The convention governing the International Whaling Commission (IWC)

chair Clinton, when announcing his decision last October to delay the effectuation of sanctions on Norway following that countrys recommencement of commercial whaling, stated the United States strong perpetration to science- based international solutions to global conservation problems.The convention governing the world-wide Whaling Commission (IWC) states similarly that its regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of monster resources sh wholly be based on scientific findings. tho 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 developing scientific picture that the Antarctic minke whale tribe, at least, could certainly sustain a peculiar(a) harvest. Whaling countries, angered by this decision which they considered to be without scientific justification, hit punt later in the 80s by making use of a planning in the IWC Convention which allowed them to i ssue permits to their nationals to gain more(prenominal) or less whales for the purpose of scientific research research is conducted as a part of these scientific whaling operations, still is that their primary purpose?Most recently at that place is the proposal for a whale sanctuary throughout the Southern Ocean a crystal clear attempt to prevent the resumption of whaling on the 3/4 virtuoso thousand million strong Antarctic minke community for reasons which obtain nothing to do with science. This has been come with by the unedifying spectacle of Western nations and conservation (or, more accurately, preservationist) groups desperately prying for some plausible surrogate scientific rationale with which to attempt to rationalize the proposal.These other reasons are discussed elsewhere in this volume. My brief is to address aspects of electric chair Clintons expressed concern at the absence of a credible, agreed management and monitor regime that would ensure that com mercial whaling is kept within a science-based limit.SUSTAINABLE UTILISATIONObviously such(prenominal) limits should be reconciled with sustainable utilisation but exactly what does that mean? The most piss analogy is that of a pensioner whose sole as isthmus is a big(p) sum invested in a bank. Sustainable utilisation for him means aliment off the annual concern without dipping into the ceiling. In other words, ingathering single the natural annual growth of a population, without depleting it to a low take where this growth is greatly rock-bottom.THE IWCS NEW way PROCEDUREIn the 1970s, in response to mounting public criticism following the substantial depletion of umteen whale populations by whaling conducted under its aegis, the IWC introduced the so-called New charge surgery (NMP). The underlying principles were fine essentially to get whale populations to and keep them at reasonably richly proportions of their size forward exploitation started, by ensuring that juggle limits set did not exceed sustainable aims.But the NMP proved impracticable in practice. Why? Not because in that location was any(prenominal)thing wrong with the concept, but because the NMP didnt go utmost 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 necessary to be stash away to do this, and how to take account of uncertainties.CALCULATING SUSTAINABLE YIELD levelSSo how can sustainable yield levels be calculated? For the pensioner, the process is saucer-eyed to evaluate how much interest pull up stakes become available annually, take aim the bank teller how much capital is in his account and what the interest rate is, and therefore just multiply the two together.So why isnt fisheries management equally easy? because the teller is unco- operative. All he entrust tell you, and lonesome(prenominal) once a year, is how much you have in your account, which he can get wrong by typically 20%. And he certainly wont tell you directly what the interest rate is.How do we then get the information needed to be able to manage this key multiplication to calculate the sustainable yield for whale populations? For the capital component, sight surveys are conducted from research vessels to determine the twists of whales. By the standards normally attainable in fisheries research, the results obtained are good (error margins of typically 20%). The backbreaking component is the interest rate. Basically some ( motorcareful) exploitation is needed to begin with this can be evaluated, because the calculation requires the information from a series of sighting surveys on how the size of the population changes in response to this harvesting.THE FUNDAMENTAL RISK-REWARD tradeoffThe bottom line then is that some trade-off is inevitable. If such sign harvests are kept too low, the possible productivity of the resource clay undiscovered. But if these catches are set to o large, thither is a high find of exposure that unintended heavy depletion may occur before this is established and corrective action can be taken.The goal of a unhazardous harvesting strategy is unattainable, for exactly the same reason that no car or aircraft can ever be make murderly fail-safe. Risk can be reduced (though never eliminated), but except at the expense of higher costs or correspondingly, slighter rewards in the form of smaller catches in resource utilisation terms.WHERE DOES THE COMPUTER recognize IN?The role of the computer is to calculate the sizes of the anticipated trade-offs mingled with risk and reward when harvesting whale populations. This is the basic function of the computer feigning trials used to test the IWC Scientific Committees proposed Revised Management functioning (RMP). valued information about these trade-offs allows a sensible choice to be made between the extremes of rapid extinction of the resource under unsustainable catch leve ls, and complete protection which forbids any harvesting ever.WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE AND THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO tiltERIES MANAGEMENT?How does such a Management Procedure approach differ from the usual methods used to regulate fisheries? in that respect catch limits are calculated conformationing to the real dress hat perceptions of the stance and productivity of the resource. But it is then not entirely clear how the closure 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(p) perceptions are in error, the trend in catches set over the long-term term must be such that the Procedure self-corrects before at that place is any substantial risk that the resource could be damaged. For example, it has been suggested that gl obal climatical change could result in a change in the surround which is deleterious for whale stocks. The RMP has already been 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(prenominal) a few percent per annum. so even relatively low levels of catch, if continued, can lead to problems unless there is up to(predicate) monitoring and an option for adjusting catch limits. In other words, the risk refer in harvesting whale populations can be evaluated sensibly only for a Procedure which is to be consistently applied for a number of decades.Thus, as in sport, a Management Procedure rents all the parties pertain agreeing the rules before the game is played (and sticking to them during it).IS THIS APPROACH BEING employ SUCCESSFULLY ELSEWHERE?This approach is not entirely new in fisheries. Ic eland has been presenting it in the management of its capelin fishery. Arising out of the IWCs initiative for whales, South Africa has presently come to base catch limit decisions for its major fisheries for hake, sardine and anchovy on the approach.WHAT SORT OF CATCH REGIME 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 about 0.5% of current population sizes. That would apply to stocks of species not greatly depleted 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 hence zero 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 pr ovide 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 train OF RISK DOES THE RMP CORRESPOND?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 possibly ones of a negligible size) would be taken from a population reduced to more than 10% to a lower place its most 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 beneath t hat level before any real concerns about possible extinction might arise.HOW DOES THIS LEVEL OF RISK COMPARE TO THAT ACCEPTED IN HARVESTING OTHER OF THE WORLDS maritime 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 applied to the rest of the worlds fisheries, approximately all would have to be closed immediately. Off the northeast swoop 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 throw for exploiting their own stocks of the latter.ABORIGINAL WHALING ON THE BOWHEAD WHALE OFF ALASKAPresident Clintons statement made refer ence to the aboriginal whaling on bowheads in which infixed 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 serious 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 antipathetic that an immediate flowing of these whaling activities would be required.THE NMFS REVIEW OF THE RMPRecently, the US National Marine Fisheries Service equip an independent revue of the RMP by a impanel of seven northeastward American scientists. Their brief to assimilate and comment upon seven years of recreate by the IWC Scientific Committee (without having had any prior involvement therein) in the short space of five days was a daunting one. The panel concluded that the RMP as it stood could be used safely for a period of at most 20 years, but also cheered that some get ahead computer simulation trials be carried out. However, it seems to me that all the specific extra trials which they recommend have effectively already been carried out and considered by the IWCs Scientific Committee. It is unclear from the panels written 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 authorize to do, since it lodged an objection to the IWCs 1982 moratorium decision. I image 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 q uery that decision.However, I understand also that the 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 order at Norway on this point. Of course, such a deviation from the RMP does not of necessity mean that any real danger to the resource will eventuate. But if Norway does wish to depart from the RMPs provisions, I believe that it has some scientific compact 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 expending BY GROWING MARINE MAMMAL POPULATIONS ON COMMERCIAL FISH RESOURCESWhat of the concerns often expressed that increasing marine mammal populations will go across more fish and thus put fishing industries at risk? The counter argument often made is that there is no scientific proof that this is so. But e qually, 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 hard decisions will have to be go about 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 have a threat to the regions most valuable fishery for hake.IN findingTo conclude, let me return to President Clintons concern 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 unavoidableness 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 endorse the RMP, is there any way that the US could then avoid the judgement of complete hypocrisy, unless it immediately suspended not only the aboriginal whaling by Alaskans, but indeed closed every one of the countrys fisheries?