David @ Tokyo

Several anti-whaling people have mentioned to me an article entitled "The whaling issue: Conservation, confusion, and casuistry", by Phil Clapham and others, which appears to have been published in response to Joji Morishita's "Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix". Both articles have apparently been published in "Marine Policy".

I've not read either, although Clapham posted the abstract of his to a mailing list (here).

While I'm no scientist, everyone is entitled to their own political opinion, and in that regard I feel qualified to comment on the abstract of Clapham's paper. To my mind, Clapham does himself a big disservice with his constant indulging in the political side of the whaling debate. In 2005, he and four other scientists even went so far as to break the IWC Scientific Committee's document confidentiality rules, in publishing a criticism of the JARPA II research proposal in "Nature", prior to the commencement of the IWC plenary.

Anyway, from the abstract of his new paper:

For many people in this debate, the issue is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations.

This certainly appears to be Clapham's personal position on the question of commercial whaling. I disagree. I believe that it is not the responsibility of the whaling industry to regulate itself, but the governments of the world to properly and effectively regulate their industry. This goes for every industry, not just whaling (Clapham would also do well to avoid focusing on Japan as they clearly aren't the only nation interested in whaling).

With regard to assessment of potentially exploitable populations, I agree that it is not appropriate for levels of acceptable exploitation to be determined based on stock assessments undertaken solely by whalers. The best forum for this is the IWC's Scientific Committee (notes on their peer review processes can be found here).

Clapham goes on to talk of "Japan's ... often implausible stock assessments". The fact is that no IWC management actions will ever be taken based on the ICR's data alone without review and acceptance at the IWC/SC. Furthermore, the IWC/SC has actually seen fit to use Japan's data previously, for example in determining the abundance estimate for the common minke whale in the western north pacific (as I informed an EIA campaigner recently). Of course, Japan could quit the IWC, and resume commercial whaling basing management decisions solely on the advice of the ICR's scientists, but such a situation can be avoided if the politicians at the IWC agree to act in good faith, and in accordance with the object and purpose of the ICRW to which their nations have adhered.

Clapham also characterises Japanese policy of supporting "culling" of whales. The idea is not to "cull" whales (like they do with kangaroos in Australia and Kaimanawa horses in New Zealand), but "harvest" them. The whole point of sustainable whaling is to put food on plates, and whales, like fish, are considered edible in Japan, even if they aren't where Clapham comes from. Trying to associate whaling with the negative connotations of a "cull" is misleading at best.

He also complains about regulation and "true transparency in catch and market monitoring", which as far as I know Clapham is no expert in at all. Traffic East Asia - Japan made recommendations to the Japanese Government in the late 1990's, and they responded by putting new regulations in place in 2001. Since then, allegations of illegal whale meat on the market are still lodged (often prior to IWC meetings with much media fanfare), yet when these reports are reviewed at the IWC Scientific Committee it becomes apparent that inadequate references samples were used in drawing the conclusions (will dig out a reference for this later). If the scientists producing these papers were truly interested in improving any alleged weaknesses in the system, they would conduct their surveys in co-operation with the appropriate authorities so that they could verify their samples against the DNA database of legally acquired whale meat. The approach of these scientists attempting to embarrass the Government of Japan politically is not constructive. That they choose such methods appears to provide a good indication of their true motivations.

Finally Clapham introduces his view that Japan believes it has a "right to secure unlimited access to global marine resources". To assert that Japan wants "unlimited" access is frankly ridiculous and requires no response. Furthermore, Japan's desire to utilise living marine resources from the oceans is consistent with international agreements governing access to those resources.

Clapham's abstract concludes:

Whaling is inextricably tied to the international fisheries agreements on which Japan is strongly dependent; thus, concessions made at the IWC would have potentially serious ramifications in other fora.

Given that Clapham is working on his silly premise that Japan wants "unlimited access to global marine resources", I personally think he's well off the mark, and maybe he himself has read a tad too much extreme anti-whaling propaganda. Clapham would do well to skip his politics and stick to his science.

Just my personal view though, he can do what he likes with his time and his reputation amongst his peers.


Usefully, in another older article Clapham conceded that:

The point is not that lethal sampling cannot contribute anything to knowledge of whale populations, or even that there are no data which cannot be obtained by other means; one can always find scientific value in carcasses. Rather this issue is that lethal methods are not required to obtain information needed for population assessment.

The first sentence of this statement should come in handy the next time someone raises a question about whether the ICR is really conducting research. As for the second sentence, Clapham's view appears to be at odds with standard practice within the IWC Scientific Committee. For example, from the report of the Workshop for Western North Pacific Bryde's whale Implementation:

The Workshop considered information from several approaches, both genetic and non-genetic, as a number of studies (e.g. Donovan, 1991) have concluded that this is the most effective way to address questions of stock identity.

Clapham, on the other hand, asserts that

population structure is most reliably studied with genetic analysis, which is routinely conducted using tissue from skin biopsies (Palsboll et al. 1997); lethal sampling is not required for this work.

Towards the end of the article, Clapham comments on a suggestion that scientists should "take extraordinary care to acknowledge differences of opinion on science", responding that:

It is worth asking just how bad science has to be before its quality ceases to be a matter of opinion, by any reasonable standard of independent judgement.

Given the fact that his views on the assessing stock structure appear to be somewhat in conflict with the practice employed by the IWC Scientific Committee, I'd suggest that perhaps his own judgement wouldn't meet the criteria for such a standard.

In summary, the thing to remember in all of this is that ultimately the policy of pro-sustainable use nations is to make for the resumption of commercial whaling, allowing for profits to be made from the sale of whale meat. With these future plans in mind, nitpicking arguments about the merits lethal methods versus non-lethal methods for research are all pointless in the first place (as I've noted previously). Besides being used for research purposes, the whales are eventually eaten anyway, just as they would be in a purely commercial hunt. That some people wish to endlessly engage in such arguments ignoring this reality tells us much about their political agenda.

Labels: non-lethal research, Phil Clapham, 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

Following on from their specialising in whale poo to determine what whales eat in their diet, last year we got a whiff of another effort of theirs to figure out (roughly) how old a whale is by doing genetic analysis on skin that has been shed.

As is always the way, they have re-released this information again this year, and still nothing has changed. The technique still hasn't been developed, and the fact they are trying to develop such a technique at all is a concession that lethal research is the only way to obtain age information about whales.

Some thoughts:

- Even if one day it works for one whale, how practical would it be to apply it to 850 randomly selected whales in the JARPA II survey area around Antarctica? Perhaps Greenpeace activists in inflatables could amuse themselves by trying to see how much whale skin they could gather, to help answer this question. Look for some more whale poo while they are at it.

- What is the point of this anyway? Whale age information is not being gathered just for the hell of it - those interested in it are interested in it because they want to use the information in population modelling to aid in the setting of safe commercial whaling catch limits. Whether whales are killed for science or directly for dinner, the whales do not care much, I believe. But, as Nick Gales notes at the end of the article, they see some political benefit in the development of such techniques, and so long as they don't regard this as a waste of time, good on them. Would be nice if they'd try to contribute to real conservation efforts though.

Labels: Nick Gales, non-lethal research, 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

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

Yet more good news from Australia about the booming Humpback population.

Nonetheless, the "Professor Harrison" reported believes that they must continue to be protected "absolutely and particularly at this vulnerable stage because [the stock] really is just now starting to show significant signs of increase"

Well, this isn't what we heard last year, when the humpback stock was "booming" at 10% per annum.

It's all so rather ironic. When there's not enough whales, it's all bad news, but even when you've got lots of them it's still bad news.

And what is Harrison's hangup about making sure the stock returns to it's pre-whaling size? When the population is growing that fast, there is plenty of surplus for humans to utilise. And even if/when the stock does recover to it's original size, then what? Do we think he'll then give the OK to commercial whaling again?
Of course at that stage, when the population hit's it natural peak (in a natural population boom / bust cycle), he'll point out that humpback numbers are falling, and thus whaling still shouldn't be permitted!

Mind you, if you check out his flash webpage you can see he's affiliated with paid-up "scientists" such as New Zealand's Scott Baker and Michael Donohue.

These guys obviously have an agenda, and no matter how good things get, they'll always find an angle to make it sound like the sky is going to fall.

UPDATE:
Some googling around for more info about this Proffesor Harrison turns up various similarly uninspiring news pieces, all lending weight to the conclusion that he is working to an agenda. It turns out that he is the "scientist" leading efforts to develop non-lethal whale ageing techniques, in an effort to undermine the rationalle for lethal research whaling.
He claims that thanks to this technique "this final excuse that's used for the need to establish the age of the whales will basically be removed as well" But wait! There's more!
"We have a wide range of (skin) samples already in the centre which will allow us to start establishing the technique, and then we'll be able to refine the details of that over the next couple of years,"

Ah... so he's GOING to develop a technique and he's got some samples, and in the meantime the Japanese should just sit tight, and trust that his technique is going to be accurate, worth it's weight in gold, and not just another sideshow? Yeah, right.

This leaves me with one question - how is he planning to confirm the validity of his guess work without having any factual age data to verify it against? My guess - he isn't. That's totally not his objective.

Labels: humpbacks, non-lethal research, Whaling