10th May 2010

Comments on May 07 press release ‘If you really care about whale
conservation - give our proposal a fair reading’
In response to criticisms of their proposals, the Chair and Vice Chair of the IWC
issued a press release on 7th May asking for their proposals to be given ‘a fair
reading’. Unfortunately the press release further obscures the details of the deal in an
attempt to be more acceptable from a conservation perspective.

It is particularly unfortunate that the press release uses different wording to the
proposed Schedule text. These subtle differences would fundamentally alter the way
in which scientific advice is used to set catch limits. While the press release implies
catch limits set according to a strict and precautionary management procedure, the
proposed Schedule text leaves the most important aspects of what procedure is used
and how it would be applied, open to interpretation.

For example, the Chair's proposal refers to "the most recent versions of the Scientific
Committee's RMP". This could be interpreted to include the substantial changes
proposed by Norway to allow much higher catches. In contrast, the press release
states that the “Scientific Committee’s extremely conservative Revised Management
Procedure would be applied immediately where possible, and within the 10-year
period, where not.” This implies use of the currently agreed version of the RMP used
in the work of the Scientific Committee to date. The press release also gives a
reference link to the IWC website which describes the development of the RMP and
the choice of the most conservative option by the Commission.

The published RMP specifications require that RMP catch limits must be calculated
by the IWC Scientific Committee. Therefore, any numbers calculated by anyone else,
including the IWC Secretariat, are formally not in accordance with the RMP. There
are good reasons why the RMP was so drafted. The confusion over the Chairman’s
proposal and the various claims and counter-claims with respect to whether given
numbers are within RMP catch limits emphasises the importance of keeping to the
rule that the Scientific Committee is the authority to calculate RMP catch limits. This
would ensure that all calculations are transparent, documented, and verifiable, in
contrast to the various comparisons between numbers that are currently being made.

If the most conservative version of the RMP is used (as implied by the press release)
then the statements in the press release that “The catch levels for the North Atlantic
are below those that have been conservatively estimated to be safe by the RMP”
would not be true for minke whaling by Norway or for fin whaling by Iceland unless
more research is conducted.

The press release claims that “If the advice from the RMP is that the numbers should
be lowered during the period, they will be lowered” but the Chair’s text provides no
clear mechanism for reaching agreement on how the numbers should be lowered and
no mention is made in the press release that an amendment to the table of catch limits
would require support of a ¾ majority. The majority of the 88 member countries of
the IWC do not have sufficient scientific capacity with respect to cetaceans within
their own delegations to conduct the detailed assessments required to be able to judge
whether any proposed limits are sustainable or not. They rely on the Scientific
Committee for authoritative, transparent and impartial advice. Without the direct
involvement of the Scientific Committee, there is no level playing field among the
members and it is hard for the Commission to reach a democratic decision.

The press release claims other conservation benefits including addressing the threat
from bycatch. However the Chair’s proposal would allow a high level of catches from
minke whale populations in the North Pacific which are subject to very high levels of
bycatch. For the population of minke whales in the East Sea/Sea of Japan (the so-
called ‘J’ stock), the levels of bycatch alone are believed to be unsustainable.