David @ Tokyo

Japanese "freelance journalist" (anti-whaling activist) Junko Sakuma has released a new report.

This time she's convinced herself (and the no-doubt willingly gullible WDCS) that 500 tonnes of minke whale meat has mysteriously vanished (she speculates that it's been dumped at sea, without providing any such evidence). She bases her theory on the fact that her own estimates of how much meat would result from the first season of the new JARPA II programme turned out to be wrong.

Apparently Junko wrote in a January newsletter last year, before the JARPA fleet returned, that it should result in 3,688 tonnes of minke whale meat. I suppose she looked at the 1,895.1 tonnes of minke meat that was sold by the ICR following the 2004/2005 JARPA season (comprised of meat from 440 minke whales), and figured that the average amount of meat on a minke whale must be 4.3 tonnes. 4.3 multipled by 853 actually works out to 3667.9 tonnes, not 3,688 tonnes, so I don't know for sure how she calculated it (no methodology provided).

The actual figure for 2005/2006 by-products marketed was 3,168.7 tonnes, which was below her expectations (which in turn were based on her own assumptions).

As with her "analysis" of stockpile figures, Junko either only considers information that fits with her desired fairy story, or is simply not that well-informed. In her article she ignores all of the following (and probably various other factors which haven't sprung to mind):

1) The fact that the average size of male and female Antarctic minke whales differs (females are longer and weigh more). The figures presented on this chart indicate that males grow to 8.5 m and weigh in at 7.1 tonnes, while females grow to 8.9 m and hit 7.6 tonnes.

2) The fact that the ratio of males to females sampled each year isn't constant. There is thus the potential for fluctuations in the amount of whale meat produced each year. In the 2004/2005 season, 59.8% of whales sampled turned out to be female, where as in the 2005/2006 season, the figure was only 45.8%. Naturally the amount of whale meat in the latter case would be expected to be less, due to the lower proportion of females in the sample. For this reason alone, Junko's assumption that there is a basically constant average yield each year is implausible. And it doesn't end there...

3) The fact that researchers have observed decreasing nutritional condition in minke whales during the period of the JARPA programme (see for example the Japanese Government JARPA review papers related to trends in blubber thickness). Given this result indicating decreasing blubber thickness over time, we would expect the average meat yield per whale to trend downwards as well (as opposed to a constant average yield throughout, notwithstanding the male : female sample ratio issue noted above, which introduces extra variability). Due to the low number of females sampled in the 2005/2006 season, the average yield was possibly below the trend, whereas in the previous two seasons when a higher number of females were sampled, the average yield was possibly above the trend (the 2003/2004 season also saw more females than males sampled). There is no mention of this from Junko in her article - and in fact she illustrates her ignorance of the JARPA results by claiming that "nobody has talked about the possible shrinking of the whales".
(Furthermore, this simple analysis here also does not consider differences between the two distinct stocks of Antarctic minke whales that are recognised to exist within the JARPA research area)

4) The fact that the sampling methodology changed between the old JARPA programme which ended in 2004/2005 and the new JARPA II programme which commenced in 2005/2006. Junko makes no mention of how a probable change in sampling representativeness might affect the comparability of the JARPA and JARPA II yields (for example, might the JARPA II sampling methodology result in more younger whales being sampled than with the original JARPA methodology?)

For the record:

From "Review of general methodology and survey procedure under the JARPA":

"Although JARPA was originally planed to take samples from all primary sighted minke whales with a maximum of two whales from each school, it was reduced two to one since 1992/93 season"

From "Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II)"

"A maximum of two minke whales per school sighted will be taken by random sampling."

I.e., one whale per school was sampled for most of the JARPA programme, whereas JARPA II has gone back to sampling up to two minke whales per school.

In conclusion, if I were a teacher of investigative journalism, Junko would be flunked in my class - twice already.


Junko notes that she picked up some "Blue whale" meat from somewhere. Blue whale in Japanese is "shiro-nagasu kujira", where as Fin whale is simply "nagasu kujira". She says

"Anybody can ask me to for the DNA test."

I would suggest that instead of sitting around writing up fairy tales about vanishing whale meat, she should report this sale to the authorities immediately, along with the location of the "average supermarket", in addition to her proof of purchase. It is illegal to market the proceeds of blue whales caught in fixed fishing nets (of which there have been no reports), and the FAJ regards this species as endangered. A person such as Junko, who represents an environmental NGO group, ought to take more responsible actions than this.

She also says the meat didn't taste any good - everyone has their likes and dislikes, and clearly many do enjoy it. Perhaps it's also possible that Junko's cooking skills are as poor as her analysis skills and investigative journalism.

Final question on this point - why is her photo of the meat in black and white? Maybe she ought to buy a new mobile phone...


Regarding the market for whale meat, she notes a fisheries industry report indicating a sharp rise in market price (retail prices, presumably), and also acknowledges that the 267.1 tonnes of fin meat obtained from JARPA II sold out "immediately" (I hope the Icelanders are reading this).

However, Junko complains that the price of fin whale meat was "Too cheap!", because it was sold at the same price as Minke and Bryde's whale meat. If she calms down and puts aside her preconceived ideas she will realise that the government is not setting the price based on scarcity or to "make a killing" on the deal - the government is regulating the price so that a certain proportion of the research costs will be recovered.

Finally, with respect to what she regards as a "campaign" (not just plain old media interest) to boost whale meat sales (involving privately owned Nippon Television) Junko says:

... the achievement of the campaign is unpredictable. We will continue careful observation to see if the whale meat sales will increase as they expect.

Junko only needs to review the recent stockpile figures without her blinkers on to find the answer.

Labels: JARPA, Junko Sakuma, whale meat market

Today I sent off the following (less the hyperlinks):

To: Hon Chris Carter
CC: Hon Jim Anderton

Sir,

I commend you for your statements to the media, in relation to the video footage the RNZAF Orion captured of the Institute of Cetacean Research's vessels. In particular, your assurance that, "for a public safety reason we won't be releasing these co-ordinates to Greenpeace" was encouraging. I congratulate you for confirming the distance between the New Zealand Government and Greenpeace's tactics.

As an observation, you ask the question of the activity, "Is it science or is it butchery?"

Unfortunately, this "a) or b)" style of question provides the New Zealand public with insufficient information about the objectives of the ICR's research programme to be able to develop an informed opinion on the matter. As I'm sure you, as a representative of New Zealand to the IWC have been briefed, the ICR research programmes include the objective of increasing knowledge of the biological parameters of various "stocks" of whales, particularly the Antarctic minke whale stocks, with the ultimate objective of improving our ability to manage them sustainably (the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling calls for both conservation of these resources, as well as efforts to make for their "optimum utilization"). This work is common in marine resource management science. The IWC itself in Resolution 1997-5 recognised that while the results were "not required for management" under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), "the Scientific Committee ... notes that these results have the potential to improve management in some ways; and that the results of analyses of JARPA data could thus be used to increase catch limits of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk indicated by the RMP-trials for these minke whales". Also worth noting is that the Scientific Committee also said that "there were non-lethal methods available that could provide information about population age structure (e.g. natural marking) but that logistics and the abundance of minke populations in Areas IV and V probably precluded their successful application."

What we see in this is that, yes indeed, scientific results have been produced, and that they have the potential to allow for commercial whaling operations on a larger scale than would have been possible without the results of JARPA. Are the results strictly necessary under the RMP? No; however the statements of the IWC Scientific Committee make it clear that better management is possible with the data being available. Without it, while management under the RMP would remain possible, due to the RMP's minimal data requirements, more uncertainty would exist. No honest resource manager would hope to have less information available when making a management decision, particularly so when it concerns the conservation of whale resources (an area with a very bad track record up until recently).

In 2007, the situation persists today. Few New Zealanders are likely aware that members of the IWC Scientific Committee from Australia, South Africa, the United States of America, as well as Japan are currently using catch-at-age analyses from the JARPA research in VPA work, as a component of the IWC Scientific Committee's assessment of the condition of the Antarctic minke whale stocks (as in section 10.1.2 of the SC Report for IWC 58). Even fewer New Zealanders are likely aware of what catch-at-age analyses and VPA are, and to whom they are useful, to begin with.

Of course, while it is the Japanese Government's objective to make for the "optimum utilization" of whale resources, it's the New Zealand Government's objective to make for as little consumptive utilization of whale resources as possible, preferably none at all. This is a perfectly valid position. However, the grounds for this position ought to be expressed more carefully. Given that Japan's position is to make for conservation of whale resources so that they may be consumptively utilized in an optimum manner, rational and informed New Zealanders will understand why Japan has been supporting these research programmes for the past two decades. Likewise, many New Zealanders will also understand why the New Zealand Government chooses to criticise the research programmes at every opportunity, as we have seen in the past (and as I suspect we will hear again this year) that they help to strengthen the scientific aspects of Japan's arguments for safe, sustainable commercial whaling.

With this, New Zealanders will realise that the answer to the question you posed is that, yes, it is science, qualified by the fact that the objective of the science is to make more "butchery" possible. In this respect, perhaps the simplest answer to your question is thus "Both".

At any rate, it is clear that one can not produce an informed answer on the question merely by viewing footage taken from the RNZAF Orion. That of course may not be what politics is all about, but my concern is that it does not serve conservation efforts, for which you are responsible.

As I like to be constructive in my criticism, I would finally like to suggest a more cutting and appropriate question that be asked of the New Zealand public:

"Regardless of the immediate and indirect objectives of whaling, is it acceptable in any form?"

Best Regards,

My letter was in response to this news.

Labels: Chris Carter, JARPA

Here's a few items from Judy Zeh, former chair of the IWC Scientific Committee.

From 1999:

For nearly two decades, UW Statistics Professor Judith Zeh has been studying whales, using statistical analysis to learn more about the size and dynamics of bowhead whale populations. Zeh's expertise recently led to her election as chair of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee.

The goal of the IWC, says Zeh, is to ensure that all stocks of whales are maintained at an appropriate level and not depleted. The Commission's Scientific Committee, made up of about 140 scientists named by 40 member governments, provides valuable information about scientific aspects of whaling.

A key piece of information about any whale population is its size. Other information might include the impact of environmental factors--environmental warming, whale watching--on whale populations, as well as identification of single interbreeding populations. Such information is significant as the Commission develops whaling policies.

As chair of the Scientific Committee, Zeh is the Commission's principal scientific advisor. She is the first woman to serve as chair in the IWC's 52-year history.

Why is a statistician like Zeh intrigued by whale research? It offers interesting challenges, she says. "Since we must study whales out in the ocean, there are intriguing statistical problems in answering scientific questions," she explains. "For example, in counting whales, how do we account for the ones we are not able to see or hear? Or when identifying whales in photos by their markings, how do we account for the ones without markings? It's the role of the statistician to account for the whales that cannot be identified from obvious data."

Zeh will serve a three-year term as chair of the IWC Scientific Committee.

Then from 2000:

... Matt Coleman asked the chair of that committee, Judy Zeh about the state of the world's whale populations.

JUDY ZEH: Most of the whale, different whale stocks and species in the world, I think, are doing fairly well right now. There are some particular populations that are of very great concern. One of those is the western North Atlantic right whales which live mostly just off the east coast of the United States, and that's a very small population which seems to be having some problems now with lower reproductive and survival rates. So the US Government is working very hard on it, but it is a big problem.

MATT COLEMAN: Environmental groups have been saying that the numbers have been decreasing very rapidly. In fact, there are probably only a few hundred northern right whales left in the world. Is that correct?

JUDY ZEH: Basically the biggest problem is that that was the population that was very badly decimated by the early commercial whaling, and it just hasn't really recovered, so it doesn't seem to be increasing as much as we would like it to. And the last few years there have been some particular problems, that we don't know whether they're related to environmental things or whether there is a bigger problem with the population status.

MATT COLEMAN: What about whale populations in the southern hemisphere? How are they doing?

JUDY ZEH: There is a lot of evidence that humpbacks are increasing very nicely in much of the southern hemisphere, so that's good news. There's less information about some of the other species like blue whales and fin whales, so we can't really say a lot about what they're doing yet. But again, if we keep doing these surveys, we'll gradually get more information about how they're doing.

MATT COLEMAN: One of the best known species of whale is the minke whale. Japan claims that the minke whale is now so abundant that commercial harvesting of that species would be sustainable. Do you agree?

JUDY ZEH: We're in the process of completing the third circumpolar survey, and looking at minke whale estimates for the southern oceans, and as far as I know at present, it's certainly true that if commercial whaling were resumed under the revised management procedure, it could be managed safely.

MATT COLEMAN: How valuable are these scientific research programs that Japan carries out in telling scientists like yourself something useful about whale populations?

JUDY ZEH: Well, they certainly do provide a lot of data. They've been doing a lot of genetic analyses which tells us about stock structure, whether whales in a particular area mix with whales from another area or whether they don't. And this is something that's very important to know for management purposes. So they certainly provide good information on things like that.

MATT COLEMAN: Would you be able to get that information any other way, through a more humane or even a non-lethal research method?

JUDY ZEH: Well, many scientists are using biopsy sampling, and that works very well for humpback whales. It's been a little less successful for minke whales, and I'm not sure that's because it hasn't been tried sufficiently and the best techniques haven't been worked out, or whether - I suspect that maybe that it's somewhat more difficult to biopsy minke whales than humpback whales.

COMPERE: Judy Zeh is the chair of the scientific committee of the International Whaling Commission which began its annual conference in Adelaide today. Matt Coleman there for us.

Zeh was apparently the convenor steering group for the recent JARPA review.
Finally, this from 2005:

CAN WHALING BE MANAGED TO PROTECT WHALES AND WHALERS?

Judith E. Zeh, UW Department of Statistics

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1946 by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, signed by 14 whaling nations, “to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”. Part of the Convention is a Schedule that contains the actual regulations regarding species and numbers of great whales that can be caught, times and places in which whaling is allowed, etc. Amendments to the Schedule, which require a 3/4 majority vote for adoption, must be “based on scientific findings”. Thus, since its inception, the intent of the IWC has been to base management on science, and one of its standing committees has been the Scientific Committee (SC). The SC meets annually, just before the Commission meets, and the Chair of the SC presents SC findings to the Commission. I will talk about successes and failures of this management process before, during, and since my 1999-2002 term as SC Chair. Successes have come when the Commission obtained and followed good scientific advice. Failures have sometimes occurred because of inadequate scientific advice, but more often because economics or politics got in the way of following good advice. Both successes and failures occurred in the 1960s, when a committee of three scientists appointed by the Commission recommended immediate protection of Antarctic humpback and blue whales from whaling and drastic reductions in fin whale catches. The Commission did protect humpback and blue whales, but delayed reductions in fin whale catches because of pressure from whaling nations. Eventually greater reductions in fin whale catches had to be made to allow the stock to recover. The management procedure developed by the SC during the 1970s proved unworkable because it required classifying whale stocks on the basis of quantities that were difficult to estimate. Meanwhile, some whaling nations stopped whaling and other nations joined the IWC. It now has 66 members, the majority of which are non-whaling nations and many of which could be characterized as anti-whaling nations. This adds a complicating dimension to the “science and policy interface”. During the 1980s, the Commission imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling that is still in effect. However, the Convention allows whaling in spite of the moratorium by nations that objected to its adoption and by any nation under Special Permits for scientific research. Meanwhile, the SC has developed a revised management procedure (RMP) that requires only regular estimates of abundance of a stock and the known catch history. The RMP was tested by simulations of 100 years of catches using it. These simulations took into account uncertainties in a wide range of factors. In my view, whales and whalers would be better protected by use of the RMP to manage whaling than by the moratorium. The SC currently provides advice on aboriginal subsistence catch limits for bowhead whales using a similar management procedure.

Labels: JARPA, Judy Zeh, Revised Management Procedure, Whaling

I was surprised to see Australian media shop ABC pick up on the IWC Scientific Committee review of the JARPA programme today, at least until I realised that they were probably contacted with the story by someone looking for publicity, rather than finding the story about it themselves...

Dr Nick Gales of the Australian Antarctic Division is a man on a mission to develop non-lethal whale research methods, to counter the argument that the ICR's research programmes combining both lethal and non-lethal research techniques are the most effective and cost efficient method of obtaining useful results.

Of course, (as I've often noted before) the meaning of "useful results" depends on your perspective - if you are from Australia or New Zealand the chances are that results that help reduce scientific uncertainty associated with inputs of the RMP's catch limit algorithm aren't useful at all - they are terribly inconvenient, as scientific uncertainty is one argument that can be employed to argue against sustainable whaling (to a degree). On the other hand, if you don't have a problem with the concept of whaling, then reducing scientific uncertainties is something to be welcomed, from the perspective of natural resource management.

Anyway, here's the ABC's interview with Nick Gales, with some interjections from yours truly:

TONY EASTLEY: It's never washed with anti-whaling nations, but for the past two decades Japan has invoked science as the justification for its modern-day whale hunts.

Now Japan's scientific whaling program is under review.

An International Whaling Commission delegation is in Tokyo assessing the results of Japan's 18-year whaling program, known as JARPA.

The IWC wants to know whether Japanese whale researchers could've garnered their information through non-lethal means.

Sorry, but I have to interrupt - that's just one of the things that the review will look at. The full set of objectives of the review are noted clearly at the IWC's homepage, with the question on utility of non-lethal methods being the last of four objectives listed.

One of the IWC delegates is Dr Nick Gales from the Australian Antarctic Division. He's speaking here with AM's Karen Barlow.

NICK GALES: We're faced with a fairly large number of papers that they'll bring to us which will describe the science they've done, and most of those papers are supposed to synthesise the work they've been doing over the last 18 years.

So we go through each and every one of those papers in fairly close detail, and we're supposed to then come to some conclusion about especially whether or not the original objectives, or the modified objectives through the 18 years have been fulfilled, and whether that's actually of any use to the IWC.

Sorry to interrupt again, but it's worth remembering that, as noted above, many members of the IWC are against whaling, and thus can be expected to find no use at all in any information that is regarded as useful to scientists in assessing the status of whale stocks such as the Antarctic minke and the degree to which they can be harvested sustainably without fear of negative repercussions.

... but on with the show:

KAREN BARLOW: Because the Japanese have been saying all along that this is necessary for the management of the whales, and it will help them in the long-term, in their long-term survival?

NICK GALES: That's exactly right.

Actually that's an extremely poor representation of the Japanese position. The research is argued to be necessary to provide the scientific basis for sustainable and optimal use (harvest) of abundant whale stocks. Stocks for which long-term survival is in doubt were not the subject of the JARPA research - the Antarctic minke whale was the subject, and even the politically influenced IUCN red list classified this species in the category of "lower risk" in 1996.

But handing it back to Dr. Gales...

The... you know, the Government of Japan have argued very solidly that this science is required, and the only way to achieve this information is to kill whatever number of whales it is that they put their permit in for. The 18 years of JARPA have killed about almost 6,800 whales over that period, minke whales.

KAREN BARLOW: The Australian Government has taken a very firm position against Japan. Does that in any way influence the work you're doing as part of this IWC delegation?

NICK GALES: No, my

A-hem... Dr. Gales...

role is, as a scientist, to come in and assess the science and then to advise the Australian Government and the policy component of the Government about what that science says.

And if the science says… if it was to turn out that this was all terrific and important science, I'd be informing them of that, but if our conclusion is that the science was not necessary, and that the quality of the science was not up to scratch, then I'd equally be reporting that.

I don't like having to say it, but I'm personally doubtful as to whether Dr. Gales can be taken on his word that he is acting purely "as a scientist", without political interest.

Recently, when Nature reported his (currently incomplete, unverified, and unimplemented in the JARPA research area in the Antarctic) development of a technique to age a whale non-lethally via DNA analysis of their shed skin, he was quoted as saying that, although the successful development of the method was unlikely to stop the ICR from employing lethal methods, "at least we can use it to apply more political pressure" (my emphasis).

Thus I have the strong impression that Dr. Gales is not especially interested in objective scientific judgements on these matters...

KAREN BARLOW: This report, if it does find that the lethal research undertaken by Japan is not necessary, could any action be taken of a permanent nature?

NICK GALES: No, the rules under the Article 8, under which scientific whaling is conducted, means that even if… even if there was a consensus that none of this was necessary it would still not compel the Government of Japan to actually change anything, because they don't have to respond to it. All they have do is be a part of the review and conduct the review.

In fact, the 1997 IWC/SC did identify areas for further work, and the ICR indeed worked to address them, as indicated on pages 5-8 of this review document.

Constructive feedback appears to be welcome, even if politically motivated feedback is not.

KAREN BARLOW: So if that's the case, why are you going through this process?

NICK GALES: Well, it's still incredibly important to have a very clear and publicly accessible comment on the review. And it is frustrating, I guess, from many people's point of view, including perhaps my own that, you know, there isn't a direct consequence within the way they're doing their work to our review, but it's very important to have it clearly stated and clearly evaluated.

I'm not sure that Dr. Gales is really looking forward to the results of the review coming out into the public arena at next year's IWC meeting in May, given the way the IWC in 1997 had no choice but to recognise that the IWC/SC review of the JARPA programme at it's halfway point noted that it's results had "the potential to improve management in some ways; and that the results of analyses of JARPA data could thus be used to increase catch limits of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk indicated by the RMP-trials for these minke whales"

But that does not matter, because after all as IWC Head of Science Greg Donovan noted recently, "There is, of course, always the problem that politicians on all sides 'selectively' quote only the scientific advice that suits there predefined political position."

We'll see next May (or before, if someone leaks details of the review report) which politicians are most guilty of indulging in this behaviour.

MARK COLVIN: Dr Nick Gales from the Australian Antarctic Division speaking there with Karen Barlow.

That's it from the ABC.

Nick Gales also featured a couple of years back in the 2002 edition of the High North Alliance's "International Harpoon". Click here to read.

Labels: JARPA, Nick Gales, non-lethal research, Whaling

The IWC's Scientific Committee is set to hold what is (for me at least) a long awaited review of the original JARPA programme.

The programme is consistently panned by the general public in west, where it is "common knowledge" that the JARPA programme is a "a cover for commercial whaling".

This is despite the finding in the previous JARPA review held by the IWC Scientific Committee in 1997, that

"while JARPA results were not required for management under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), they had the potential to improve it in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in RMP Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA 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."

Right since the 1997 IWC plenary meeting which considered the results of this report, representatives from nations such as my homeland of New Zealand have constantly selectively quoted from this review the four words "not required for management", while ignoring the subsequent comments noting the potential of the JARPA results to improve management. Of course, New Zealand amongst others, is against management improvements for political reasons.

Well, jumping forward to 2006, the IWC Scientific Committee will conduct a new review of the now completed JARPA programme from the 4th to 8th of December. We of the general blogosphere and public won't hear about these results until the IWC meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, next May (unless someone leaks the some of the conclusions). However, the IWC Scientific Committee homepage has the following details on the workshop:

The Scientific Committee has agreed to hold an intersessional scientific workshop to assist in its review of the results of the Japanese special permit research in the Antarctic (JARPA) programme, 1987/88-2004/05. The objectives of the review are to evaluate:
1. how well the initial and revised objectives of the research have been met;
2. other contributions to important research needs;
3. the relationship of the research to relevant IWC resolutions and discussions, including those dealing with the Antarctic marine ecosystem, environmental changes and their impact on cetaceans and Committee reviews of special permit research; and
4. the utility of the lethal techniques used by JARPA compared to non-lethal techniques.

The Committee agreed that the review will consider only scientific issues; ethical issues are beyond its competence. This will be taken into account in the discussion under item (c). The Committee also agreed that some discussions of the respective merits of lethal and non-lethal methodology (item (d) is important and that Invited Participants can contribute to that debate. However, the Committee noted that main focus of the review workshop will be on Items 1-8 of the draft agenda; the more contentious issues under Item 9 will mainly be discussed at the subsequent annual meeting (JCRM 8, pp48).

It may be of interest to lay observers to know who the Invited Participants will be. The names are listed below, available from this document.

Invited Participant	Expertise
A. Aguilar	Environment
P. Best	Biological parameters
I. Boyd, Director, Sea Mammal Research Unit, UK	Feeding ecology
D. Butterworth	Abundance, biological parameters
T. Haug	Feeding ecology
R. Hoelzel	Stock structure
D. Palka	Abundance estimation
P. Palsboll	Stock structure
A. Punt or T. Polacheck	Statistical catch-at-age analyses
T. Schweder	Abundance, biological parameters

I look forward to the outcome of the workshop being made public, although as was the case in 1997, some nations will inevitably selectively quote from the report. Exposing such behaviour is one of the reasons I write this blog.

Several of the documents that will be reviewed at the workshop are already available on the review homepage, covering a range of topics.


The week after the JARPA review, the IWC SC will also be holding the second intersessional RMP workshop to progress work on the Western North Pacific Bryde's whale implementation. The completion of this work at the 2007 IWC Scientific Committee meeting will put the IWC/SC in a position to advise on safe commercial catch limits for the Western North Pacific Bryde's whale, which Japan is interested in utilising, although it seems unlikely that a 75% majority at the IWC will agree for such a commercial hunt to be permitted.

The report of the first intersessional workshop, which was considered at this year's IWC SC meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis is available here.

Labels: JARPA, Revised Management Procedure, Whaling

The IWC Scientific Committee has a page about their Data Availability protocol.

I noticed something curious particularly in this request, which is a

Request for access to samples/data from the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), Tokyo, Japan under Procedure B(JCRM 6 (suppl.) and to the National Research Institute ofFar Seas Fisheries, Japan

The curious thing was one of the names included in the list of scientists requiring access to the ICR data:

(1) T. Polacheck (prinicipal), (2) D. Butterworth, (3) J. Cooke, (4) R. Leaper, (5) A. Punt and (6) T.D. Smith.

The reason for my curiosity was that one of these names in particular also happened to appear in 2005 amongst a list of names of scientists who refused to review the JARPA II research proposal.

Readers who follow the whaling issue closely will probably quickly guess which name it is, and share my curiosity (although those who are very familiar will not be surprised at all).

The list of 63 names can be found in the 2nd appendix of this document.

Curious indeed that one of the scientists who criticises Japan's research also had a need to gain access to their data.

UPDATE 2007/01/07: I've just realised that not one, but in fact two of the names listed above can be found in the list of 63.

The request is also accompanied by the following note on the final page:

NOTE: SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED IT WAS REALISED THAT THE ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES FROM THE JARPA CRUISES WERE ALSO REQUIRED BUT HAD NOT BEEN EXPLICITLY INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. ICR GENEROUSLY AGREED TO PROVIDE THESE DATA AS WELL

Generous of the ICR, although I imagine that they are more than happy to have their data used by the IWC Scientific Committee. That's the point, after all.

Having said this, one recalls that Claire Bass (another member IWC Scientific Committee, courtesy of the UK government) previously tried to tell me and my readers that the IWC Scientific Committee has "heavily and regularly (ie, for the last 20 years) criticised" the ICR's research. I pointed out the fallacy of this claim in my response to her, here.

"C. Bass" is another name that appeared in the big list of 63.

Labels: Claire Bass, JARPA, 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

The ICR today announced (Japanese press release) that the JARPA II research fleet, consisting of 7 ships (the mother ship, 3 sighting-sampling vessels, and 2 dedicated sighting survey vessels) will depart on it's second voyage tomorrow, Wednesday 15.

The research this year is essentially the same as last year, except that the region of ocean being surveyed shifts to the eastern part of the JARPA II research area which is roughly in the Antarctic waters south of New Zealand. Again around 850 minke whales and 10 fin whales are scheduled to be taken, in addition to a variety of other research activities including non-lethal biopsy sampling, oceanographic survey, etc.


The western media caught on to this quickly, probably with prodding from NGO groups such as WDCS (here) and Greenpeace Japan (here).


The WDCS in particular are pushing the line that whale meat stocks are running high. According to the WDCS,

"demand for whale meat is falling so fast in Japan that ...",

and by their estimation,

"The government is simply clutching at straws as the market collapses"

This is despite significant increases in consumption evident from analysis of official stockpile figures.

The WDCS also feigns confusion:

"The government has to reduce the price of whale meat every year to increase sales and thousands of tonnes are stockpiled, unwanted, in freezers. And yet, they still keep increasing the hunt. It makes no sense."

The government in fact sets prices so as to cover the costs of research, not to increase sales; the whale meat clearly is not "unwanted in freezers" as official figures show; the quota increase in the Antarctic was a once off as the JARPA programme concluded and JARPA II commenced; and the reason that "it makes no sense" to the WDCS is because they refuse to accept that JARPA II is a genuine research programme, running at a loss. JARPA II's objectives do not include "making a profit", in stark contrast to what we will see with future commercial whaling operations.

If all that wasn't enough, the WDCS is also confused about the gender of Iceland's Ambassador, referring to Ms. Fumiko Saiga as "he", rather than "she".

Finally in conclusion, apparently primarily based on their conviction that whale meat demand is decreasing, the WDCS believes that:

"The three leading whaling nations, Japan, Norway, and Iceland, clearly have no need to go whaling."

On the contrary, what is clear is that the Irish Examiner, who reported this story, needs to do a better job of reporting facts and figures, rather than regurgitating prepared anti-whaling NGO propaganda, basically word for word.

The western public deserves to be properly informed.


UPDATE: Some initial media coverage in Japan covers a pre-departure Buddhist ceremony held in Shimonoseki.

Labels: JARPA, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, WDCS, Whaling

Anti-whaling delegates to the IWC have shown what little regard they have for making whale management decisions based on science (and indeed their fear of it) by instructing their members on the IWC's Scientific Commitee to refuse to even review the Japanese research programmes.

Isn't it remarkable how often we see in the western media statements that Japan's research is just a front for commercial whaling, and yet Japan fronts up at the IWC Scientific Committee with their research, and the anti-whaling camp chooses to ignore it?

Science is indeed the enemy of the anti-whaling nations.

With better scientific knowledge of whale populations, the argument for a return to sustainable whaling is strengthened. The anti-whaling tactic to prevent this is to denounce without due consideration, and feed the information to the western media, who buy it harpoon, line and sinker:

The boycott by 16 of the 30 national delegations in the IWC scientific committee, including Australia's, is a serious blow to the credibility of Japan's whaling program,

This is a typically backwards western media statement.

Ask yourself: How is the credibility of Japan's whaling program damaged by scientists promoted to the IWC's Scientific Committee by anti-whaling nations refusing to even review the research?

On the contrary, what would be a blow to the credibility of the research was if the Scientific Committee did review it and found it to be seriously flawed. Japan's research programme doesn't suffer at all from this childish move.

Given that these anti-whaling scientists have been sent all the way to Korea just to say "we aren't going to do any work", it's clear that the only reason for the anti-whaling nations standing their people on the Scientific Commitee is just to grab a headline. What other purpose does it serve if your scientists show up, but then do nothing?

The article also states that:

Because the boycott left pro-whaling scientists in control of the JARPA II review, the scientific committee is expected to endorse Japan's plans.

More misinformation. Only a number of the scientists on the Scientific Committee are nominated by IWC member nations, both pro and anti. The nominated scientists from the 16 nations who choose to throw a hissyfit would likely represent a minority of the 200 or so members of the committee. Throughout the years, leading scientists on the commitee have been from nations that stand against whaling - for example Dr Phillip Hammond of the U.K. (see more below) and Dr Doug Butterworth from South Africa. Pro-whaling nations certainly have no "control" over the scientific committee. Scientists of the committee have their reputations at stake.

On the other hand, the anti-whaling nations can't win the scientific arguments at the IWC's Scientific Committee, so they have given up and used this action to generate a headline. And the anti-whaling "scientists" won't even front up:

A senior scientist, who asked not to be named, told The Australian the 16 delegations had decided, for scientific reasons, not to be involved with JARPA II.

How about that. A "scientist" who is too embarassed to put his name to his actions.

Their basic objection was that there has been no independent review of the original JARPA, which ran in the Antarctic waters for 18 years and finished last summer.

Japan wants to have secret ballots introduced at the IWC to remove foreign political pressure from member nations' voting decisions. Yet here we have an anti-whaling "scientist" refusing to have his name put against his "scientific reasons" for not reviewing Japan's research, which apparently amounts to nothing more than "we haven't seen an independant review".

Why does a alledged "scientist" need an independent review?
Shouldn't he be capable enough himself to examine the research presented?
If a "scientist" can't figure this out, why should we believe anything other than my hypothesis above - that the anti-whaling nations are employing these people as political tools to get headlines?


As I alluded to at the top, this is all yet another example of anti-whaling nations' utter disregard for making whale management decisions based on scientific information, as required by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Indeed, there have been numerous occurances of this through the IWC's history.

In May 1993, the Dr Phillip Hammond of the U.K., and Chairman of the Scientific Committee handed in his resignation in protest at anti-whaling nation disregard for the scientific work done by the committee. Despite the committee's unanimous recommendation to the IWC of the "Revised Management Procedure" - a mechanism for the safe management of commercial whaling, the anti-whaling nations at the IWC blocked moves to put this into practice.

Hammond noted:

Of course, the reasons for this were nothing to do with science. Although, despite the unanimity of the Scientific Committee's recommendation, some Commissioners used selective quotations out of context from the Committee's report to justify not adopting the RMP on "scientific" grounds.

He continued, lammenting:

what is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations on a matter of primary importance are treated with such contempt?

And with this latest news from the IWC, it's clear that the situation hasn't improved.

Labels: JARPA, Phil Hammond, Whaling