The convention governing the International Whaling Commission (IWC)

President Clinton, when announcing his decision last October to delay the implementation of sanctions on Norway following that countrys recommencement of commercial whaling, stated the United States strong commitment to science- based international solutions to spheric conservation problems.The convention governing the International Whaling Commission (IWC) states similarly that its regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of hulk mental imagerys shall be based on scientific findings.But the practice differs greatly from the principle. The IWC took a decision in 1982 to impose a global moratorium on all commercial whaling at a time of proceeds scientific evidence that the polar minke giant population, at least, could certainly sustain a limited harvest. Whaling countries, furious by this decision which they considered to be without scientific justification, hit back later in the 80s by reservation use of a provision in the IWC Convention which allowed th em to issue permits to their nationals to catch both(prenominal) whales for the purpose of scientific research research is conducted as a part of these scientific whaling carrying outs, to a greater extentover is that their primary purpose? roughly recently thither is the proposal for a whale sanctuary throughout the Southern Ocean a transpargonnt attempt to prevent the resumption of whaling on the 3/4 cardinal strong Antarctic minke population for reasons which have nonhing to do with science. This has been accompanied by the unedifying spectacle of Western nations and conservation (or, more(prenominal) than accurately, preservationist) groups desperately searching for some plausible surrogate scientific rationale with which to attempt to justify the proposal.These early(a) reasons be discussed elsewhere in this volume. My brief is to address aspects of President Clintons expressed c at one timern at the absence seizure of a credible, agreed management and monitoring re gime that would ensure that commercial whaling is kept within a science-based limit.sustainable UTILISATIONObviously such limits should be consistent with sustainable utilisation except exactly what does that mean? The close ready analogy is that of a pensioner whose sole asset is a metropolis sum invested in a bank. Sustainable utilisation for him means living off the one-year interest without dipping into the capital. In other words, harvest-home simply the natural annual growth of a population, without depleting it to a low level where this growth is greatly decrease.THE IWCS NEW MANAGEMENT subroutineIn the 1970s, in reply to mounting public criticism following the substantial depletion of m both whale populations by whaling conducted under its aegis, the IWC introduced the so-called New focus summons (NMP). The underlying principles were fine essentially to uprise whale populations to and keep them at reasonably high proportions of their surface sooner exploit ation started, by ensuring that catch limits set did not kick the bucket sustainable levels.But the NMP proved unworkable in practice. Why? Not because there was anything wrong with the concept, but because the NMP didnt go far enough. It failed to specify how the annual interest (i.e. the sustainable catch level from a whale stock) was to be calculated, what data ask to be collected to do this, and how to allow account of uncertainties.CALCULATING SUSTAINABLE YIELD LEVELSSo how can sustainable impart levels be calculated? For the pensioner, the process is simple to judge how much interest go forth become available annually, ask the bank teller how much capital is in his account and what the interest rate is, and then(prenominal) just multiply the two together.So why isnt fisheries management equally easy? because the teller is unco- operative. All he will tell you, and only once a year, is how much you have in your account, which he can get wrong by typically 20%. And he ce rtainly wont tell you directly what the interest rate is.How do we then get the information needed to be able to perform this key multiplication to calculate the sustainable yield for whale populations? For the capital component, perceive surveys are conducted from research vessels to determine the numbers of whales. By the standards normally getatable in fisheries research, the results obtained are good (error margins of typically 20%). The difficult component is the interest rate. Basically some (careful) exploitation is needed before this can be evaluated, because the calculation requires the information from a series of sighting surveys on how the size of the population diversitys in response to this harvest-home.THE FUNDAMENTAL RISK-REWARD TRADE-OFFThe bottom line then is that some trade-off is inevitable. If such initial harvests are kept too low, the potential productivity of the resource remains undiscovered. But if these catches are set too large, there is a high risk th at unplanned heavy depletion whitethorn occur before this is realised and corrective action can be taken.The purpose of a risk-free harvesting strategy is unattainable, for exactly the same reason that no car or aircraft can ever be made completely safe. Risk can be reduced (though never eliminated), but only at the expense of higher costs or correspondingly, lesser rewards in the form of smaller catches in resource utilisation terms.WHERE DOES THE COMPUTER COME IN?The role of the computing device is to calculate the sizes of the anticipated trade-offs between risk and reward when harvesting whale populations. This is the basic function of the computing device simulation trials used to test the IWC scientific commissions proposed Revised Management Procedure (RMP). Quantitative information more or less these trade-offs allows a sensible choice to be made between the extremes of rapid extinction of the resource under unsustainable catch levels, and complete protection which fo rbids any harvesting ever.WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE AND THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT?How does such a Management Procedure approach differ from the inveterate methods used to regulate fisheries? There catch limits are calculated according to the current best perceptions of the experimental condition and productivity of the resource. But it is then not entirely clear how the answer obtained should be adjusted to take the inevitable uncertainties in these perceptions into account in other words, how to make proper allowance for risk.In contrast, the Management Procedure approach puts such uncertainties up front, by insisting that if these current best perceptions are in error, the trend in catches set over the longer term must be such that the Procedure self-corrects before there is any substantial risk that the resource could be damaged. For example, it has been suggested that global climatic change could result in a change in the env ironment which is deleterious for whale stocks. The RMP has already been time-tested to ensure that catch limits for whales would be adjusted downwards appropriately should this occur.Why are such Procedures needed for whales in particular? Whales are long-lived animals and their populations can at best grow at only a few percent per annum. Thus even relatively low levels of catch, if continued, can lead to problems unless there is adequate monitoring and an option for adjusting catch limits. In other words, the risk acceptd in harvesting whale populations can be evaluated sensibly only for a Procedure which is to be consistently use for a number of decades.Thus, as in sport, a Management Procedure involves all the parties concerned agreeing the rules before the game is played (and sticking to them during it).IS THIS APPROACH BEING USED SUCCESSFULLY ELSEWHERE?This approach is not entirely new in fisheries. Iceland has been applying it in the management of its capelin fishery. Aris ing out of the IWCs initiative for whales, South Africa has promptly come to base catch limit decisions for its major fisheries for hake, sardine and anchovy on the approach.WHAT SORT OF CATCH politics FOR WHALES WOULD RESULT UNDER THE RMP?As far as catch limits for whales under the IWC Scientific Committees proposed RMP are concerned, these would initially be set at annual levels of approximately 0.5% of current population sizes. That would apply to stocks of species not greatly modest by past whaling activities, such as many of the worlds minke whale populations. For stocks still markedly depleted such as the blue and fin whales of the Antarctic, this percentage would be considerably less indeed nonentity for those and many other stocks for a number of decades yet.In addition, there would be provisions to ensure that catches are widely spread, rather than concentrated in a few small regions. This is necessary to provide safeguards against uncertainties in knowledge about the positions of the boundaries between stocks. The annual percentage take could be increased over time, but this would be permitted only provided the results from the monitoring population trends over time by sightings surveys suggest that such larger levels of catch are sustainable. However, if the survey series stops, catches are phased out quite rapidly.TO WHAT LEVEL OF RISK DOES THE RMP hit?What risks would be involved in the application of the RMP to whale stocks? Broadly speaking, there would be no more than a 5% chance, even under the worst set of circumstances or misconceptions likely, that catches (other than perhaps ones of a negligible size) would be taken from a population reduced to more than 10% below its intimately productive level. (This is the so-called 54% protection level an abundance 54% of that before any harvesting took place.) And populations would need to be reduced to well below that level before any real concerns about possible extinction might arise.HOW DOES THIS LEVEL OF RISK COMPARE TO THAT ACCEPTED IN HARVESTING some other OF THE WORLDS oceanic RESOURCES?If this criterion (no more than a 5% chance that the population is below 54% of its pre-exploitation size for harvesting to be allowed) were utilize to the rest of the worlds fisheries, nearly all would have to be closed readyly. cancelled the northeast coast of the US and off western Europe, for example, harvesting continues from cod stocks which are below not just 50% of their pristine levels, but arguably less than as little as 10%. Even when allowing for biological differences between whales and fish, the low levels of risk some nations demand be met for harvesting the former, are totally inconsistent with the much higher levels which they are prepared to accept for exploiting their own stocks of the latter.ABORIGINAL WHALING ON THE BOWHEAD WHALE OFF ALASKAPresident Clintons statement made reference to the aboriginal whaling on bowheads in which native Alaskans engage. Some years ago, there was justifiable concern that these activities were putting this population at risk. However, the US has commendably invested considerable research effort towards addressing this problem, with results which show that there can now be no undecomposed scientific reservations that current levels of catch place the population under any real threat. Yet, were the RMP to be applied in this case, it is so risk averse that an immediate cessation of these whaling activities would be required.THE NMFS REVIEW OF THE RMPRecently, the US study maritime Fisheries Service commissioned an independent review of the RMP by a board of seven northwards American scientists. Their brief to assimilate and comment upon seven years of work by the IWC Scientific Committee (without having had any prior involvement therein) in the short space of five days was a scare off one. The panel concluded that the RMP as it stood could be used safely for a period of at most 20 years, but also recommended that some further computer simulation trials be carried out. However, it seems to me that all the particular(prenominal) extra trials which they recommend have effectively already been carried out and considered by the IWCs Scientific Committee. It is unclear from the panels create verbally report whether they were unaware of this, or did actually have some reservations about what had been done, which their report fails to elaborate. Obviously the panel should clarify this ambiguity expeditiously to the IWCs Scientific Committee.NORWAYS RESUMPTION OF COMMERCIAL WHALINGNorway has, of course, resumed commercial whaling on minke whales. This it is legally authorise to do, since it lodged an objection to the IWCs 1982 moratorium decision. I understand that the annual catch limit set by the Norwegians for their overall operation is within the limit which the RMP would specify, so that there are no scientific grounds to query that decision.However, I understand also that th e areal distribution of the catches permitted by Norway is not in accord with the provisions of the RMP, and I believe that legitimate questions can be directed at Norway on this point. Of course, such a aberrancy from the RMP does not necessarily mean that any real danger to the resource will eventuate. But if Norway does want to depart from the RMPs provisions, I believe that it has some scientific obligation to present the results of computer simulation trials to the IWCs Scientific Committee to demonstrate that such deviations as they might plan do indeed not involve undue long term risk.THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF INCREASED CONSUMPTION BY GROWING MARINE MAMMAL POPULATIONS ON COMMERCIAL FISH RESOURCESWhat of the concerns often expressed that increasing marine mammal populations will consume more fish and thus put fishing industries at risk? The counter line of business often made is that there is no scientific proof that this is so. But equally, there is no scientific proof that it isnt. The scientific methods which have been used in the past to address this question have been crude, and there has been a justifiable argument that basing management decisions (such as a marine mammal cull, for example) upon their results would be premature.Marine science can never, by its nature, prove something without some residual doubt. But methods are being improved, and cases may soon arise where the preponderance of indications that growing numbers of marine mammals will impact fisheries is so strong, that wakeless decisions will have to be faced to avoid the chance that important industries are put at risk. For example, growing fur seal herds off southern Africa are now more than 2 million strong. Their consumption of commercial species equates to the total catch by all the fishing industries in the area, and their continued growth may constitute a threat to the regions most valuable fishery for hake.IN CONCLUSIONTo conclude, let me return to President Clintons conce rn for science-based limits, and credible management and monitoring for potential commercial whaling. From the scientific side, the RMP has been more thoroughly researched and tested than any comparable marine resource management system worldwide. Its own fate for regular sighting surveys, as well as the regular review process associated with its implementation for any species and region, ensures adequate monitoring. It is so risk averse that the only real scientific basis for questioning its immediate implementation is that it is so conservative that it will waste much of a potential harvest. If the United States fails to disclose the RMP, is there any way that the US could then avoid the judgement of complete hypocrisy, unless it immediately hang not only the aboriginal whaling by Alaskans, but indeed closed every one of the countrys fisheries?