skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The past several weeks have seen a considerable amount of media attention over the decision by Japan to curtail its annual Antarctic whale hunt ahead of schedule. This has been due in no small part to the actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in disrupting the Japanese whale fleet's activities through harassment and intervention. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has been dogging the Japanese fleet for many years while the island nation hunted whales under a "whale research" loophole in the regulations put forth by the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
I have gone on record as not being an advocate of the kind of attention-grabbing, eco-terrorist techniques employed by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. I believe that it polarizes the opposing parties and does not pave a way for reasonable negotiations - which, like it or not, is where the necessary economic and regulatory change comes about. But credit where credit is due. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's efforts this season, while not as dramatic as in past seasons (with rammed ships, arrests, and calls for international prosecution), succeeded in reducing Japan's catch this year from an anticipated 850 minke whales and 50 fin whales to just 170 and 2, respectively. The Society deserves a hardy pat on the back.
The big question is: What next?
What will be Japan's strategy for 2012? This is a nation whose government and whaling industry is smarting and feeling very defensive over their cultural predilection toward whaling (indeed, toward commercial fishing in general) and their sense of national pride and indignation regarding verbal (and in the case of Sea Shepherd, physical) intervention from foreigners. One mustn't think that, based on this year's curtailed whaling season, Japan will be willing to throw in the towel.
However, there are several social and economic factors at work that may be pressuring the governing forces in Japan to begin to re-evaluate their position regarding whaling. In a recent article in Inter Press Service (IPS), Suvendrini Kakuchi reported,
"Despite campaigns to increase the sale of whale meat from minke whales, the local market has reported a reduction of 30 percent in 2010, according to the Tokyo-based Minato Newspaper quoting the publicly funded whaling company Koyodo Senpaku.
Whale meat is popular among older consumers in the sixties and above whose diet soon after World War II relied on whale as a protein.
But a 2008 September survey conducted by an independent organization under a request by Greenpeace Japan conservationists indicates that 70 percent of people between the ages of 15 to 39 years have not eaten whale meat.
The Japanese media has reported that 4,000 tonnes of excess whale meat was frozen and stored in warehouses in 2009."
Japan's government and regulatory agencies are inclined to maintain the cultural and historical status quo, but as younger generations begin to view whale consumption differently from generations past, that is producing some harsh economic realities that the industry will need to confront.
This provides a window of opportunity for delicate, non-combative diplomacy exercised by conservation groups, international agencies and individual countries. These forces have an opportunity to discuss with Japan the merits of sustainability, tighter fishery (and whaling) management, and perhaps work together on economic issues like shifting more resources towards developing, say, more environmentally efficient aquaculture.
Make no mistake, there is a tremendous opportunity here and there are even forces within Japan that are pressuring for a change. Some local governments are looking into establishing restricted or limited fishing as a means of maintaining sustainability of both the industry and marine species.
"The decision to call back the Japanese whaling fleet is based on low whale meat consumption locally, and other evidence that shows the industry is not sustainable," Prof. Toshio Katsura, marine biologist at Mie University told IPS.
But our response now must be a judicious one. Japan's whaling industry has sustained a serious blow this season and rather than gloat, we must carefully negotiate with the country's old guard, who are still very much in power both politically and commercially, to find ways to save face and set a new course in marine resource management.
Read the IPS article on Japan's whaling policy.
The nation of Japan's cultural heritage behind seafood and its reliance on this natural resource to feed its people runs very, very deep. Combine that with the nationalistic pride that exists amongst the government and industrial institutions, along with the attitudes of a large segment of the population who know what it's like to be an island nation that has had to fend for itself for centuries, and it makes it easier to understand their intransigence when outside nations, particularly from the west, demand they change their ways for the sake of conservation of particular marine species.
Western civilization actually has a somewhat limited seafood menu pallet compared to Japan. What you'll find on the menu in a seafood restaurant on San Francisco's Fishermen's Wharf pales in comparison to what you'll find in a Japanese fish market. Historically, for Japan, marine species = seafood = survival. So, when strident conservation groups come in wagging a finger and demanding a complete cessation without any quid pro quo, based on a perceived higher moral authority on conservation grounds, the recalcitrance or outright defiance by the Japanese people should not necessarily come as any surprise.
An article that ran this past Friday in the Guardian, illustrated the industrial effectiveness of the harbor city of Kesennuma, Japan. In Kesennuma, shark fishing is a major activity, along with fishing for swordfish and tuna. The article highlighted not only the active commercial fishing taking place in this port city but also the protective attitude of the people in keeping their activities off the radar of prying western eyes.
Two leading pro-shark blogs, SharkDivers' and Da Shark, picked up on the story and wrote insightful posts, both noting the importance of viewing the situation from the other person's perspective, in this case, the Japanese. This is the essence of diplomacy: you can only attain your goals if you can show the other side that it is also in their best interests. And when the emotional furor of a conservation issue finally elevates itself to the international arena, then the game subtly shifts from conservation of a species (which still remains an underlying cause) to economic and cultural sustainability. This occurs whether it's a small Pacific island community or an industrial nation like Japan.
When I speak to U.S. audiences on shark conservation, I find that for the most part, the people I am speaking to have not had any shark products, except maybe for an occasional shark steak. They see the pictures of shark finning and are appalled, particularly when the fishermen dump the shark carcass overboard in favor of retaining only the fins. The audience's dander is now definitely up.
Then I ask them, "Have you ever toured a cattle processing plant? Or how about a poultry farm?" If they did, it wouldn't surprise me that it produces a few new vegetarians. Then, to put the cultural aspect in some sort of perspective, I ask them what their reaction would be if Mrs. Paul's brand of fish sticks were to change from cod to haddock. Typically, the reaction is one of "no big deal." Now, let's say instead, turkey is officially banned; no more big basted bird on the traditional Thanksgiving Day table. Their cultural heritage is now being infringed upon, and that's when they begin to get an idea as to the challenge before us.
Non-combative international diplomacy will continue to emphasize that conservation is in the best interests of Japan and all other Asian countries where seafood consumption has been a long-established foundation of their diets. Both sustainability of the species and their industrial economy will depend on long-term planning, initiated by some pressing and game-changing short term measures. Investing in improved, ecologically-sound aquaculture techniques could be the quid pro quo that could reinvent their commercial fishing industry before it collapses from a loss of species - a disastrous result which neither benefits mankind or the planet.
Read about Kesennuma in the Guardian.co.uk.
Read SharkDivers' post on the subject.
Read Da Shark's post on the subject.
The shark fin trade is not only a very lucrative business due to the high demand in Asian markets for shark fin products, it can also be a very dangerous one. This was a lesson intimately learned by U.K. celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay will filming a segment in Costa Rica for the U.K. television series The Big Fish Fight, which advocates sustainable fishing practices.
Chef Ramsay was in Costa Rica to document the extent of the shark fin trade and he certainly got an eyeful when he and his camera crew approached a shark fin processing operation. To say the least, he was not met with open arms as he and his crew were threatened by fisherman out to protect their illegal catches. The scene was akin to Mexican drug labs and the armed guards that protect them.
Reported in The Telegraph, Ramsay recalled, "These gangs operate from places that are like forts, with barbed-wire perimeters and gun towers. At one, I managed to shake off the people who were keeping us away, ran up some stairs to a rooftop and looked down to see thousands and thousands of fins, drying on rooftops as far as the eye could see. When I got back downstairs they tipped a barrel of petrol over me. Then these cars with blacked out windows suddenly appeared from nowhere, trying to block us in. We dived into the car and peeled off."Eventually, Ramsay was able to talk his way on board one of the fishing boats and he later found that the boat was carrying illegally-taken shark fins, which caused another commotion.
"There were people pointing rifles at us to stop us filming," said Ramsay. "A van pulled up and these seedy characters made us stand against the wall. The police came and advised us to leave the country. They said 'if you set one foot in there, they'll shoot you'."
While Costa Rica has been lauded in some circles for its ecological and conservation efforts, there is a festering weakness in its efforts due to the unregulated and illegal shark finning activities that take place there. The fact that the police are aware of these activities but choose to do nothing is an indication as to the power and influence that these groups, who have been labeled by some as an Asian "shark fin mafia", have over the Costa Rican government and its law enforcement branches.
When talking with my shark advocate colleagues, I will often propose that shark conservation must enter a new phase, a new level of strategic sophistication to combat the forces that are depleting the world of sharks. With a multi-billion dollar industry at stake, the barbarous cruelty and waste of shark finning means nothing to these people. The importance of sharks as anything else than a revenue stream is of no consequence to them. It will take strong political pressure from nations sympathetic to sharks and the important ecological role they play to try to force the hand of apathetic countries who provide safe harbor for these criminals. But it won't be easy, not when guns and corruption are involved.
We can pursue trying to influence the Asian populace and stifle the demand for shark fin products. But with continued economic growth and expanding consumerism in those markets, it's almost an insurmountable task; the war is not lost, but it's a helluva a battle. Shark conservation needs to consolidate its efforts towards strategies that encourage hardball international diplomacy. The shark fin industry is ecologically unconscionable, but - like drugs, child pornography, and slavery - it's equally as vicious.
Read about Gordon Ramsay's encounter in The Telegraph.
Read more in Ramsay's encounter in Delish.com.
My thanks to my daughter, Dr. Sherrilynn Theiss, for bringing this news item to my attention.
There has been much attention surrounding WikiLeaks and the emails, cables, and diplomatic dispatches it has somehow acquired, many of which having been released to the public amidst great consternation - and some embarrassment - from various governments.
The WikiLeaks scandal is now making its way into the conservation movement with the release of documents claiming to show some backroom diplomatic wrangling going on between Japan, Australia, and the United States regarding Japan's continued whaling under the guise of "scientific research" - a loophole that was written into the International Whaling Commission's ban on whaling. Through that loophole, Japan has been taking approximately 500 whales seasonally.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal and the Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) website, in 2009, Japanese government officials were suggesting a willingness to considered curtailing their scientific research whale hunts in exchange for a lifting of the whaling moratorium and allowing a limited catch in their territorial waters. Apparently officials in the U.S. and Australia, while expressing their public support for the whaling ban, were at least willing to discuss the Japanese proposal.The ABC reported, "Australia's Opposition party environment spokesman Greg Hunt says the Government's position on whaling has been exposed as a sham. 'The labor Government was saying one thing to the Australian people and another thing behind the scenes,' he said."Also, playing into all this international horse wrangling were the efforts of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a constant irritant to the Japanese government due to their eco-terrorist techniques to attempt to disrupt Japanese whaling. According to the leaked documents, Japan was pressing the U.S. to take action against the U.S.-based radical organization, perhaps by depriving the NGO of its non-profit tax status.
The ABC reported, "The cables reveal the US envoy to the International Whaling Commission, Monica Medina, held talks with the head of Japan's fisheries agency, Katsuhiro Machida, in late 2009. The two sides discussed the possibility of revoking the tax-exempt status of the US-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society."
There are many conservationists who do not prescribe eco-terrorism as a solution as it can endanger lives and alienate governments beyond any hope of negotiation or change. The actions of the Japanese are an example of this. In 2009, they apparently were willing to discuss eliminating the "scientific research" whaling (I believe they realized that world opinion was opposed to that sham) but, in exchange, they wished to continue hunting in some limited fashion. However, any agreement would have depended on putting a stop to Sea Shepherd.
The WikiLeaks revelations, I am sure, will simply embolden the Sea Shepherd Society. It's founder, Capt. Paul Watson, was quoted, "These governments play games with each other all the time, they say things they don't mean, they make deals that they don't honor. There's no honor amongst thieves and politicians are the biggest thieves of the lot."
All of these diplomatic machinations took place before the June, 2010 annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). At that meeting, nothing was resolved, though U.S. State Department officials were pressing the U.S. negotiators at the meeting to get some sort of concession from Japan regarding reducing the size of their catch. A proposal to Japan to allow limited hunting within its own territorial waters may surface at the next IWC meeting in 2011.
Here is the dilemma of international diplomacy and conservation: international organizations like IWC, CITES, and the United Nation's various environmental and ecological offshoots are necessary in adopting worldwide policies to protect natural resources and biodiversity - regional or local efforts alone are not enough. But the art of diplomacy is pain-stakingly slow and the level of compromise that is sometimes required can, in the end, prove to be of limited or no benefit to nature. As individuals, we must keep the pressure on our elected officials and appointed representatives to ensure that they do not trade the health of the planet for the sake of diplomatic progress.
Read the Wall Street Journal article.
Read the Australian Broadcast Corporation article.
International organizations that actually have the power to regulate commercial activities for the benefit of ecological or conservation interests generally do so in incremental steps. The political and economic implications of their actions on behalf of the environment or endangered species can often dull the force of progressive policy proposals, and this can be a source of great frustrations to many conservationists. It's a tough and often frustrating arena to work in and if you don't have the stomach or the patience for it, it's best to steer clear and focus on regional or national initiatives - you'll probably lead a more stress-free life.
The International Commission on Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) is a worldwide group of some 48 parties (including the European Union) which meets annually to consider commercial quotas and conservation regulations for tuna, billfish, and sharks. This year, ICCAT entertained six different proposals regarding the taking of several species of shark. The end result was a mixed bag of significant progress, a few exemptions or loopholes retained, and some proposals going nowhere. Many of the proposals revolved around oceanic whitetip, porpeagle, hammerhead, mako, and thresher sharks - all listed as either globally endangered or vulnerable to extinction by the IUCN (International Unions for Conservation of Nature).
The Good News:
- The ICCAT agreed to prohibit retention of oceanic whitetip sharks (a fancy way of saying catching oceanic whitetips is no longer allowed by ICCAT-participating countries).
- The exploitation (taking of) hammerhead sharks was restricted. There is an exemption though, which is listed in The Bad News below.
- ICCAT agreed to establish a process for penalizing countries who do not accurately report shark catches. Unreported shark catches is considered a major international problem by many conservation groups.
- A reduction of fishing pressure on shortfin makos, with prohibition penalties for parties that do not accurately report catches, was agreed to. But there's a caveat (see below).
The Bad News:
- A proposal to prohibit retention of porbeagle sharks failed because of a lack of consensus from the EU, primarily due to resistance from Canada.
- Exemption to the hammerhead shark restriction: developing coastal states can catch hammerheads for food but must ensure that they do not enter the international trade.
- Due to objections from Japan, Korea, and China, the restrictions on shortfin mako sharks will not begin until 2013.
- For the second year in a row, a proposal to ban removal of shark fins at sea was tabled, with Japan opposing the ban. Many countries have or are in the process of initiating this ban within their territorial waters. But in international waters, it's shark finning as usual.
Pro-shark organizations, like Shark Advocates International (SAI), that patiently work with the ICCAT, are pleased with the good news but stand firm that more needs to be done. According to Sonja Fordham, president of SAI, "ICCAT has taken significant steps toward safeguarding sharks this week, but much more must be done to effectively conserve this highly vulnerable species. We urge ICCAT Parties to promptly implement the shark measures agreed this week and to build upon this progress by proposing complementary international safeguards for other oceans and additional shark protections at next year's ICCAT meeting."
ICCAT is one of a few worldwide bodies where international conservation policies and regulations can get hammered out. But in the world of international diplomacy, it can get ugly, with economic, political, and ecological interest groups maneuvering to exert influence. Think of it as diplomatic kickboxing - but it's the sharks that are taking all the blows.
Read PR Newswire press release.
Several weeks ago, the Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP15) concluded and the dust from all the commotion, protests, political positioning has finally settled. And do you know what was settled? Do you know what the accord that will now be circulated amongst member nations actually proposes? Well, don't be shy. Many people don't, so you're in good company.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) assembled a very nice primer on the building blocks of a pre-conference anticipated agreement, in language we can all understand. The New Climate Deal: A Pocket Guide is a PDF download that reviews the key points, the reasons behind each one and the implications faced by developed and developing nations.
Wikipedia summarizes the final outcome, the actual Copenhagen Accord. Brazil, China, South Africa, and the United States drafted the non-binding document and it has received some strong criticism from other nations, criticism that runs the gamut from proclaiming the accord is unfair or punitive to the accord not being strong enough or doing enough to have any measurable impact on climate change.
Whatever its deficiencies, it's a start in the right direction. But, like the controversy being played out in the U.S. over healthcare reform, settling for a half-way measure may be worse than no measure at all. Yet having no measure at all would be equally disastrous. Climate change is probably the first truly unifying global issue facing mankind and a monumental test of international diplomacy, understanding, and compassion.
Click here to download a PDF of the WWF report.
Click here to view the Wikipedia summary of the Copenhagen Accord.
The end result of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (COP15) was an agreement hammered out by the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa and recognized, but yet to be voted on, by the remaining participating nations. While the agreement would seem to recognize the importance and impact of climate change, the specifics - or lack thereof - has left many, from governments to NGOs to scientists, wanting and disappointed. No specific percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, no guarantees for proposed financial support to underdeveloped countries currently dealing with the effects of climate change, in fact nothing is particularly binding in the agreement.
International strategy: the human element
So was it a wasted exercise? Well, not entirely. Certainly, going in expectations were incredibly high. As more and more research data slowly filters into the discussion (not fast or effectively enough, but more on that later) and as increased public awareness and media coverage puts more pressure on the decision-makers, meetings like COP15 place international diplomacy under a microscope and can give conservation strategists new insight as to what motivates international policy and how best to approach these political bodies in the future.
Since I was not in attendance at the conference, I can only comment on what I read and saw in the media. What struck me was the emphasis and subsequent turmoil over the human costs of climate change. Not that these are unimportant matters, but I think many were surprised that the emphasis seemed less on the actual degradation of the global environment and more on the impact in human terms: the polluters vs. those impacted, developed countries vs. poor or developing countries, and moral responsibility or blame equating to financial compensation. Those were the issues that seemed to take center stage or at least generated the most controversy (and a momentary walkout of delegates). It all seemed to say, "Damn the polar bears, the corals, and the weather - what about me?" And perhaps that is where we must realize that international policy will always be focused: on the human consequences; personally, politically, and economically.
I have mentioned this in other posts; talk about the human terms of climate climate change - how people are starving and dying right now, how water supplies and crop yields are declining right now, how the migration of peoples will threaten other nation's resources and security - and you can often get people's attention. In a similar vein, I am beginning to see shark and dolphin advocates place a greater emphasis on the human cost of consuming these ocean animals due to their high mercury content. Just wanting to protect shark and dolphins may not be enough; making people want to protect theses species because it will protect themselves may be the answer.
Making a difference at home
So, how can we influence international diplomacy? By tackling the issues right at home. When your community, state, or country can address the challenge of climate change - becoming more 
"green", developing alternative energy sources, substantially reducing C02 emissions (350ppm and below) - then you set a new benchmark; you show it can be done and a new tipping point looms on the horizon, a positive one that, by example, prods and propels the international community to collectively go beyond tentative measures.
Although COP15, according to Alden Meyers of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "clearly falls well short of what the public around the world was expecting . . .," the World Wildlife Fund declared, “on a more positive note, attention will now shift to a host of initiatives by countries, cities, companies and communities that are starting to build low carbon economies from the base up.”
Science: moving beyond the data
Working on my first white shark documentary and subsequently working with InMER.org in the Arctic Circle, I soon realized there is a lot of research taking place within the scientific community, with considerable amounts of data and detailed studies or papers being generated. But there the trail begins to thin. What is reaching the general public? What is being brought to the attention of the policymakers? Not enough.
As a filmmaker and former marketing communications executive, I appreciate the value of effective messages, of connecting with the masses to gain consensus. And this is why I am interested in working with scientific research organizations: media communications needs to be an integral part of the research discipline, right up there with hypotheses, methodology, and analysis; it must not end in a scientific journal destined for the academic hinterlands. With many of the environmental issues facing the planet, it has been said that science will provide the answers - but only if science can communicate effectively so as to moderate behavior and influence policy.
Understandably, media communications is not something that most scientists and researchers are comfortable or familiar with, but there are several strategic components to consider in developing an effective media communications plan. One key piece is the translation of detailed data and analysis into three sequential steps that the layperson can understand: issues, implications, and solutions.
What is the problem, what does it mean to me, and what can I do about it? When research can address these points and make a personal connection, the better the work will be absorbed and appreciated by a broader audience. And in today's world, with so many environmental and conservation issues looking to science for the answer, this is imperative.
There has been a lot of politics flying around the U.S. of late with considerable attention being placed on the healthcare reform debate. While complicated, it is an issue that the current administration would like to see resolved soon, as there is another strategic issue looming on the horizon that President Obama would like to address: climate change and the related issue of a national energy policy.
What's putting the pressure on the administration are several events coming up soon that will require the U.S. to take definitive steps and have concrete positions or policies. Without the proactive participation of the United States, there can be significant international implications that could hamper overall progress.
According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, President Obama is in need of shifting the national focus because, first, he has a major climate change speech scheduled at the United Nations tomorrow (Tuesday). Then he meets with the G-20 later in the week in Pittsburgh, where climate change and energy will be a major economic topic. Then there is a major international conference in Copenhagen in December, charged with developing an international agreement on how to deal with climate change. Should the U.S. not be properly focused on the issues at Copenhagen, it could be very disruptive to the conference's potential for success.
The administration is also having to tackle a related issue having to do with whether to allow oil drilling in the Arctic, which was first proposed by the Bush administration near the close of its term (300,000 signatures opposing the drilling along with support of over 400 scientists were delivered to the Department of the Interior today as part of a public comment period).
While there are many conservationists, ecologists, and environmentalists that all agree on the need for a sound strategy to deal with climate change and its related issues, it's not all quite so rosy throughout the international diplomatic community. Major industrial nations and 2nd/3rd world countries can have competing or conflicting interests or agendas, based on issues of cost, responsibility for emission levels, demand for economic development - either with new energy sources and power plants or with deforestation. Many countries recognize the problems but have different ideas as to what they can economically do about it.
It is a global issue and a complicated one in finding the necessary common ground or solutions to move forward effectively, to really make a difference. But it is one that can't be ignored, whether you believe that climate change is solely mankind's fault, part of a cyclical natural change, or a little of both.
Read L.A. Times article.
The past several weeks have seen a considerable amount of media attention over the decision by Japan to curtail its annual Antarctic whale hunt ahead of schedule. This has been due in no small part to the actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in disrupting the Japanese whale fleet's activities through harassment and intervention. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has been dogging the Japanese fleet for many years while the island nation hunted whales under a "whale research" loophole in the regulations put forth by the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
