Plants and Animals

Hi Jennifer,

There have been persistent rumours in the international wildlife community that some whales are going to be removed from the IUCN Red List.

Probably this rumour origins from the High North Alliance’s press release’entitled ‘Whales off the Red List’ which included comment:

“The IUCN World Conservation Union has removed several species of whales from its Red List of threatened species.

The World Conservation’s Union’s action has placed a number of whales species into the Least Concern category for “widespread and abundant species”.

The Red List contains three threatened categories: ‘Critically Endangered’, ‘Endangered’ and ‘Vulnerable’.

According to the High North Alliance, the main target for the whale hunting, the minke whale, is transferred to the ‘Least Concern’ category. Other species placed on the ‘Least Concern’ List , included beluga , narwhal, white-beaked dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin and common porpoises.

Humpbacks were transferred from ‘Vulnerable’ to ‘Least Concern’.

The downlisting has been mentioned a few times in Norwegian fisheries media, and as far as I have understood, David@Tokyo, pointed out that this was mentioned in a Japanese paper as well.

However, Greenpeace pointed out that these removals of whales from the Red List has not yet been “official” and no statements on this have yet been made on the IUCN website.

I personally have no experience of the political play behind the scenes and I have no clue why no official statement has not yet been made.

What I personally believe is that this is such a sensitive and politically charged issue and no statements will be made in the near future due to pressure from NGOs and some anti whaling nations. Of course this is only speculation from my side.

Finally the whalers believe that a downlisting of whales will make whaling more internationally acceptable and making trade in whale products easier.

Jeff Thomas writing for the San Jose Mercury has commented that humpback stocks are recovering , so the marine scientists are pondering a controversial question:

“Is it time for the whales, hunted to near-extinction in the 20th century, to have less protection under the federal Endangered Species Act?”

The answer is probably “yes” , but there will be resistance , said Jay Barkow , a NOAA marine biologist.

Most of the resistance to change the protected status for the whales come from NGOs. They are afraid that people will think then it’s OK to hunt whales.

Greenpeace is even more hard on this issue:

“ Whales need stronger protection , not reduced protection.”

“ A reduction in protection by a conservation-minded country like the US is something that Japan would make great political points out of”.

However, some people say it’s good for the credibility of the Endangered Species Act as well for the IUCN , to remove/delist/downlist animals when appropriate.

Cheers,
Ann Novek
Sweden

Greenpeace and most anti whaling organisations proclaimed victory for the whales after the annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Anchorage and a deafening defeat for the pro-whaling nations.

This is hardly the truth.

Most IWC delegates agree that the current IWC is dysfunctional and the positions are deadlocked. The moderate minded delegates still believe that the IWC is the best body to solve and manage whaling issues.

Japan threatens as usual to leave the IWC , but Norway has stated it has no intention to leave the IWC and the IWC is the best body to take care of its interests.

So who are the winners and losers in this high political game?

In a recent comment here at the blog, Sidney Holt, one of the persons behind the design of the whaling moratorium, stated:

“Yesterday the on-line paper American Prospect (www.prospect.org) published my evaluation of the present whaling crisis that some of the participants in this debate here might care to look at. I have concluded that the authorities and commercial interests in Japan do not wish the moratorium on commercial whaling to be lifted, because conducting commercial whaling under Special permits for ostensibly scientific purposes is more convenient. The overwhelming evidence now is that Japan intends to indefinitely expand its unregulated whaling, as the major whale populations recover. The argument that whales are eating “our” fish, and that some of them are now competing with the others and hampering thier recovery are purely devices to justify future unsustainable whaling, which is the only kind that can be profitable. The argument about meat stockpiles is interesting because it is really not about selling the current catches but rather preparing the consumer base for the planned increases in production in the coming decade.. Look at it that way and then consider the discussion now going on in the technical press in Japan regarding the projected design of a new and bigger factory ship, and increasing the numbers of catcher boats in order to fully use the factories processing capacity.”

Another scientist, Atsushi Ishii, from Tohoku University in Sendai , Japan, shared a similar view. He believes the current status quo suits the Japan’s Fisheries Agency:

“Japan is happy to continue scientific whaling; but they say scientific whaling is needed because they want to overturn the moratorium, so they need the moratorium to continue scientific whaling,” he says.”

And what did the antis say?

In the BBC article, Dr Epstein from the University of Sydney said:

“There’s that relationship between NGOs and governments that is quite functional from both of their perspectives,” observes Dr Epstein.

“Governments look quite green because they’re listening to NGOs; NGOs get listened to in an international system of states where there isn’t much room normally for them. So there isn’t much incentive to listen to anything else.”

In this thesis, the NGOs dictate what governments need to say to look green, the governments say it, and NGOs duly say nice things about them. Reporters lap it all up, even help foment it, because they know what story their readers are expecting; it is all utterly predictable, and nobody has an incentive to step out of line.

Everyone’s a winner; except, of course, the whales.

Ann Novek
Sweden

PS The Norwegian media even pointed out that Norway was praised at the IWC meeting for its thorough report on how long it takes to kill a whale!

“Europe’s first songbird reintroduction programme is celebrating after cirl buntings, one of Britain’s rarest and most attractive small birds, were found last week to be breeding in Cornwall – where they had been extinct for many years…

Read the complete good news story ‘Rare songbird is returned to Cornwall’ by Michael McCarthy here: http://environment.independent.co.uk/wildlife/article2669864.ece

“The Sustainable Development Network (SDN), a coalition of people-oriented conservation groups, today called upon delegates to the CITES meeting in The Hague to reconsider the ban on sale of tiger parts, which it says is undermining effective conservation by reducing the incentives to manage tigers sustainably and increasing the number of wild tigers that are poached. The SDN argues that trade in certified farmed tiger parts could meet existing and future demand, thereby reducing pressure on wild tigers.

“The conservation community has for many years been split over whether commerce in endangered species is desirable. While the evidence has increasingly suggested that commerce must be part of the solution, opponents of commerce have dominated the debate. As a result, restrictions on commerce have become the cornerstone of conservation policies, with the consequence that tigers and several other species have been driven to the verge of extinction in the wild.

“One fundamental problem is that by making trade in these wildlife products illegal, the trade has been driven underground. As Kirsten Conrad, a tiger conservation expert, notes, “Despite legal protection over most of its range, prohibition of international trade, anti-poaching efforts, and millions spent by NGOs and governments, demand for tiger parts shows no sign of abating.”

“Recent estimates put the value of illegal trade in wildlife at over US $6 billion a year – which would make it the third most traded illicit product after drugs and arms. Indian policy analyst and developer of SDN’s Sustainable Tiger Initiative, Barun Mitra, puts it succinctly: “When trade is outlawed, only outlaws trade.”

“Some of the poorest people in the world live in close proximity to tigers and other valuable resources, yet they have little incentive to conserve and manage those resources sustainably, because they are not allowed to own or trade in them. As a result, only criminals and smugglers profit from poaching. This is bad for the people who share the tiger’s habitat and very bad for tigers.

“The contrast with crocodiles – another large carnivore – could not be more stark. Three million crocodiles are farmed each year in facilities as disparate levitra as Australia, South Africa and the United States – enabling the demand for crocodile parts to be met legally, while massively reducing the pressure on wild crocs. In 1971, all of the world’s 23 species of crocodile were classified as endangered; now, the eight farmed species are no longer threatened and populations of eight other species have recovered.

“As Mr Mitra, whose Liberty Institute was a founding member of the SDN, puts it “The only market failure in tiger conservation is the failure to let markets operate.”

“In the new proposal – the “Save the Tiger Initiative” – the SDN outlines ways of enabling people to own and sell tigers, which would provide incentives for a range of commercial activities, from eco-tourism to breeding tigers and trading in tiger parts. Under this proposal, the SDN believes that the tiger, which is such a charismatic and culturally rich species, can become economically viable and thereby survive in the wild.

“Kirsten Conrad explains why she supports the SDN Initiative: “While all this sounds cold-blooded—tigers are not tubs of margarine nor domestic livestock— conservationists do not have the luxury of ignoring the distasteful but possibly effective strategy of allowing trade in captive-bred tigers, at least not if they are truly intent on saving the tiger from extinction.”

Barun Mitra concluded, “The tiger could easily earn its keep and buy its way out of extinction – if we allow it to do so,” adding that cooperation between China and India offers the best hope for this mighty but endangered beast.

“NOTE: The 14th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is currently taking place in The Hague (3-15 June 2007). Asian big cats are on the agenda under “Species trade and conservation issues” but some countries want the topic dropped.

“The Sustainable Development Network is a coalition of individuals and non-governmental organizations who believe in a people-oriented view of sustainable development.

www.sdnetwork.net

End of Media Release.

There is a big international meeting (the 55th meeting of the Standing Committee to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES) currently underway in The Hauge, Netherlands, and China is hoping for support, in particular from India, for an amendment to the 14-year-old ban on trading in tiger parts.

That’s right, China and others want to legalize trade in bits of dead tiger.

Its been Indian policy that the tiger can be best protected through traditional conservation while China and others want to explore market-based tools including incentives for insitu conservation and also captive breeding.

Its a contentious but important issue, particularly given so far the Indian tiger populion has about halved over the last 5 years. There are many more tigers in captivity in China than in the wild in India.

You can read more at Brendan Moyles blog: http://my.opera.com/chthoniid/blog/2007/06/05/china-tiger-and-cites

The 59th Annual International Whaling Commission Meeting wrapped last Thursday in Anchorage, Alaska.

If you were distracted over the last couple of weeks, as I was, and missed some of the discussions, including at this blog, you can catch-up by having a look at the very long thread following a note from Rune Frovik, Secretary of the High North Alliance, posted on May 23, 2007.

In the blog post Rune correctly predicted that the issue of aboriginal whaling could be a “a very hot issue”.

It was. And most nations except Japan got mostly what they asked for in terms of traditional/aboriginal hunting:

– Greenland can now hunt two bowhead whales annually

– Greenland’s request to also take 10 humpback whales a year was postponed until next year

– The quotes requested by USA, Russia, St Vincent and the Grenadines were adopted by consensus

– Japan’s request for a minke whale quota to four coastal communities was rejected

According to Rune, “There is an extreme lack of consistency, a very unfair treatment of Japan’s reasonable and limited requests. The IWC is a breeding ground for hypocrisy and double standards where the anti-Japanese sentiments are running high.”

I have previously expressed my disappointment at the International Whaling Commission condoning the slaughter of rare whales by indigenous peoples using what are arguable inhumane traditional methods, while ruling against the commercial harvest of more common species by more humane methods in a piece published in July 2005 entitled ‘No science and no respect in Australia’s anti-whaling campaign’.

Next year the IWC meeting will be in Santiago, Chile.