DOCSLIB.ORG

Breaking Ranks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Breaking Ranks BREAKING RANKS Denmark goes it alone on whaling policy An analysis by Dr. Sandra Altherr and Jennifer Lonsdale A report commissioned by ABOUT THE AUTHORS GLOSSARY Sandra Altherr, biologist, co-founder of Pro ASW Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Wildlife. Has attended annual meetings of the International Whaling Commission EU European Union (IWC) as an observer since 1998. CITES Convention on International Trade Jennifer Lonsdale, co-founder and director in Endangered Species of Wild of the Environmental Investigation Agency. Fauna and Flora Has attended meetings of the International Whaling Commission as an observer since IWC International Whaling Commission 1987. JARPA Japanese Whale Research Program The Report was commissioned by under Special Permit in the SHIFTING VALUES, an agency based in Antarctic Vienna, Austria, working towards a shift of our values within species and JARPN Japanese Whale Research Program environmental conservation and animal under Special Permit in the protection efforts. western North Pacific JCNB The Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Shifting Values e.U. Beluga Scheidlstr. 45 A-1180 Vienna NAMMCO The North Atlantic Marine Austria Mammal Commission [email protected] www.shiftingvalues.com NGO Non-Governmental Organisation RMP Revised Management Procedure - the computer model by which catch limits for baleen whales would be calculated should commercial whaling be resumed RMS Revised Management Scheme - the scheme that would manage commercial whaling should it be resumed in the future . STCW Small-Type Coastal Whaling 2 CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2. INTRODUCTION 7 3. DENMARK'S BALANCING ACT BETWEEN ITS OVERSEAS TERRITORIES AND THE EU 9 3.1. Denmark and CITES 9 3.2. Declaration 25 vs. a Common Position by the European Union 9 4. INCONSISTENT POSITIONS BY DENMARK ON WHALING 12 4.1. Support for Commercial Whaling 12 4.1.1. Threatening the Moratorium on Commercial Whaling 12 4.1.2. 'Sustainable Use' versus EU legislation on whales 14 4.1.3. Sympathy for 'Scientific Whaling' 15 4.1.4. St. Kitts Declaration 16 4.1.5. CITES and International Trade in Whale Products 16 4.2. Blurring the Boundaries between ASW and Commercial Whaling 17 4.2.1. Support for Japan's 'Small Type Coastal Whaling' 17 4.2.2. Support for Norway's Whaling 18 4.2.3. Support for Iceland's Whaling 19 4.2.4. Humpback Whale Catch Quota for Greenland 19 4.3. Constraining Conservation 21 4.3.1. Conservation Committee 21 4.3.2. Opposition to new Whale Sanctuaries within the IWC 22 4.3.3. Transparency and Good Governance 22 4.3.4. Small Cetaceans 22 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 3 © Scott Portelli © Regina Asmutis-Silvia 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Within the European Union (EU) cetaceans decisions on Schedule Amendments at IWC (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are strictly meetings. Since then, Denmark has obstructed protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC 1 and complicated negotiations aimed at achieving (‘Habitats Directive’) and by Council Regulation this common position. No. 338/97 which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of This report reveals how Denmark's policies in Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 2. Any incidental three main areas are inconsistent with EU capture, killing and sale of cetaceans by EU directives, regulations, and agreements: Member States is prohibited. Therefore it could be assumed that all EU Member States work 1) Direct support for commercial whaling and together cooperatively with the aim of securing international trade in whale products; effective protection for cetacean species, including 2) Contributing to the blurring of the boundaries from direct hunting. It could also be assumed between Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling that EU Member States collectively play a (ASW) and commercial whaling, including leadership role in the conservation and welfare of supporting Japan's repeated requests for coastal cetaceans at the International Whaling commercial whaling under a proposed new Commission (IWC) and CITES. However, this is category of whaling; not the reality. 3) Reluctance to support proactive conservation initiatives, including those initiated by the The Danish Government is obliged to represent IWC Conservation Committee, and the the interests of Greenland and the Faroe Islands creation of new whale sanctuaries. in all international fora. Both are part of the Danish Kingdom but not members of the EU Denmark holds the EU Presidency from and both conduct non-commercial hunts for 1st January to 30th June 2012. Its position with cetaceans. This report demonstrates that Denmark respect to the IWC and the conservation and has gone beyond its responsibilities to these two welfare of cetaceans is of high importance, territories. It has consistently ignored its particularly as the 64th Annual Meeting of the responsibilities as a member of the EU; instead IWC takes place from 25th June to 6th July 2012. supporting commercial whaling initiatives and Although its Presidency ends two days before interests. the IWC's plenary meeting starts, it will continue to have a leadership role to play at In 2008, the European Commission required EU the meeting as the Presidency transitions to IWC members to agree a common position for Cyprus. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. 2 Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 of 9 December 1996. 5 The Council of the European Union Decision Accordingly, we for establishing a common position for the next three meetings of the IWC was adopted in 1. call on the Danish Government and the EU December 2011. This new common position Commission to ensure that Danish policy on includes a statement by the Government of whaling is firmly aligned with the principles Denmark that it will not be able to support the and provisions of the European Union Decision3. towards the protection of whales, dolphins and porpoises; A new government in Denmark was formed on 3rd October 2011, led by the Social Democrats. 2. call on the Danish Government to: It has appointed a new Commissioner to the - consult with the Member States of the EU IWC and there is some hope that Denmark's in a transparent manner and act in good position with respect to the conservation of faith to support and contribute to the whales, dolphins and porpoises (cetaceans) may IWC's procedures to better manage change. aboriginal whaling activities; - avoid future conflicts over related matters This report documents the position of by engaging constructively in timely Denmark at the IWC over the past two negotiations and preparations for IWC decades and demonstrates that it has acted meetings with EU Member States; predominantly in support of pro-commercial - actively support the IWC's work to whaling interests and initiatives, regardless of address threats to small cetaceans in their relevance to the interests of indigenous accordance with their strong protection whaling communities in Greenland. It also status under EU legislation; shows that by actively supporting commercial - actively work with the Government of the whaling, the Danish Government is ignoring Faroe Islands to fully implement CITES the views of the majority of Danish citizens legislation within the Faroese Islands; and its responsibility towards EU legislation, - oppose the resumption of commercial the IWC and CITES. whaling in all its forms. © Scott Portelli 3 EU Council, 12th December 2011, Interinstitutional file 2011/0221 (NLE) 6 © Rob Lott 2. INTRODUCTION All large cetaceans4 are subject to the provisions moratorium which it took when it rejoined the of two international conventions. In 1981, the IWC in 2002, despite having previously accepted Convention on International Trade in Endangered the moratorium. Species (CITES) banned international trade in products of great whales by listing these species on For two decades the IWC has been unable to CITES Appendix I 5. In 1982, the IWC agreed to a resolve differences between member countries ban on all commercial whaling. Commonly regarding whaling and the IWC's role. The pro- known as the moratorium, it was implemented in conservation member countries focus on 1986. These are two of the most important developing the work of the IWC to address the conservation decisions of the 20th century, but ever increasing environmental threats to cetaceans they are continuously undermined by three and the marine environment, on ensuring the commercial whaling nations: Norway, Iceland and moratorium on commercial whaling remains in Japan. place, and on providing for the proper and sustainable management of Aboriginal Subsistence The IWC issues catch limits for only two Whaling. Meanwhile the pro-whaling nations categories of whaling: relentlessly pressure the IWC to legitimise commercial whaling and blur the clear distinction 1. Commercial whaling between commercial whaling and Aboriginal 2. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) Subsistence Whaling. Commercial Whaling Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Commercial whaling catch limits are set at zero Under IWC regulations, Aboriginal Subsistence until such time as the moratorium is lifted. Despite Whaling catch limits are granted for specific this, three IWC member countries carry out indigenous communities whose nutritional, commercial whaling using loopholes in the IWC subsistence and cultural needs for whaling it has Convention, the International Convention for the recognised, namely Greenland, Chukotka in the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Japan classifies its Russian Federation, Alaska, and Bequia
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toxic Menu – Contamination of Whale Meat
    Toxic Menu Contamination of Whale Meat and Impact on Consumers’ Health ry, P rcu CB e a m n d n i D h D c i T . R wh at ale me A review by Dr. Sandra Altherr and Sigrid Lüber Baird‘s beaked whale, hunted and consumed in Japan, despite high burdens of PCB and mercury © Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) © 2009, 2012 (2nd edition) Title: Jana Rudnick (Pro Wildlife), Photo from EIA Text: Dr. Sandra Altherr (Pro Wildlife) and Sigrid Lüber (OceanCare) Pro Wildlife OceanCare Kidlerstr. 2, D-81371 Munich, Germany Oberdorfstr. 16, CH-8820 Wädenswil, Switzerland Phone: +49(089)81299-507 Phone: +41 (044) 78066-88 [email protected] [email protected] www.prowildlife.de www.oceancare.org Acknowledgements: The authors want to thank • Claire Bass (World Society for the Protection of Animals, UK) • Sakae Hemmi (Elsa Nature Conservancy, Japan) • Betina Johne (Pro Wildlife, Germany) • Clare Perry (Environmental Investigation Agency, UK) • Annelise Sorg (Canadian Marine Environment Protection Society, Canada) and other persons, who want to remain unnamed, for their helpful contribution of information, comments and photos. - 2 - Toxic Menu — Contamination of Whale Meat and Impact on Consumers’ Health Content 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Contaminants and pathogens in whales .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the EXPERT MEETING to DEVELOP TECHNICAL GUIDELINES to REDUCE BYCATCH of MARINE MAMMALS in CAPTURE FISHERIES
    FIAO/R1289 (En) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report ISSN 2070-6987 Report of the EXPERT MEETING TO DEVELOP TECHNICAL GUIDELINES TO REDUCE BYCATCH OF MARINE MAMMALS IN CAPTURE FISHERIES Rome, Italy, 17−19 September 2019 Cover illustration: Alberto Gennari (2019) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1289 FIAO/R1289 (En) Report of the EXPERT MEETING TO DEVELOP TECHNICAL GUIDELINES TO REDUCE BYCATCH OF MARINE MAMMALS IN CAPTURE FISHERIES Rome, Italy, 17–19 September 2019 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2020 Required citation: FAO. 2020. Report of the Expert Meeting to Develop Technical Guidelines to Reduce Bycatch of Marine Mammals in Capture Fisheries. Rome, Italy, 17–19 September 2019. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1289, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/CA7620EN The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN: 978-92-5-132150-8 ISSN: 2070-6987 (print) © FAO, 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Japan Supports Whaling
    An edited version of this paper has been accepted for publication in the Journal of International Wildlife and Policy WHY JAPAN SUPPORTS WHALING Keiko Hirata* 1. INTRODUCTION Japan is one of the few states in the world that adamantly supports whaling. For decades, Tokyo has steadfastly maintained its right to whale and has aggressively lobbied the International Whaling Commission (IWC) for a resumption of commercial whaling. Japan’s pro-whaling stance has invited strong international criticism from both environmental groups and Western governments, many of which view Tokyo as obstructing international efforts to protect whales. Why has Japan adhered to a pro-whaling policy that has brought the country international condemnation? Its defiant pro-whaling stance is not consistent with its internationally cooperative position on other environmental matters. For the past decade, Tokyo has been a key player in international environmental regimes, such as those to combat ozone depletion and global warming.1 If Japan is serious about environmental protection and desires to play a role as a ‘green contributor,’2 why hasn’t it embraced the anti-whaling norm, 3 thereby joining other states in wildlife protection and assuming a larger role in global environmental leadership? *Research Fellow, Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine, California, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. 1 Isao Miyaoka, 1980s and Early 1990s: Changing from an Eco-outlaw to a Green Contributor, 16 NEWSL. INST. SOC. SCI. U. TOKYO, 7-10 (1999). 2 Id. at 7. 3 Robert L. Friedheim, Introduction: The IWC as a Contested Regime, in TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE WHALING REGIME, 1-45 (Robert L.
    [Show full text]
  • Number 30 June 2005 ISSN 1192-3539
    Number 30 June 2005 ISSN 1192-3539 Editorial MAKAH TRIBE PURSUES RIGHT TO HUNT The Digest continues to provide news on whaling research to On February 14 2005, the Makah Indian tribe of Washington researchers and libraries in many countries, and we appreciate State filed an application with the National Oceanic and hearing from researchers regarding the work they are doing in Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requesting a waiver of diverse study areas. We aim to publish information on whaling the take moratorium under the Marine Mammal Protection Act research carried out in the social sciences, history, archeology for a ceremonial and subsistence harvest of up to 20 gray and law, and in other relevant fields (such as, e.g., the whales in any 5-year period. performing and graphic arts). A glance at this issue of the Digest indicates that research on whaling in diverse research The filing of this application is the result of a series of federal fields continues, published and communicated at whaling court rulings in a lawsuit filed by the Fund for Animals and the symposia and workshops, and that whaling and whale cultures Humane Society of the United States on January 10, 2002. The continue in various countries and provide opportunities today most recent court decision on June 7, 2004 left the Makah with for those wanting to study in situ whaling. Readers are two alternatives: (1) comply with the court decision by (a) reminded that the INWR Website, www.ualberta.ca/~inwr/ preparing a full environmental impact statement (EIS) and (b) contains further information on whaling and whaling research, seek either a permit or a permit waiver under the Marine and useful links to other whaling research websites Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for taking a quota of gray whales; or (2) appeal the court decision to the US Supreme LITTLE DIOMEDE ISLANDERS LAND SEASON’S Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Driven by Demand
    Driven By Demand Dolphin drive hunts in Japan and the involvement of the aquarium industry WDCS, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society April 2006 All information in this report may be reproduced for educational purposes provided written credit is given to WDCS. The report itself and photographs contained within it may not be reproduced without the prior written approval of WDCS. We have taken care to ensure the accuracy of information within this report. We are concerned about whale and dolphin hunts wherever they occur, and welcome comments, updates and new information. Please send information to: [email protected]. WDCS UK Brookfield House, 38 St. Paul Street, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN15 1LJ, U.K. Tel: +44 (0)1249 449 500, Fax: +44 (0)1249 449 501, www.wdcs.org WDCS North America 70 East Falmouth Hwy, East Falmouth, MA 02536, USA Tel: +1 508 548 8328, Fax: +1 508 457 1988, www.whales.org WDCS Germany WDCS, Altostr. 43, 81245 Munich, Germany Tel: +49 (0) 89 6100 2393, Fax: +49 (0) 89 6100 2394, www.wdcs-de.org WDCS Australasia WDCS, PO Box 720, Port Adelaide Business Centre, Port Adelaide, South Australia 5015, Australia Tel: 1300 360 442, Fax: 088 44 74 211, www.wdcs.org.au WDCS Argentina WDCS, Francisco Beiro 3731, (B1636CHM) - Olivos, Prov. Buenos Aires, Argentina Tel+Fax: +54 11 479 06 870, www.wdcs.org Acknowledgements This report was written by Courtney S.Vail and Denise Risch, and edited by Cathy Williamson. Japanese translation was provided by: Sakae Hemmi, Elsa Nature Conservancy. Our sincere thanks to Sakae Hemmi, Nanami Kurasawa, Sue Fisher, Mark Simmonds, Hardy Jones, Philippa Brakes, Clare Perry and Nicolas Entrup for their help in the production of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Artisanal Whaling in the Atlantic: a Comparative Study of Culture, Conflict, and Conservation in St
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2010 Artisanal whaling in the Atlantic: a comparative study of culture, conflict, and conservation in St. Vincent and the Faroe Islands Russell Fielding Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Fielding, Russell, "Artisanal whaling in the Atlantic: a comparative study of culture, conflict, and conservation in St. Vincent and the Faroe Islands" (2010). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 368. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/368 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. ARTISANAL WHALING IN THE ATLANTIC: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CULTURE, CONFLICT, AND CONSERVATION IN ST. VINCENT AND THE FAROE ISLANDS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Geography and Anthropology Russell Fielding B.S., University of Florida, 2000 M.A., University of Montana, 2005 December, 2010 Dedicated to my mother, who first took me to the sea and taught me to explore. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation has benefitted from the assistance, advice, inspiration, and effort of many people. Kent Mathewson, my advisor and major professor, provided the kind of leadership and direction under which I work best, offering guidance when necessary and allowing me to chart my own course when I was able.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the International Cachalot Assessment Research Planning Workshop, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 1-3 March 2005
    Report of the International Cachalot Assessment Research Planning Workshop, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 1-3 March 2005 October 2005 Tim D. Smith Randall R. Reeves John L. Bannister Editors U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Report of the International Cachalot Assessment Research Planning Workshop, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 1-3 March 2005 Tim D. Smith1, Randall R. Reeves2, and John L. Bannister3, Editors 1 National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA 2 Okapi Wildlife Associates, 27 Chandler Ln., Hudson, Quebec I0P 1H0, CANADA 3 The Western Australia Museum, Francis St., Perth, Western Australia 6000, AUSTRALIA October 2005 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-72 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (ret.), Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere National Marine Fisheries Service William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries The preparation of this document was supported jointly by the US Marine Mammal Commission and the US National Marine Fisheries Service. MMC support was through Grant No. 19Z007 to the University of New Hampshire, Professor A.A. Rosenberg and Affiliate Professor Tim D. Smith, Principal Investigators. NMFS support was through the Protected Species Branch of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. This document will initially be issued only online. It will be available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/online.htm It will be available in PDF format so that a paper copy can be easily printed out. It may subsequently be issued on paper as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Whaling in St. Vincent and the Grenadines
    HUMPBACK WHALING IN BEQUIA, ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES The IWC’s Failed Responsibility A report for the International Whaling Commission by the Animal Welfare Institute | June 2012 HUMPbacK WHALING INTRODUCTION Since the Caribbean nation of St Vincent and the Grenadines (hereafter SVG) joined the International Whaling Commission (IWC or Commission) IN BEQUIA, in 1981, whalers on the Grenadine island of Bequia are reported to have struck and landed twenty-nine humpback whales (Megaptera ST VINCENT AND novaeangliae) and struck and lost at least five more. While this constitutes a small removal from a population of whales estimated to number over THE GRENADINES 11,0001, it does not excuse the IWC’s three decades of inattention to many problems with the hunt, including the illegal killing of at least nine The IWC’s Failed Responsibility humpback whale calves. Humpback whaling in SVG commenced in 1875 as a primarily commercial activity. In the 1970s, the focus of the operation changed from whale oil for export to meat and blubber for domestic consumption and a small scale artisinal hunt continued in Bequia despite the IWC’s ban on hunting North Atlantic humpback whales. In 1987, the IWC accepted SVG’s assurances that the Bequian whaling operation would not outlast its last surviving harpooner and granted SVG an Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) quotai. Since then, the IWC has renewed SVG’s ‘temporary’ ASW quota six more times, including doubling it in 2002, two years after the harpooner died. With the exception of a handful of countries
    [Show full text]
  • Blueprint for U.S. Whale Conservation
    BLUEPRINT FOR U.S. WHALE CONSERVATION AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT International Fund for Animal Welfare 1350 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202.296.3860 Fax: 202.296.3802 Email: [email protected] www.ifaw.org/whaleblueprint 1 CONTENTS List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 3 Executive Summary 4 Whales and Whale Protection 6 Status of the World’s Whales 6 Why Save Whales? 7 International Agreements and Forums 10 U.S. Legislation 12 Threats to Whales 15 Commercial Whaling 16 Entanglement and Entrapment 21 Ship Strikes and Shipping Noise 27 Navy Sonar 36 Oil, Gas, and Other Industrial Development 40 Pollution 47 Cumulative Threats 53 Complete List of Recommendations 57 2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACCOBAMS Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and contiguous Atlantic Area ALWTRT Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships ATBA Area to be Avoided ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BOEM U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management CCAMLR Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora COLREGS International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea CWA Clean Water Act EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare ICRW International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling IMO International Maritime Organization IWC
    [Show full text]
  • TWENTY FIFTH MEETING of the COUNCIL 5 – 6 April 2017, Nuuk, Greenland
    NAMMCO/25/23 TWENTY FIFTH MEETING OF THE COUNCIL 5 – 6 April 2017, Nuuk, Greenland DOCUMENT 23 MARINE MAMMALS: A MULTIFACETED RESOURCE Submitted by: Planning Group for the Marine Mammals as Food Resources (MMFR) project Action requested: ▪ For information Background: This document has been developed by the Secretariat and it represents part I of the MMFR project. The document has been reviewed by the Planning Group. Marine Mammals: A multifaceted Resource © NAMMCO Greenlandic boy with dried humpback whale meat © F. Ugarte Marine Mammals: A multifaceted Resource 1. Why not consider Marine Mammals? 5 2. Marine Mammals, an Abundant and Logical Resource in the North 6 2.1 An abundant resource in a world of scarcity. 6 2.2 An abundant resource 7 2.2.1 Pinnipeds 7 2.2.2 Cetaceans 9 2.3 A highly valued and therefore carefully managed resource 9 2.3.1 Strict management of resources ensuring healthy stocks 9 2.3.2 A responsibly managed resource – welfare issues 13 3. Marine Mammals, a Green-Blue Resource 15 3.1 A natural Resource 15 3.2 A Resource in balance with the Environment 15 3.3 A Resource contributing to Blue Growth 17 4. Marine Mammals under Threat 18 4.1 A Changing Arctic as Background 19 4.2 Uncontrolled direct removals 19 4.2.1 Ship strikes 20 4.2.2 By-catch and entanglement 20 4.3 Insidious undercover anthropogenic stressors 20 4.3.1 The soft killers: contaminants and microplastics 20 4.3.2 Anthropogenic disturbances 21 4.4 Precautionary management needed and an appeal to join forces 22 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Number 32 June 2006 ISSN 1192-3539
    Number 32 June 2006 ISSN 1192-3539 EDITORIAL This month, the 58th Annual Meeting of the International soon as possible in accordance with advice from Norwegian Whaling Commission (IWC) convenes in St. Kitts and Nevis. It scientists. was during the 42nd IWC meeting held in Noordwijk, the Norwegian whalers will also be allowed to hunt minke whales Netherlands, in 1990 that a decision was taken to establish the in a larger part of the Jan Mayen area beginning in 2006, a International Network for Whaling Research. It was decided the measure requested by whalers following small catches in this network would produce a newsletter, organize conferences and region of the Greenland Sea in previous years; in 2005, only workshops on whaling topics, and seek to interest an academic five of the allowable catch of 145 animals in the Jan Mayen press in publishing books on whaling. The first INWR area were taken. Recent marketing campaigns and the conference was held in Winnipeg, Canada, on community- development of new products appear to have stimulated the based whaling in the northern regions, followed by others in demand for whale meat. Washington DC, Lake Tahoe (Nevada), Quebec City, Halifax (Canada), Bodø (Norway), and Berkeley (California). The Norway uses a model developed by the International Whaling INWR newsletter (INWR Digest No. 1) began publication in Commission (IWC) to calculate the annual minke quota. At October 1992, and continues to be mailed to individual present, Norwegian and international scientists are working to subscribers and libraries; it is also accessible on the INWR improve the model after preliminary analyses indicate that the website.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Issuing Annual Catch Limits To
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT For issuing annual catch limits to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission for a subsistence hunt on bowhead whales for the years 2019 and beyond May 2018 Prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service DOC | NOAA | NMFS This page intentionally left blank. Bowhead Whale DEIS | May 2018 ES-ii DOC | NOAA | NMFS Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Issuing Annual Catch Limits to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission for a Subsistence Hunt on Bowhead Whales for the Years 2019 and Beyond May 2018 Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection Responsible Official: John Henderschedt, Director Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection For Further Information Contact: Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection Attn: Carolyn Doherty National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East West Highway, Room 10711 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (301) 427-8385 Cooperating Agencies: Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Abstract: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to issue annual catch limits to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) to allow continuation of its subsistence hunt for bowhead whales from the Western Arctic stock from 2019 onward, under the Whaling Convention Act (WCA) and the Cooperative Agreement with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), and subject to International Whaling Commission (IWC)-set catch limits. Under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the IWC has adopted management principles for setting subsistence catch limits for the Western Arctic stock of bowhead whales based upon the needs of Native hunters in Alaskan villages and in Russian Federation villages along the Chukotka Peninsula, and may adopt catch limits for specific years.
    [Show full text]