杏吧原创

Aberdeen

THE 39-nation International Whaling Commission faces a major test this
week now that its scientists say there are enough data on the number of minke
whales in the northeast Atlantic to set catch quotas.

Antiwhaling countries, including Britain, have relied in the past on doubts
over population figures to keep the current moratorium on commercial whaling in
place. Now that figures have been approved by IWC scientists, only concerns
about how commercial whaling will be regulated stand in the way of lifting the
moratorium. And if the ban is not soon ended, whaling nations may threaten to
leave the organisation.

The 120 members of the IWC鈥檚 scientific committee told the IWC鈥檚 annual
meeting in Aberdeen earlier this week that the northeast Atlantic supports an
estimated population of 118 299 minkes. Not only are the new figures much higher
than previous estimates, but the IWC鈥檚 scientists believe they are now
sufficiently reliable to be used in the 鈥渞evised management procedure鈥�, a
mathematical model designed to calculate catches that can be taken without
endangering whale populations.

The latest estimates are based on an extensive sighting survey carried out by
Norway last summer, under the scrutiny of international observers. The results
were handed over to a working group of nine scientists appointed by the IWC. The
group, which met in Oslo in January and April, was asked to convert the
sightings into a reliable population estimate for the northeast Atlantic.

The new figures suggest there are twice as many minkes in the northeast
Atlantic than was indicated by surveys conducted in 1989. 杏吧原创s on the
committee agree that this cannot be due to whale reproduction. 鈥淭here is quite a
high jump,鈥� says Julian Addison, a scientist with Britain鈥檚 Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 鈥淚t is most likely that the 1989 estimate was
too low.鈥�

The revised estimate is expected to plunge the IWC into crisis, because the
commission鈥檚 remit is to regulate whaling on a sustainable basis, following the
advice of its scientists. But Britain and several other nations have said that
they will oppose a resumption of commercial whaling under any
circumstances鈥攁 policy that might provoke Norway and other whaling nations
to leave the IWC (see 鈥淏lood on the water鈥�, New 杏吧原创, 22 June, p
12).

Already, the new population estimates have caused angry scenes in the
scientific committee鈥攗sually a more dignified forum than the main IWC
meeting.

When the scientific committee鈥檚 northeast Atlantic minke working group met in
April, all nine members endorsed the findings. But when the results were
discussed at the full scientific meeting, one working group member suddenly
raised objections. Justin Cooke, a scientist who attends the scientific
committee as a delegate of IUCN, the World Conservation Union, circulated a
paper criticising the working group for not running enough computer simulations
before calculating the population estimate. He reminded the scientific committee
that last year it had pledged 鈥渘ot to repeat its mistake of prematurely
accepting an abundance estimate鈥�.

Cooke鈥檚 intervention sparked a bitter row. The meeting was 鈥渁s nasty and
personal and vicious as anything I鈥檝e ever seen鈥�, says Mike Donoghue of New
Zealand鈥檚 Department of Conservation, who has been attending the IWC for more
than ten years.

Donoghue sees Cooke as a whistleblower who was attacked for raising
uncomfortable questions. But the majority of the committee argued that if Cooke
had objections he should have raised them earlier. Asked why he had not done so,
Cooke cited the psychological pressure of being in a 鈥渕inority of one鈥� at the
April working group meeting.

After spending eight times as long as planned discussing the northeast
Atlantic abundance issue, the committee decided Cooke鈥檚 points were minor. But
many scientists on the committee believe that the row has destroyed much of the
goodwill on which its work depends.

This year鈥檚 events 鈥減oisoned the atmosphere鈥�, says Steve Reilly of the
Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California, chairman of the
scientific committee. 鈥淪ome members of the scientific committee said
categorically they would not do this kind of work again,鈥� says Phil Hammond of
the University of St Andrews.