan's whaling programme in the Southern Ocean.

So no big deal there. In the same press release he also expressed concern about Greenpeace activists getting squirted with water cannons. Does Carter get all his ideas from Campbell or something?

On Sea Shepherd:

"I am very concerned by recent statements made by Captain Watson and the battle modifications made to his ships."

Carter shares his own master plan:

"The best way of solving this issue would be for Japan to abandon whaling and join other nations in respecting and conserving marine species that could be facing extinction ".

Astute and constructive stuff there from the man in charge in New Zealand...

5) On the 23rd, Ian Campbell was dumped as Environment Minister by John Howard, to be replaced by a chap named Malcolm Turnbull. This article describes Campbell as "colourless", his replacement as a "razor-quick lawyer and businessman".

I reluctantly have to say farewell to Ian Campbell - I will miss his huffing, puffing and excited bluster, as it has provided good humour value, but on a more serious level, my impression has always been that Campbell doesn't seem to have much common sense. Perhaps I have this impression because Campbell has had to try to defend Australia's hypocritical policies regarding resource management issues, so maybe I am being a little bit rough.

Bad luck, mate.

6) Oh yeah, Greenpeace. After hanging out in Auckland for 2 weeks, apparently they are leaving tomorrow, after the ICR fleet has been whaling for almost 7 weeks already.

TVNZ has a 5 minute video clip from "Close Up", giving Greenpeace the media attention that they crave. If you don't live in New Zealand and want to see a good example of typically biased coverage of the issue, I can recommend it. Greenpeace Japan's Junichi Sato also makes an appearance, basically regurgitating standard Greenpeace propaganda.

I've had a bit to say about the partiality of TVNZ previously...

Greenpeace's whalelove webpage has also now got it's content underway. I've not viewed it yet - and am still wondering whether I should bother :-)

Labels: Greenpeace, Ian Campbell, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Malcolm Turnbull, Sea Shepherd, whale love

Ian Campbell seems to be serious about his complaints about the use of water cannons by the ICR fleet to keep nuisance activists away from their vessels.

Perhaps Ian could tell us why the activists need to be within range of these water cannons in the first place? Or does he think that the ICR vessels are obliged to put up with attempts to graffiti on their ships and obstruct their research, which is conducted in accordance with international agreements that Campbell's government has and remains adhered to?

Even according to Paul Watson:

Nathan and his crewmates will maneuver their little rubber Greenpeace boats into the path of the fire hoses where they will be filmed being “attacked” with high power hoses. They will do that for hours and it looks very dramatic. But it’s all just ocean posing folks. Last year, my crew quite easily avoided the fire hoses. In fact, the only way they could have been hit would have been to steer directly into the path of the water.

Ian is making a fool of himself, as usual. Aren't politicians supposed to carry themselves with a little more dignity?


The article notes that Croatia has joined the IWC, adding another European nation to the list of member nations. Croatia neighbours fellow IWC members land-locked Hungary and Slovenia, who also recently joined the IWC. That makes one less European nation who hasn't yet joined the IWC. Croatia, like Slovenia, borders the Adriatic sea, although they have a significantly larger coastline.


UPDATE 2006/01/15: More on the article regarding Campbell's criticisms...

The IWC Resolution (2006-2) referred to in the article is entitled "Resolution on the safety of vessels engaged in whaling and whale research-related activities".

The resolution title makes it clear that the resolution deals with the safety of the ICR research vessels from "protest" activities, which last year led to a couple of ship collisions with Japanese vessels (both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd vessels were involved).

It's no surprise that with Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd vessels not yet in the vicinity of the ICR research fleet, we haven't yet heard of any collision incidents involving "vessels engaged in whaling and whale research-related activities" this season. Clearly, the Japanese government sponsored ICR vessels are in the Antarctic for the purpose of completing their programme (conducted in accordance with international agreements that both Australia and Japan have adhered to), not to cause incidents with other vessels, which generated so much media interest last year. Whether similar incidents reoccur over the coming weeks is ultimately dependant on the intentions of those conducting the protest activities.

With this in mind, it's worth noting another part of the resolution - "the Commission and Contracting Governments support the right to legitimate and peaceful forms of protest and demonstration"

If protest groups wish to attempt to physically obstruct the activities of the research vessels (i.e., with their inflatables), they can not expect that physical actions will not be taken against them in response, to limit their effectiveness. The ICR crew are not under any obligation to act as a "protest punching bag" for the self-righteous activists of those groups. It is the choice of these activists not to limit themselves to peaceful forms of protest that introduces the "risk to human life" referred to in the article, through provocation. Such acts which provoke response should therefore not find support with any government.

The Sea Shepherd organization is at least mature enough to stick up for themselves - Paul Watson says that his crew are "prepared to die for the whales" - but Greenpeace have no excuse. There is no need for them to deploy inflatables in close proximity to the research vessels (an essential pointless tactic in terms of "saving whales"), and certainly not to conduct stunts such as that quoted in the article - trying to "hook their inflatables to whales being hauled up the stern ramp".

That is not "peaceful" protest activity.

If Greenpeace activists are big enough to sail themselves all the way down to the Ross Sea and attempt to obstruct whaling efforts in such a confrontational manner, they should not run to Ian Campbell crying like babies for help when their self-righteous behaviour results in them being sprayed with water cannons.

Greenpeace's actions in the Antarctic during the month of February will indicate the level of maturity of the people running their organization. While one can hope for both the sake of their activists as well as the ICR crew that Greenpeace change their tactics this year, surely Ian Campbell ought to know better than to indulge in this nonsense. I've said it before, but I'll say it again - Campbell should stick to his policies rather than snuggle up to groups displaying such an arrogant and self-righteous attitude as this.

At the end of the day however, whether or not Senator Campbell wishes to bathe in embarrassment is for him to decide.

Labels: Croatia, Greenpeace, Ian Campbell, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates

Ian Campbell's on/off love affair with the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was on display once again in the media today, with Senator Campbell, who Sea Shepherd last month described as "honourable", now declaring that:

"Sea Shepherd are bringing the cause of whale conservation into disrepute.''

Presumably Campbell has realised that it was politically unwise to call Paul Watson and wish him well, particularly since in other parts of the world such as the United Kingdom and Belize, officials there were seeing it fit to strike the Sea Shepherd terrorist vessel (what else is a vessel with a "can opener" ramming implement attached to it?) from their registers.

Despite today's clarification, I wonder if Campbell would still welcome Sea Shepherd vessels to Australia's Antarctic bases in anything other than an emergency?

Stupidly, however:

Senator Campbell praised the more peaceful efforts of Greenpeace in recording the "gutless'' whale slaughter and using small vessels to disrupt the hunt, saying the group's efforts had his blessing.

Campbell would do well to stick to his own policies, rather than snuggle up to Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace's tactics are possibly going to end up on the wrong side of the new IMO guidelines, as well as Sea Shepherd's more overtly unacceptable behaviour.

Anyway, we can again await Watson's reaction, remembering his rather upset tone from last season.


The ICR has another press release out today, this time on public opinion polls. They've too have picked up on the fact that Greenpeace Japan misrepresented the results of an opinion survey that they themselves commissioned. I previously detailed the misrepresentation here, based on a Japanese version of the poll result, but the ICR has helpfully found an English translation (here for those who care to take a look).

The ICR also states that:

"Whalemeat is a popular meal choice by the Japanese public despite a drastic decrease in supply and, contrary to claims by Greenpeace, demand is increasing each year."

This basic trend is of course what we've been observing through stockpile figure analyses (November figures should be out any day now, maybe on the 12th)

Labels: eco-terrorism, Ian Campbell, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Sea Shepherd

New Zealand and Australia have put "world opinion" (sic) on display again.

Kiwi Minister of Conservation Hon. Chris Carter managed to muster together 27 names for his demarche:

Americas:
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, United States
Australasia:
Australia, New Zealand
Europe:
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom

Better than the meagre efforts of 12 nations (protesting at Norway) and 17 nations (Japan) earlier in the year, but of course amongst the 19 European nations included, 6 of them don't even have a coastline.

Over the ditch in Australia, "Minister for the Environment" Ian Campbell illustrated that he has fewer mates than Chris Carter, only being able to muster together 21 names:

Americas:
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, United States
Australasia:
Australia, New Zealand
Europe:
Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom

That is, the names that Carter managed to get but Campbell missed out on were Czech Republic, Hungary, San Marino, Switzerland (all landlocked) plus Monaco and new IWC member Slovenia (all European nations).

I still find myself asking where the "world" in this "world opinion" is, though? To his credit, Ian Campbell seems to have dropped the phrase from his PR, but Chris Carter has persisted with it. Why not just be honest and concede that this is essentially "European opinion", or perhaps "Anglo-saxon opinion" plus a few extras? There's not an African or Asian nation included amongst this bunch. Furthermore, with just 27 nations, less than 40% of IWC member nations have participated in this show.

Incidentally, Carter, who is having troubles back home with his portfolio, and Campbell both seem completely unaware of the situation at the IWC, both whinging that JARPA II "undermines international efforts to conserve and protect whales".

The goals stated in the ICRW are 1) to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and 2) to thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. There is no international agreement that protecting every single individual whale (which will all die eventually regardless, as with any living creature) is appropriate. Just because these jokers and a bunch of their European politician mates think so is no justification for trying to lump this upon the rest of the nations of the world.


On a completely different note, George McCallum informs me that the Shonan Maru No. 2 has arrived in Cape Town for another 2 months of research. The Japanese government continues to be the only government stumping up with a research vessel for this work, which is directed by the IWC Scientific Committee. Last season the cruise brought back good news for the Antarctic blue whale.

Labels: Chris Carter, Ian Campbell, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Shonan Maru No. 2, Whaling

Good news - as expected, Japanese interests have not taken too fondly to the "whale-safe beer" campaign, which depicted a Japanese businessman getting harpooned through the back and subsequently electrocuted, in a magnificent display of ignorance of the JARPA II research programme:

JOHN Singleton's anti-whaling crusade may have backfired as Japanese companies – including some of his clients – react in anger to his "whale-safe beer" campaign.

An Australian trade representative in Tokyo last night labelled Singo's anti-Japanese tactics in flogging his Bluetongue beer a "self-serving sideshow" that could harm our $54 billion trade relationship.

Austrade also warned against punishing non-whaling Japanese companies over whaling. Mr Singleton's website urges a boycott on Lion Nathan beers – including Tooheys, Hahn and XXXX – because a large shareholder in the company is Japanese brewer Kirin.

Kirin, which has no connection to Japan's whaling industry, is seething at the attack.

Insiders believe it is little more than an ill-considered get-square with Tooheys, which dumped Mr Singleton's advertising agency Singleton Ogilvy & Mather three years ago.

But it has opened a larger can of worms for Mr Singleton, whose web of business interests includes relationships with powerful Japanese companies.

Russell Tate, of communications group STW – co-owned by Mr Singleton – indicated the beer might not be his mate's smartest campaign.

"Singo's done a few things over the last 20 years that in hindsight might not have been good ideas," Mr Tate said.

Mr Tate is in an awkward spot, with STW's Japanese client list including Sony, Pioneer, Hitachi, Toshiba and Canon.

Behind the scenes the campaign is not seen as a joke – and not just by Kirin.

Canon spokeswoman Roslyn Richardson said: "This approach is not appropriate."

A Toyota spokesman said: "Whaling is an issue for governments not companies unconnected to whaling".

Mr Singleton was unavailable for comment yesterday.

If the man has any brains at all he'll withdraw the commercial and issue an apology.

On my previous post regarding this topic, Y/H-san, one of my regular Japanese readers commented (in Japanese):

I struggle to understand what on earth Australia is thinking.

Although this may be a beer commercial, and they are trying to appeal along the lines of "since the Japanese are harpooning whales, how would Japanese people feel if they were harpooned? stop whaling", for Japanese people the result will be a complete backfire:
- Don't equate whales to humans
- How about you guys shooting kangaroos with guns and eating them?
- This will get connected with racism issues

and so on... I think all that will come out of this is an emotional, bad result. I eat Australian meat, but I really don't need to, I can eat whale meat instead, and there are plenty of other sellers so I won't be put out.

It'll be interesting if this commercial is aired on Japanese TV.

Then things will really get crazy.

After a subsequent comment linking to the video at YouTube, Y/H-san added:

That commercial is grotesque.

What poor taste. I had thought that Aussies were smarter and wiser than this.

Thats... moronic [hope that's how to translate "tako" in this context - David]

I'm recommending my friends not to eat Aussie Beef, and I'd like to spread around what poor taste the Aussies have.

Also I'll be contacting the PM's office and other related areas requesting them to protest to Australia.

Elsewhere, apparently Australia wishes to obtain a free trade agreement with Japan. I wonder who stands to gain the most from the agreement? I think the Government of Japan should leverage this opportunity.


Other trouble related to Sea Shepherd has seen Ian Campbell defending himself:

"I'm wishing him a safe passage and I'm also reinforcing my message in a one-on-one conversation that respect for law of the sea, respect for human life and respect for the safety of ships at sea is incredibly important," Senator Campbell said.

"People who go around and threaten those important laws and safety measures potentially put the cause of whale conservation backwards.

"Paul Watson and I both share a passionate belief in the view that whaling should come to an end, it should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

"I just wanted to make sure he knew very clearly my view about his tactics."

It wasn't really necessary to "make sure", was it? After all, Campbell did describe Paul Watson as "deranged" last year. And indeed, Watson noticed.

Nice one, Ian.

Labels: Ian Campbell, whale safe beer, Whaling

There is an interesting Japanese language news report in the media tonight.

"IMO 82nd MSC - agreement on the creation of a code of conduct to ensure safety from whaling protest activity", says the headline at Environmental Information and Communication Network:

At the 82nd meeting of the International Martime Organization's (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) held in Istanbul from 2006/11/29 until 12/8, it was agreed to create a non-legally binding, voluntary "code of conduct" in relation to ensuring the safety of crew and ship navigation for vessels involved in offshore operations that become the focus of protest activity.

The dangerous obstruction activity that was carried out for 4 weeks from December 2005 to January 2006 against Japan's JARPA fleet engaged in scientific research is behind this "code of conduct".

At the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in June 2006, this issue was raised and a resolution was adopted calling for member nations to take measures in accordance with IMO guidelines to ensure the safety of vessels engaged in whale and whaling related research. However, it was later recognized that the IMO has no appropriate guidelines in place corresponding to this resolution, and consequently Japan proposed the creation of the "code of conduct".

The MSC's Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation (NAV) will consider the proposed "code of conduct" and aim to have it adopted by the MSC. (Fisheries Agency).

Again, the relevant IWC Resolution 2006-2 is here.

The Fisheries Agency press release on the topic adds further detail, noting that the proposal "received strong support from member nations and related international organizations, and the creation of a code of conduct (non-legally binding and voluntary) was agreed by consensus."

For those who read Japanese, the original EIC article is here, and the Fisheries Agency's release is here.

Elsewhere, the Japanese Whaling Association has issued a press release regarding Ian Campbell's alleged ties to Sea Shepherd, after they boasted on their homepage that they had received a call of support from the Senator.


UPDATE: According to the IMO webpage the next meeting of the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation (NAV) is set for 23-27 July 2007, so this "code of conduct" won't be in place this summer. Of course, because it is voluntary Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace may choose to ignore it anyway, although they'll probably find themselves antagonising their respective flag states.

Labels: eco-terrorism, Ian Campbell, IMO guidelines, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Whaling

Always a source of amusement, Ian Campbell, Australian Minister for the Environment, has again dazzled us with his views on JARPA II, in this press release.

“Last year Japan ramped up their ‘scientific’ whaling under the JARPA II programme to take 856 minke whales, (almost 60 per cent of which were pregnant females) and 10 fin whales."

Poor old Ian has got two facts wrong in a single sentence:

1) Only 853 minke whales were taken, not 856.

2) Only 224 of the 853 minke whales were pregnant, which is 26%. Ian seems to be confused. The 60% figure he is talking about was actually the percentage of female minke whales (391 out of the 853) that were pregnant. As I noted in July, ICR scientists reported this to the IWC Scientific Committee, prior to the IWC 58 meeting held in June (and it's a positive sign for conservation of the Antarctic minke whale resources).

Regarding the JARPA II quota for 850 minke whales +/- 10%, Ian reckons that:

“these are commercial quantities of whales."

Commercial quotas were in the past signficantly higher than at present under scientific permit. Prior to the adoption of the unneccessary moratorium, minke whale catches in the Antarctic were regularly above 5,000 each year. The IUCN observer at the time noted that "where commercial whaling is still being carried on, the catches are, by and large, within the productive capacity of the stock and should be sustainable indefinitely", qualifying that this was dependant on adequate scientific advice.

Ian was pulling all the tricks out of his hat:

“Despite the slaughter of hundreds of whales by Japan we have yet to see any viable scientific results."

This fancy claim despite the fact that the IWC Scientific Committee recognised that the results obtained at the halfway point of the original JARPA programme "had the potential to improve" the IWC's revised management procedure. Of course, this isn't the sort of result that Ian is interested in, because it "might allow an increased allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials for these minke whales."

The IWC itself acknowledged these findings when they were embarrased by them at the time, as seen in IWC Resolution 1997-5, but today Ian seems to be happy just to hope that everyone has forgotten about this support for Japan's research programmes from the Scientific Committee.

Labels: Ian Campbell, JARPA, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Whaling

According to The Australian, Ian Campbell is reported to have said that

"without anything else going wrong, fin whales were close to extinction."

This is inspite of IWC Scientific Committee apparently having endorsed the estimate being reported by Iceland of 25,800 fin whales in Iceland's waters, and the IWC Scientific Committee recognising 10% growth in the stock between 1987 and 2001 (as I noted previously). It's hard to see a species going extinct when in that part of the world it is growing that strongly over such a sustained period of time.

What does Ian Campbell think is going to push these whales to extinction? Has he got any maths to explain his ideas?

In the same article, Campbell is also reported to have said:

"They [Iceland] can't be taken seriously on any environmental issue in the future"

Given his own statements, such talk is extremely ironic.

Labels: fin whales, Ian Campbell, Iceland, Whaling

Australian researchers from the University of Tasmania have gotten off-side with Australian's passionate whale loving "environment" minister, Ian Campbell because of this report:

Researchers at the University of Tasmania are looking at the global whaling debate, the role of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and Australia's policy position.

Researcher Mike Iliffe says commercial whaling issues are dominating the IWC at the expense of the real threats to the mammals.

"We really have to tackle global warming and pollution to a lesser extent," he said.

"Pollution may be killing 10 to 20 times as many whales as the Japanese, the Icelandics, the Norwegians and the aboriginal whalers together are killing right now."

Dr Julia Jabour says the polarisation of the pro-whaling and anti-whaling groups is making the commission dysfunctional.

"The debate has been impoverished because of an excess of emotion over rational argument," she said.

"When you listen to some of the arguments that the anti-whaling countries put forward they are based on cultural or moral high ground and I would suggest that that's pretty shaky ground to be on."

This is not new. Whalers in particular have noted for years that pollution is a concern for whale populations, and the IWC's Head of Science, Greg Donovan told the BBC recently that "The greatest threats to them now are bycatches in fishing gear, collisions with ships and potential damage to their habitat." Not whaling.

But apparently "environment" minister Ian Campbell thinks he knows better. His initial comments fail to properly address the issues raised by the researchers. He later threw a wobbly while talking to the ABC:

IAN CAMPBELL: I haven't heard anything more outlandish, and I think they their opinions would be offside with 99-plus per cent of the Australian population.

Settle down, Ian. No need to go shooting the messengers. Here's Mike Iliffe again:

MIKE ILIFFE: I think there needs to be an agreement on what are the real issues, and if the IWC could just focus on things like global warming, pollution of the oceans, netting, underwater noise and so on, that really are threatening whale populations, then maybe we could put the hunting issue aside as being irrelevant or insignificant in the overall scheme of things in a sustainability sense. Then they could get on with dealing with the real issues.

Ian wasn't listening, apparently, running off on an unrelated tangent:

IAN CAMPBELL: There is no humane way to kill a whale. The latest research by Tasmanian scientists at the Australian Government's Antarctic Division shows that the average time to death in the Minke whale hunt this year was upwards of twelve minutes. That's an animal suffocating and drowning, often in its own blood, for in excess of ten minutes. Any scientist who supports that shouldn't be in the business.

Yadda yadda yadda, leaving Ian's dubious time-to-death figures aside, the researchers are not stating support for whaling one way or another - they're just pointing out the greatest threats to the conservation of whale species today which, as these researchers and IWC scientists say, realistically does not include whaling.

Labels: Ian Campbell, threats to whales, Whaling

Ian Campbell is at it again. One really has to wonder if he isn't completely clueless about the whaling issue.

Yesterday when announcing a new marine mammal research centre aimed at "protecting and conserving" cetaceans, Campbell informed us that:

The centre’s work will be especially important as we continue our efforts to convince pro-whaling nations of the benefits of non-lethal scientific research on whales.

Non-lethal research already plays the main role in producing important information such as abundance estimates, required by the Revised Management Procedure for catch limits to be set. And the IWC Scientific Committee in 1997 agreed that the JARPA programme, including lethal research components had the potential to improve the RMP.

Pro-whaling nations thus support both lethal and non-lethal research. Anti-whaling nations support only non-lethal research, because they believe that whales should not be killed in the first instance. Campbell is quite misguided if he hopes that better knowledge through non-lethal research may lead to pro-whaling nations turning against whaling. What he actually needs to do to get a greater appreciation of his position is to either

• bully nations to do as he says
• try to get them to think that whales are too good for killing, just as is his underlying belief.
  

Ian is kidding himself if he thinks science has anything to do with his opposition to whaling. Few others are fooled.

Some other information of interest:

"Non-lethal study techniques, the effect of noise on whales, improved methods to estimate population numbers and human interaction impacts are just some priorities for the new facility."

Improved methods of estimating abundance would certainly be welcome, but, playing for Ian's side for a second (he needs the help), does he really want that?

Currently one of the main excuses Campbell and his buddy Chris Carter from across the Tasman use at the IWC to argue against a resumption in commercial whaling is the level of uncertainty of abundance estimates. The more scientific certainty we have about abundance, the less conservative catch limits need to be to ensure that catch limits are sustainable. Better estimates with less certainty will likely result in higher catch limts - more whales dying. This isn't going to take us closer to Campbell's dreamworld of a world with no whaling.

On the other hand, it does work in favour of whale conservation, and for that we should welcome any future contribution from Australia towards better scientific knowledge.

Labels: Ian Campbell, non-lethal research, Whaling

Here's a big old jumble of various stuff that I found recently in the past few days.

One about animals teaching animals:

Meerkats actively teach their young how to catch and eat their prey, British researchers said in a study that is one of the first to prove that animals show such complex behaviour.
...
Older meerkats will bite the stinger off a live scorpion and give it to a youngster to kill and eat, and if the pup fails to do the job before the prey can crawl away, will nudge it back

Fullstory

I'm not that surprised about this - humans are animals and we teach our young "survival techniques", so why wouldn't other species?


In whaling related news, Humane Society International won a court battle to overturn a previous decision (whic I wrote about last year) allowing them to sue Kyodo Senpaku for catching whales in an area that Australia regards as it's own territory. What does it mean? Nothing really, although it could be amusing if the Australian Government is somehow forced into attacking the whaling research fleet if it is told it must uphold it's laws! :-)
HSI won't be too popular in Canberra.

UPDATE: Aussie Environment minister Ian Campbell agrees that this doesn't mean anything, noting how he thinks whaling could be stopped:

"We obviously have to turn those numbers around by aggressively recruiting pro-conservation nations to join the IWC and trying to swing votes in the IWC towards the conservation cause"

Politicking may be a hobby for Ian Campbell, but the reality is that whaling is on the increase, and that's not going to change even if he threatens / encourages other nations to vote the way he says to at the IWC.
And as always, how embarassing is it for Australia that their Environment minister thinks blanket protections for certain species is "conservation"?


Also as I've written a squillion times before, the humpback population on the east coast of Australia is booming at 10% each year. Yet another confirmation.

Dan Burns believes there was an annual migration of about 7,500 to 8,000 humpback whales off the east coast, which was increasing annually by about 10 per cent.
...
"This is continuing the trend of steady recovery of the humpback population, but we are still a long way from pre-whaling numbers (of about 30,000)."

Right Mr. Burns - and how many years will it take for the population to recover to that size from it's current levels? Pull out your calculators folks! 7,500 multiplied by 1.10% is how many whales? And how many years do you need to do this calculation before you start hitting 20,000 ~ 30,000? It's great news for whale conservation, but terrible news for people who believe whales should be protected. Whales being abundant makes it much harder to make a scientific case for protection.

I've got some more comments on this over here.


And here is an article about the slow whaling season in Norway this year.

Labels: humpbacks, Ian Campbell, Whaling

It seems I'm not the only one pointing out the greed of the Greenpeace organization:

If the idiots from Greenpeace stopped using whaling as a major fundraising vehicle there is a very good chance the Japanese would stop harpooning the dumb beasts.

The knuckle-headed eco-freaks would be better served if they pulled back a little and thought things through more clearly instead of claiming every whale, given the chance, would be a Nobel-prize winning poet.

From some statements made by Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell about wind farms and the orange bellied parrot, not to mention his outbursts at the International Whaling Commission conference in the Caribbean, it would appear he has been captured by the Greens and is more a part of the problem than the solution.

The heat must be taken out of this issue and it will not happen while Greenpeace is staging stunts in the Antarctic.

We do not talk of boycotting Norway but the Norwegians run a commercial whale fishery.

The environment movement is either happy to pander to the racists by targeting the Japanese or it knows its anti-whaling posture is its greatest fundraiser.

There is no doubt most Japanese would be happy to save whales (without thinking of collecting valuable prizes) but they need someone other than the usual suspect organisations to convince them why they should.

Elsewhere:

BASSETERRE, St Kitts: Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries Cedric Liburd reported to the closing session of the recent International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting that the government and people of St Kitts and Nevis were thoroughly displeased with the "illegal activities" of Greenpeace on June 20.

The organization, which one week earlier had requested to dock at the St Kitts harbour during the period June 11-21 for “educational activities”, was denied permission given the fact that the interest of IWC activities taking place over that same period would be threatened.

Liburd said the decision of Greenpeace to illegally offload passengers was nothing but gross disrespect for the Government and people of the Federation. He added that the Federation’s size was no indication of its stance or ability to protect its shores.

In related news, the Ministry of National Security, Justice, Immigration and Labour issued a press release indicating its deep concern with the illegal entry of the Greenpeace vessel, the MV Arctic Sunrise, into the Federation’s territorial waters.

Apart from the obvious disrespect to the government and people of the Federation, the ministry reported that the infringement was also a threat to the marine environment.

Specifically, in this case, “jeopardizing the barrier reef which protects the Eastern Atlantic Coastline of St Kitts and Nevis and other fragile near-shore marine eco-systems.”

Additionally, the captain and crew aboard the vessel defied the law enforcement officials by refusing to accompany them to police headquarters; eventually heading west in the direction of St Eustatius.

The National Security release echoed the sentiments expressed by Liburd during his report to the IWC meeting that Greenpeace had violated and showed total disregard and disrespect for the Government “in utter contempt of its sovereign status.”

Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling

The pressure is coming to bear on Ian Campbell, and the need for secret ballots to protect sovereign nation voting rights is clearer than ever. Campbell has now threatened any nation that supports the principle of sustainable use:

Japan's humpback hunt plan a 'disgrace'

Selina Mitchell

June 15, 2006

AUSTRALIA has condemned Japan's efforts to extend its "scientific whaling program" to include endangered humpbacks.

Delegates at an International Whaling Commission meeting in St Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean will be told the blood of the humpback will be on their hands if they vote to support Japan's pro-whaling stance.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell said countries that supported Japan would be outed and shamed. He said the public wrongly focused its anger solely on countries that exploited a scientific loophole in the 1986 commercial whaling moratorium. Japan, Norway and Iceland could not kill whales without the support of at least 30 other countries, he said.

"During the next year we have to raise the political stakes for all of those 30 countries and make sure the people in those countries know that their governments are supporting the slaughter of whales," he said.

Senator Campbell has also warned Pacific Island nations their support for whaling could lead to a tourist boycott. He left yesterday for the Caribbean meeting at which the 60-odd member countries of the IWC could effectively unravel 20 years of whale conservation.

Japan's plan to expand its scientific program to include humpbacks was a "disgraceful tactic" that could backfire, Senator Campbell said before he left.

"I think a lot of the countries that do support so-called sustainable whaling in principle will recognise that Japan might be going a bridge too far in relation to taking humpbacks," he said.

Of course, Ian Campbell needs a scientific argument to go with this emotional rubbish if he is to convince them of that.

Labels: Ian Campbell, IWC vote influence, Whaling

The Australian Senate has apparently:

"unanimously passed a motion by Senator Rachel Siewert calling on the Government to "urgently consider legal proceedings against this 'unlawful' whaling"

Oh dear! This leaves Ian Campbell with quite a dilemma:

• Continue as is, based on legal advice that action against Japan would fail, but gain the image of a wimp in the eyes of the unknowing anti-whaling public of Australia
  
• Take Japan to court and lose, thus confirming the legitimacy of whaling under scientific permit once and for all, for the whole world to see
  

Politically, the latter is much higher risk.

I imagine that Campbell will stick to his legal advice, and attempt to explain it to the public. After all, Australians are almost completely unaffected by Japan's whaling activities. Humpback whales will continue to migrate up and down the coasts, in increasing numbers, despite hunting. The public will quickly forget the lack of legal action - and at the end of the day, Japan will always be portrayed as enemy #1.

Ride it out Ian. Ride it out :-)

[UPDATE]

[I]nternational law specialist Associate Professor Steven Freeland, from the University of Western Sydney, said the whale population could be facing an environmental catastrophe if the prevailing stalemate between anti-whaling and pro-whaling nations continues.

"The stalemate within the IWC must end, otherwise those countries wishing to harvest whales on a commercial basis might eventually chose to do so under less restrictive, or even no controls," he said.

"Japan has threatened on a number of occasions to withdraw from the IWC altogether and operate outside of the moratorium."

Dead right :-) Those in favour of proper whale conservation (not just irrational blanket protection) must recognise this.

Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling

It's the 10th of June, and around half of the proceedings have been concluded.
This includes the IWC Scientific Committee meeting, and the preparation of it's report, as well as the anti-whaling member "Conservation Committee" talkfest.

Surprisingly to me, anti-whaling NGO groups have not obtained any leaks from their sympathizers on the IWC Scientific Committee.

On the other hand, maybe the leaks have been reigned in this year, as last year they were criticised heavily for breaching the IWC rules of maintaining confidentiality of documents until the commencement of the plenary session.

Or perhaps, there was not much news that they wished to leak this year. On the Scientific Committee agenda was the completion of new current estimates for the Southern Hemisphere Minke and Humpback stocks. Regardless of what the numbers are, the fact that the Scientific Committee can produce estimates at all supports the pro-conservation & sustainable use nations, and disturbs anti-whaling nations. Without knowledge of current whale abundance, catch limits can not be set (A good article on how scientists go about estimating abundance of whales via sightings surveys is available here).

The IWC "Conservation Committee" was a recent anti-whaling bloc construction to try to cement the IWC's focus away from conservation and management of whale resources, to their protection. Open up document "Voluntary National Cetacean Conservation Report 2006 (Australia)" from the IWC 58 documents page, and what you see is a skimpy 3 page document of which the first section begins:

All cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are protected in Australian waters.

Well, whipdee-doo for Australia. The "Conservation Committee" is nothing but a talkfest amongst those anti-whaling nations who wish that there be no consumptive use of whale resources. The group would have been more aptly named the "Protection Committee", and given their desires, there is no need for them to come together at the IWC to discuss their whale protectionism ideals.


Out in the media, the Sydney Morning Herald has some coverage with comments from Ian Campbell.

The Japanese Government has foreshadowed that it will try to "normalise" the commission; in other words, to treat whales like fish or any other marine resource.

Indeed - this is what the IWC was set up to do.

"This confirms our worst fears," Senator Campbell said, as he conceded that the numbers appeared to be slipping away from the pro-conservation lobby in the commission. He said several countries could still join, right up to the eve of the meeting, which opens in the West Indian nation of St Kitts and Nevis on Friday. Israel has said publicly it will join the anti-whaling side but is yet to do so.

As always, there is better information here on my blog than in the mainstream media. Israel has already joined, as I noted two days ago.

"It appears we could be faced with the prospect that the conservation majority could be lost to countries with no interest in whales, and no chance to get across the issues," Senator Campbell said.

Leaving aside Campbell's confusion between the difference of conservationism and protectionism, 7 landlocked European nations have consistently voted with Australia at the IWC meetings. What interest do those 7 nations have in whales that developing coastal nations in Africa, Central America, South East Asia and the Pacific (who support sustainable use) do not?

The number of humpbacks seen off the east coast is booming, a far cry from the 1960s, when numbers fell to as few as 300 animals because of indiscriminate and illegal whaling by the then Soviet Union. A University of Queensland whale specialist, Mike Noad, said he expected about 8500 to migrate up the coast this winter.

And it's fantastic news. Today it is 2006. Four decades have past since the 1960's. Whale stocks are rebounding, and providing whaling is appropriately regulated under the IWC, there is no reason to rule out all whaling, as is Australia's desire.


So, there are 6 days to go before the politics really starts. Here is the provisional meeting agenda. Items to look out for:

#3 INTERFERENCE WITH WHALE RESEARCH

... Japan intends to draw the attention of the Commission to what it considers to be the very dangerous nature of the recent protest actvities against Japan's whale research vessels in the Antarctic. It will seek the adoption of a Resolution or recommendation for the Commission that discourages such activities.

This item might get a mention under #6 "Whale killing methods and associated welfare issues", as the obstruction by these groups may have led to increased Time-To-Death and reduced Instantaneous Death Ratio statistics this year.

#4 SECRET BALLOTS

This proposed amendment to the Rules of Procedure would allow all nations to vote solely in accordance with their sovereign desires, free of political and economic influence from more powerful nations. Small developing nations have often been threatened by foreign NGO groups in powerful nations in the past. For example, Dominica was threatened with a boycott in 2003.

#5 WHALE STOCKS

Important findings from the Scientific Committee will be discussed here.

#11 SCIENTIFIC PERMITS

I believe that a review of the original JARPA programme was to be undertaken at the completed Scientific Committee meeting just concluded. While there was likely heavy division amongst the Scientific Committee on the issue, it will be interesting to see what was said, and what agreement, if any, the SC was able to reach. At any rate, there will be a resolution one way or another supporting or denouncing the research, depending on who has the most votes - a political statement either way, so not of great interest, although the media will probably report this topic very widely.

#19 TOWARDS NORMALISATION OF THE IWC

Although the pro-conservation & sustainable use nations of the IWC may this year have a majority, there is still only the slimest of chances that a resumption in commercial whaling could happen in the hear future. How nations in favour propose to work towards this objective should become clearer here.

Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling

Following on from previous years, Australian politicians have resorted to threatening language to try to persuade nations to vote with them at the IWC.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell has issued a veiled warning to Pacific Island nations that they risk the world's anger if they support the return of commercial whaling.

Senator Campbell said the Marshalls should think carefully about the consequences of their vote at the IWC meeting in the Caribbean nation of St Kitts and Nevis in two weeks time should it attend.

" ... I think the outrage that will surge up around the world if the vote goes the wrong way in St Kitts will force a lot of public attention on those key votes.

"That's a message for anyone who joins the IWC."

Senator Campbell said he told this to the Marshall Islands ministers not in a threatening way but as an observation.

That's good comedy. The threats won't work any longer though - secret ballots are likely to be in place before the serious voting starts.

"I think there'll be a close look at countries like Guatemala, the Marshall Islands ... and Palau, who have a phenomenal conservation record internationally but take an out of character position when they vote at the whaling commission," he said.

Perhaps Ian Campbell should consider that, given their phenomenal conservation records, maybe it's Australia that ought to reevaluate it's stance at the IWC.

Labels: Ian Campbell, IWC vote influence, Whaling

Despite a vociferous pronouncement earlier this year from Australian Minister Ian Campbell, which was widely reported throughout the western media, it appears that the results of the research are still yet to be found.

I certainly went looking for them myself, sent an email asking where I might find it (never got a response).

It's seems that Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research hasn't seen them either:

Japan's whale researchers say they are looking forward to assessing an Australian study into whale research because they have heard only rhetoric and bluster from Environment Minister Ian Campbell.

"We haven't seen any data or results yet, but we are hoping they will complement our research findings to increase our understanding of the Antarctic ecosystem and to develop an improved regime for managing commercial whaling," said Dr Hiroshi Hatanaka, director-general of Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR).

Canberra released the study late last month that, it said, proved there was no justification for countries such as Japan, Norway and Iceland to kill whales for scientific research.

Scientists from the Australian Antarctic Division completed the aims set out in Japan's scientific whaling program without having to kill a single whale.

The research will be presented to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in June by Senator Campbell.

But the ICR - a privately owned, non-profit whale research centre in Tokyo authorised by the Japanese government - said Australia's claim that it could reproduce Japan's results using non-lethal methods was simply not the case.

"Even where they have been collecting data similar to some aspects of the non-lethal components of our research program, they have not had the extensive coverage or repetitive observations needed to detect trends," Dr Hatanaka said.

"It is unfortunate that Australia deliberately mixes the science with political advocacy.

"So far, all we have heard is the rhetoric and political blustering of Senator Campbell. I hope that both the findings from our research and Australia's research can be dealt with on a more rational and scientific basis at the upcoming meeting of the scientific committee of the International Whaling Commission," he said in a statement.

Japanese vessels returned to the north-western port of Kanazawa from Antarctica this weekend after more than five months away, with Dr Hatanaka saying their research had been successful and all scientific objectives had been met.

One gets the distinct impression that the research that the Australian group has done has been vastly overstated by their excitable Minister for the Environment, Senator Ian Campbell.

The fact that the research is only going to be presented at a time that coincides with the politically charged IWC meeting seems to indicate that it's being promoted for use as a political tool, rather than a serious piece of research for scientific consumption. We'll see though - I'm assuming that Campbell will not be presenting the research himself as the article suggests, but will have Australian scientific representatives submit it to the IWC's Scientific Commitee meeting prior to the main IWC gathering.

There are other grounds for being suspicious about Campbell's grand pronouncements. He seems confused about it for a start. He claimed on radio that the study was the "culmination of 10 years of work" yet in his press release on the previous day stated that it was a "10-week Australian survey".

Which is it Ian? 10 years or 10 weeks?

He also states that:

“I will be taking this information to the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission in St Kitts and Nevis in June and making it very clear that under no circumstances can this continued slaughter of whales in the name of ‘science’ be justified,”

Campbell and Australia will be going way out on a limb there, as just a little over a month ago the IWC held an intersessional RMS working group meeting, at which the issue of a "code of conduct" for scientific research permits was under discussion. The fact that a code is up for discussion at all is evidence enough that the majority of IWC signatories do believe that lethal research has legitimate purposes (as they should, given their acceptance of the ICRW). The Chair's Report from the meeting is available at the IWC's home page.

But finally to wrap it all up, despite Australia's wonderful new non-lethal research programmes that are supposed to tell the Japanese everything they want to know without killing a single whale...

"Enormous uncertainty remains about how many whales, particularly minke whales, are in the Southern Ocean because estimating the numbers is very difficult."

Well how about that. All that research, and yet they still can't provide reliable information about how many minke whales there are - numbers of whales merely being an important piece of information required for setting sustainable commercial catch limits. Does Senator Campbell seriously think that this will quench the ICR's thirst for knowledge of whale stocks?

Labels: Ian Campbell, non-lethal research, Whaling

Readers may recall in the lead-up to last year's IWC meeting in South Korea that the Australia politicians dragged out their usual nonsense, attempting to lower expectations.

"Its the same every year", I noted:

Every year anti-whaling politicians proclaim that Japan may have "bought" enough votes to return to commercial whaling. The anti-whaling "environmental" organizations ask you to donate money to them. Then the meeting comes and Japanese proposals are voted down. The anti-whaling politicians then claim it is a magnificent victory to their domestic constituencies, and the Greenpeaces of the world have got your money. Thanks to your donations, they were able to save the day, they say.

And what do you know, 2006 is no different:

"I really do think there's a serious chance that Iceland, Norway and Japan will have the numbers to defeat our pro-conservation majority we achieved last year in Korea," Campbell told reporters.

4 months out from the meeting in the West Indies, Ian, so it's time to whip out the threats to all those small islands dependant on Australian aid.

But perhaps maybe this year Campbell's concerns will actually come to fruition - the anti-whaling bloc has already signed up most of the European Union to the IWC, including 7 nations which don't have a coastline (what would they know about marine resource management??). Where else can they turn for further anti-whaling support? Sofa conservationists are most plentiful in urbanized agriculture based (pre-dominantly anglo-saxon) countries. There can't be many left to turn to.

And one last note - when will Campbell drop the "pro-conservation" nonsense? Everyone is pro-conservation. The group that Campbell represents is the "pro-protection". Protection is not conservation. Protection is just plain intellectual laziness. Conservation and sustainable resource-use go together hand and hand.

Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling

Quite a start to the year - first IWC 56's "Most tiresome speaker", the didactic Sir Geoffrey Palmer fronted up with an admission that Japan's research activities are legal.

This time from across the Tasman, Ian Campbell has come out with a surprisingly and uncharacteristically common sense statement that:

"whaling will come to an end when the people of Norway and the people of Japan tell their governments unequivocally that the slaughter of whales - that the cold-blooded destruction of whales - needs to come to an end"

Senator Campbell's language has always been full of guffaws and misleading descriptions, but on this occasion what he says has a strong semblance of good sense to it - it is the whaling peoples of the world that will decide if and when they bring their activities to an end.

Putting oneself in a whale eating man or woman's shoes, I myself can state with absolute certainty that Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd aren't illuminating anything to me that would make me think that the whaling activity had passed its used by date. Quite the reverse in fact - these protest groups are showing only that they have already served whatever useful purpose that they may have had, and it's time that they were gone:

"Senator Campbell warned if protests were not sensible, activists risked undoing Australia's work against whaling."

Indeed.

But don't Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd recognize this themselves? Surely they can't believe their actions are contributing constructively to the debate. If that is the case, what is their motivation for behaving in the manner that they are? Is it perhaps that their intended audience is in fact not the world's whaling communities, but a different market?

Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling