David @ Tokyo

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been enjoying reading coverage of the war of words within Australia about how to deal with the whaling issue.

The ALP has apparently suggested taking a hard line approach involving navy vessels and possible vessel boardings (an election year suck up to the gullible), and Malcolm Turnbull has responded by pointing out the various problems with such actions. The Australian Greens seem to be backing the ALP as well, but I guess they are irrelevant anyway.

I feel sorry for any incumbent Australian minister of the environment. Rather than try and find a good way to uphold a bad policy, I'm sure they wish they had the option of just throwing the policy away for a good one, i.e., tolerate whaling to the extent that it is sustainable. No political incentive exists to take this route though, it seems.

At any rate, it's great to see anti-whaling Australia so divided on the issue. I look forward to the New Zealand elections in 2008 as well, as no doubt there will be politicians there who also wish to attract the "lunatic" vote.

Labels: Malcolm Turnbull

Australia's new Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia is opposed to "the resumption of barbaric commercial whaling by Iceland".

Mr. Turnbull would be well advised to have a kit-kat. This sort of language is unbecoming of a representative of a member of the international community such as Australia.

Such words would also be slightly inflammatory too, if the whaling peoples of the world hadn't already become indifferent to it (it's several years now since former New Zealand Conservation Minister Sandra Lee set a new low standard by describing whaling as "despicable").

Turnbull suggests that Iceland's decision to resume commercial whaling is in breach of the international commercial whaling moratorium. This is for the legal experts to ponder (should they care to), but the simple reality is that there is nothing to stop Iceland from withdrawing from the ICRW once again and permitting it's whalers to carry on, either way.

Mr. Turnbull can describe whaling as "barbaric" as much as he and his domestic constituents like, but this reality isn't going to change. Which leads one to ask, to whom are Mr. Turnbull's comments actually directed?


The Minister provides an illustration of the confidence of the extreme anti-whaling nations' willingness to oppose whaling on non-scientific grounds:

"Australia is implacably opposed to commercial whaling"

Indeed it is, but this statement contrasts with Australia's position on the "moratorium" decision when it was adopted at the 1982 IWC meeting:

"Australia believed that the [moratorium] proposal was a good solution to the various interests of the whaling industry and the conservation of whales."

Today Australia no longer pretends that it has any concern for the interests of the whaling industry, and it's position clearly has nothing to do with conservation either, as evidenced by Australia's "implacable" opposition to exploitation of even abundant minke whale stocks.

Turnbull explains that:

Australia considers Iceland’s reservation incompatible with the purpose of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling.

Iceland's recent moves appear to be entirely compatible with the purpose of the ICRW, whereas Australia's own "implacable" opposition to commercial whaling is clearly not.

One wonders if dropping the facade of acting in accordance with the spirit and purpose of the ICRW may one day come back to haunt Australia and other such extreme anti-whaling nations.


On Iceland's decision to unilaterally resume commercial whaling:

"It has done so without any assessment by the International Whaling Commission or its scientific committee," Mr Turnbull said.

The International Whaling Commission is just a political grandstanding forum for those with extremist positions like Mr Turnbull to talk about how "barbaric" they think whalers are. I'm not sure what kind of incentive Mr Turnbull thinks the Icelanders have for raising the issue with the IWC while it remains in such a dysfunctional state.

Furthermore, the tiny numbers of whales that Iceland has permitted it's whalers to catch during the current season will have only a neglible impact on the relevant whale stocks. The scientific committee is planning an RMP implementation for the North Atlantic fin whale, believed to number at least 20,200, and perhaps as many as 33,000. Iceland's quota of 9 fin whales therefore represents just 0.045% of the lower end of the accepted abundance estimate. The rate of natural mortality in the North Atlantic fin whale population is likely around 100 times higher, illustrating just how insignificant the quota is in conservation terms.

Introductory literature on the RMP suggests that initial catch limits would be "less than half a percent of the estimated population size".

Thus, the 0.045% of the estimated population size that the quota of 9 fin whales represents is perhaps more than 10 times smaller than the catch limit that the highly conservative RMP might initially set with respect to the North Atlantic fin whale stock.


Mr Turnbull has a particular complaint with regards to the fin whales:

"Fin whales are listed under the IUCN (International Conservation Union) Red List of Threatened Species as endangered, which sadly means they face a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future."

One has to question whether Turnbull is serious in this criticism, given that Australia itself continues to permit it's own people to exploit other species that are also on the Red List, and not just "Endangered" species, but some that are "Critically Endangered". Moreover, to make it even more difficult for the Minister to reconcile his above criticism with his nation's own standards, Australia allows exports of the products of the exploited "Critically Endangered" species to overseas markets.

"Iceland has a modern, prosperous economy with no need to hunt endangered whales."

Presumably Mr. Turnbull thinks Australia does not possess a modern, prosperous economy, and thus can justify it's own exploitation of "Critically Endangered" species on those grounds?


Here's some self-congratulatory information from the Australian government:

"While Australia's laws concerning wildlife trade are some of the most stringent in the world, they are not intended to obstruct the sustainable activities of legitimate organisations and individuals. Instead they have been designed to demonstrate that, when managed effectively, wildlife trade contributes to and is entirely compatible with the objectives of wildlife conservation."

Contrast this with Turnbull's statements:

“I find it very perplexing that like Australia, Iceland has a burgeoning whale watching industry which provides far greater commercial benefits than killing whales, and allows our people and tourists to learn about the great whales”

No doubt the Icelanders, who have a burgeoning whaling industry which provides complementary commercial benefits to the whale watching industry are perplexed as to why Australia chooses to forgo such opportunities for sustainable development. Especially given that Australia continues to exploit other species regarded by the IUCN as "Critically Endangered" with a seemingly clear conscience.


I had hoped for an improvement from Mr. Turnbull over his predecessor, Ian Campbell. He hasn't made a promising start.

Mr Turnbull can be contacted here:
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/contact/contact.aspx

Labels: Iceland, Malcolm Turnbull

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