Plants and Animals

In the following blog post Adele Major, Web Editor, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, explains why Greenpeace does not believe sustainable whaling is possible and provides links to more video evidence:

Last I read you are an “environmental blogger” so logically I would assume you are interested in the actual environmental impact of whaling, rather than entire threads devoted to your interpretation of an inconclusive piece of footage on a pro-whaling website.

Is sustainable whaling possible?

I am not a marine mammal expert, and don’t claim to be, although I have read a lot about this issue. However the information below was prepared by John Frizell, whale campaigner and Greenpeace’s representative at the IWC, who is an expert on issues related to whaling.

“Everywhere whaling has been practised, including around the coast of Japan, it has lead to depletion of whale populations. That’s why Japan started Antarctic whaling in the 1930s, their own coastal waters were already showing marked drops in catch after 30 years of whaling using imported technology.

The statistics say it all. The blue whales of the Antarctic are at less than 1 percent of their original abundance, despite 40 years of complete protection. Some populations of whales are recovering but some are not.

Only one population, the East Pacific grey whale, is thought to have recovered to its original abundance, but the closely related West Pacific grey whale population is the most endangered in the world. It hovers on the edge of extinction with just over 100 remaining.

For this reason we believe commercial whaling should not be attempted again. In the case of the Southern Ocean, the IWC has made it a whale sanctuary where no whaling is permitted. So Japan’s ‘research’ program is gathering data to set commercial catch limits on a population for which commercial whaling has been forbidden.

Recent DNA evidence shows that the impact of commercial whaling may be even worse than previously thought. Most estimates of historic whale population size have been extrapolated from old whaling figures, but this method is often very inaccurate, argues marine biologist Steve Palumbi of Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station in California, USA.

In 2003 Palumbi and his colleagues used DNA samples to estimate that humpback whales could have numbered 1.5 million prior to the onset of commercial whaling in the 1800s. That number dwarfs the figure of 100,000 previously accepted by the IWC based on 19th century whaling records. Humpback whales currently number only 20,000.

In the case of the Southern Ocean, Japanese delegates to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) constantly refer to a 1990 estimate of the Antarctic minke population of 760,000. But that figure was withdrawn by the IWC in 2000 because recent surveys found far fewer minkes than the older ones. The new estimates are half the old in every area that has been resurveyed. The IWC’s scientists do not understand the reasons for this and so far have not been able to agree a new estimate. A substantial decline in Antarctic minke population has NOT been ruled out.

Additonally, whaling is no longer the only threat to whales. The oceans, or rather, human impacts on the oceans, have changed dramatically over the half-century since whales have been protected. Known environmental threats to whales include global warming, pollution, overfishing, ozone depletion, noise such as sonar weaponry, and ship strikes. Industrial fishing threatens the food supply of whales and also puts whales at risk of entanglement in fishing gear.

Expectations for the recovery of whale populations have been based on the assumption that, except for commercial whaling, their place in the oceans is as secure as it was a hundred years ago. Sadly, this assumption is no longer valid. This is why we believe that whaling in all forms must be stopped.”

This year, fin whales will be added to the hunt. Fin whales are the second biggest creature on earth after the blue whale, and are listed as ‘endangered’. There is no justification for hunting an endangered species. Very little is known about southern fins and most civilised cultures recognise the need to preserve biodiversity and conserve species that are endangered and protected (such as in Australian waters which they migrate through).

By the way, in the interests of a balanced approach for your readers, I would suggest you also link to our footage, available in longer form here and with a voiceover here. And since it seems you are also an expert on maritime navigation regulations and are calling for the resignation of Captain Sorensen based entirely on this piece of video, you can read his own account of his actions, click here.

As I have mentioned previously, Greenpeace is committed to a long history of non-violent protest and ramming is not a tactic we use.

End of text from Adele Major.

The Institute for Cetacean Research has now uploaded two videos of the ramming by Greenpeace of their ship the Nisshin-Maru in the Antartic last Sunday, click here. The videos taken from the Nisshin-Maru show Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise heading for, and ramming the Japanese boat.

There are now at least three videos and two photographs that contradict the Greenpeace media release and in particular the claim by Greenpeace Southern Ocean Expedition Leader Shane Rattenbury that

“…the Nisshin Mura suddenly disengaged from the supply vessel coming around a full 360 degrees before making for the Arctic Sunrise and striking it on the port side.”

When will Greenpeace stand Rattenbury aside and relieve the captain of the Arctic Sunrise of his command?

Someone in authority has to take control at Greenpeace, or it will lose much of its credibility. Since yesterday Greenpeace has posted at least three versions of their collision with the Japanese whaling mother ship on Sunday.

This is a serious matter that might even have repercussions in criminal law. Greenpeace has to tell the truth, discipline its operatives and move on. Otherwise the organisation that drew so much credibility from the criminal actions against it of the French government will lose its own credibility, not just on whaling, but on all of its campaign issues.

Story 1:

On Sunday, 8th January, 2006 Greenpeace Southern Ocean Expedition Leader Shane Rattenbury was quick off the mark in a media release entitled ‘Whalers ram Greenpeace Ship in Southern Ocean’.

“…the Nisshin Mura suddenly disengaged from the supply vessel coming around a full 360 degrees before making for the Arctic Sunrise and striking it on the port side.

Story 2:

Well, this picture posted by Greenpeace says it all. This is the Greenpeace ship, these are its injuries, and Greenpeace claims it was rammed? The damage is to the bow because as the video, also posted by Greenpeace shows, their ship struck the whaling vessel amidships.

Story 3:

Rattensbury also said,

The ship’s captain tried to pull out of the way of the oncoming whaler.”

In the Greenpeace video, their Captain says that because their ship the Arctic Sunrise had right-of-way,

“I maintained course at speed”.

Greenpeace’s own video contradicts Rattenbury’s story.

In order to restore its credibility Greenpeace’s first move is obvious. It has to stand aside its frontline operatives, specifically Rattenbury, and explain why they misled the press, the public, and their own supporters.

This is a serious matter. Damage has been done to private property. It could fall within the ambit of the criminal law. A respectable organisation cannot allow itself to even potentially shelter wrong-doers.

Japanese whalers in the Antarctic claim their boat the Nisshin-Maru was rammed by Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise earlier today, while Greenpeace claim they were rammed by the whaler’s Nisshinn-Maru.

Photographs emailed to me by the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research appear to show the bow of the Arctic Sunrise approaching and then colliding with the starboard side of the Nisshin-Maru.

The first photo appears to be taken from the starboard side of the Nishhin Maru looking at the port side of the Arctic Sunrise. The second photo appears to be from the same side of the Nisshin Maru looking back at the starboard side of the Sunrise.

Greenpeace prides itself on the photographs and video images its has taken over recent days and weeks showing its war against whaling in the Antarctic, click here.

There’s obviously two sides to this story, and I’m keen to post Greenpeace’s photos and their explanation here.

Update 10.15pm, 8th January 2006
Greenpeace now have a media release with a picture showing damage to the bow of the Arctic Sunrise at their website, click here. This picture is consistent with the claim by the Japanese that they were rammed by Greenpeace, however, in the caption to the picture, Greenpeace claim the Japanese boat cut across the front of their boat thus the damage to the bow. In the text of the media release Greenpeace claim the Japanese boat struck their boat port side. What really happened?

Update 9am, 9th January 2006
Greenpeace have now uploaded video of the collision at their website, click here. The video shows the Arctic Sunrise (which appears the size and shape of a tug next to the very large and apparently near stationary Nisshin Maru) heading towards and then ramming this much larger ship port side. There is then an interview with presumably the captain of the Arctic Sunrise, in which he explains that the large Nisshin Maru should have given way to the Arctic Sunrise because Greenpeace had right-of-way. The interview ends with the Greenpeace Captain stating: “I maintained my course at speed”. The video shows that Greenpeace took no evasive action, maintaining its course which appears to have been to ram the Japanese ship.

The MY Esperanza and the MY Arctic Sunrise, equipped with a helicopter, speed boats and hi-tech communications equipment, departed Cape Town harbor last Sunday afternoon for the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

The boats are not part of some expedition by the South Africa navy, rather they are the property of Greenpeace.

Greenpeace plans to stop Japan killing 935 minke whales by positioning its boats (and helicopter) between the harpoons and the whales, click here for the CNN report.

I wonder how much the expedition is costing and how much energy it will expend?

While Greenpeace takes on the whalers at sea, the Humane Society and Australians for Animals are calling for Japan to be hauled before some international court for its ‘crimes against whales’.

Minke whales are abundant. The whales that are killed are eaten. If the Japanese didn’t eat the whale meat I guess they would eat more grain-fed beef or blue fin tuna? It might be more environmentally friendly to eat whale, than beef or depleted blue fin tuna stocks?

What about Greenpeace and the Humane Society focusing their efforts on some of the really endangered animal species that are killed less humanely and not for food – sun bears for example.

The Canberra Times published the following piece by Glenn Inwood yesterday. It is not available online and so I am republishing the complete text below, with the permission of the author:

The International Whaling Commission is a peculiar organisation. While its legally binding mandate given by the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is to manage whale populations on the basis of scientific findings to “provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”, it has not made any significant decisions since it agreed what was to be a short-term cessation of commercial whaling in 1982 – the so-called “moratorium” -and the passing of the “Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary” in 1994. Both of these decisions were taken without the support of its own Scientific Committee.

Since then, the organisation has been in peril: its members polarised on one side of the debate or the other, unable to secure the three quarters majority to make legally binding decisions, dysfunctional and always drawing its interminable last breath as members of both sides question its continued relevance.

Whaling nations hunt a small number of whales from a few abundant stocks while anti-whaling nations cry foul using false claims that whales are endangered, that killing them for scientific purposes is unnecessary and throwing outrageous claims of “barbarism” for domestic political purposes. What occurs is, for the timebeing at least, an insurmountable barrier between a Western environmental crusade and international law, which requires States that sign a treaty to interpret and implement it in “good faith”.

This is where Australia currently finds itself. Its stance at the IWC reflects an emotive environmental movement that has continued unchecked for 20 years or more, and has even been encouraged for reasons of political expediency, simply because there is no longer an Australian whaling constituency. But by taking this position, which has required ignoring its legal obligations and twisting the legal interpretation of an international agreement, Australia has sacrificed its reputation as legitimate partner on matters of resource management where international cooperation is required.

Extreme environmental groups, such as Humane Society Australia and Australians For Animals, have been allowed to manipulate public opinion with unbridled passion and misguided concern for many years at the cost of reasoned, scientific debate, forcing the Australian Government into an unenviable corner where its policies related to the management and sustainable use of wildlife are internally inconsistent and contrary to the paradigms of science-based policy and rule making accepted as the world standard. The Northern Territory’s unsuccessful attempt to implement a crocodile safari hunt is testament to this.

HSUS Australia and AFA have opinions that Japan’s research in the Antarctic is not legal under international law. They now want the Government to take their legal opinions and pursue a case against Japan’s research whaling. Environment Minister Ian Campbell has on his hands an environmental movement that is completely out of control, one that is openly supported by most of the country’s media, and they continue to push their Government in a direction it clearly does not want to take. Both the Attorney General and Mr Campbell have repeated said that they will use “diplomatic means”. Either way, this leaves the Australian Government in an untenable position: how to satisfy the now growing discontent of whaling among the public, fuelled by the media and encouraged by the government itself, yet uphold its obligations under international law.

A legal case against Japan is high risk. If Australia did take the case to some international court or tribunal and lost, it would no longer be able to continue its anti-whaling rhetoric. Defence of its position would become unjustifiable and its standing within the IWC would be severely diminished.

Article VIII of International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is very clear. Any member of the IWC may grant special permits to kill, take and treat whales for the purposes of scientific research and that all such operations shall be exempt from the convention. This means that such things as “the moratorium” or the “Southern Ocean Sanctuary” do not apply to research whaling. And the meat taken from whales that are killed must be processed and therefore sold at market. This is a legal requirement of the Convention. It cannot be any clearer. Further, the research is not carried out in any waters under Australian jurisdiction because Australia’s Antarctic claims are not recognized under international law.

Australia argues, that Article VIII is no longer relevant because there are other ways to study whales without having to kill them. Yes, there are non-lethal means that provide some kinds of scientific information but there are no non-lethal means to obtain data on population age structure and the biological parameters needed for the proper management of whaling. Nor do non-lethal methods provide data on feeding habits, which are required for modelling species interactions and that will allow scientists and managers to move toward the goals of ecosystem-based management. Some nations are proposing that a new international convention be drafted that, among other things, would remove the existing provisions for lethal research and the provisions that allow the lodging of an objection to, and therefore not be bound by, IWC decisions. (Norway’s commercial whaling is conducted legally through an objection to the moratorium.)

The proposal to draft a new convention, which is supported by Australia, is unlikely to be successful and unlikely to achieve the outcome some IWC nations want since it would be binding only on those who sign it. Mr Campbell believes a diplomatic solution is needed to resolve the whaling impasse, and he is right. But this requires good will, understanding and compromise rather than blustering and rhetoric.

Glenn Inwood is a Wellington-based consultant whose company undertakes communications work for the Institute of Cetacean Research in Japan, which carries out that country’s research whaling programmes in the Antarctic and the western North Pacific.