WHALE OF A TALE — 2004

Trinidad & Tobago and the International Whaling Commission

WHALE OF A TALE

Trinidad & Tobago Sunday Express, 11 April 2004

Is Trinidad and Tobago preparing to join the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the international organisation that oversees the conservation of whales worldwide? If we do, indications are that we may join some Eastern Caribbean island states, Japan and Norway in the pro-whaling, "sustainable use" lobby.

The issue has arisen following a controversial regional symposium hosted by the T&T Government in March on the "Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources". It is claimed that the symposium was really a one-sided, prowhaling, Japanese-driven agenda of NonGovernmental Organisation (NGO) bashing.

Why would a non-whaling country like Trinidad and Tobago want to join the IWC, anyway?

MARK MEREDITH investigates a tale of whales, agendas and eco-imperialists, food sovereignty and the sustainable use of our living resources.

HOW DO YOU FEEL about whales? Do these behemoths of the deep, and their smaller relatives, arouse emotional or romantic responses inside you? Like the welfare of the ancient sea turtles, or fluy Canadian seal pups? If they do, would this emotion guide your decision-making as to whether they should be harvested? Or would science?

Few, if any, environmental debates arouse passions like the whaling issue.

The question as to whether the IWC's 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling should be lifted-following decades of decimation-is the most contentious aspect.

The IWC is accused by many of becoming a political football manipulated by both the pro-whaling (led by Japan, Norway, Iceland) and anti-whaling lobbies (led by the US, Australia, New Zealand and European countries). Each camp, says the other, has been packing the IWC with like-minded countries to vote their way.

A three-quarters majority vote is required for binding IWC decisions, such as ending the moratorium on commercial whaling. So far the anti-whaling lobby has kept the moratorium in place. However, Japan and Norway, say their critics, openly flout the moratorium under the guise of "scientific research" that allows whales to be hunted for such a purpose. Japan is accused of killing whales to perform a biopsy then selling the meat at inflated prices on the open market back home, stocking Japanese restaurants.

In recent years, some Caribbean islands have been at the centre of a row concerning the alleged buying of votes at the IWC. They are accused of accepting millions of dollars in Japanese fisheries aid in return for voting with Japan and Norway on the IWC.

Six Eastern Caribbean states, (Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and St Kitts and Nevis) voted with Japan in 2000 at the IWC meeting in Adelaide, blocking a move to create a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific.

Dominica's decision led to the resignation of environment minister Atherton Martin in protest.

The pro-whaling, "sustainable use" camp have a mortal enemy, the NGO Greenpeace.

Trinidad and Tobago is listed on a Greenpeace website page that details voting patterns of member IWC countries as "possibly being recruited by Japan to join IWC in return for development assistance".

The Japanese Government website details relations with foreign countries including Trinidad and Tobago. Under the heading "Japan's Economic Cooperation: List of Grant Aid-Exchange of Notes in Fiscal Year 2002" are these figures for T&T: -Grants: 39 million yen (TT$ 2,347,800) -Technical cooperation: 1,776 million yen (TT$106 million approx).

Mr Fleming, in the economic section of the Japanese embassy, couldn't confirm the figures, but told me that aid was used for fisheries-related activities.

Japan funds the Caribbean Fisheries Training Centre in Chaguaramas.

I was directed to talk to Counsellor Tsurita about whaling and aid issues.

Was the figure accurate and was it typical for any given year? Tsurita thought the figure was wrong but couldn't give an exact figure. After checking he estimated that 100 million yen a year over several years might be a more accurate average. Aid took the form of technical assistance for fisheries and fisheries training, including sending people to Japan.

Tsurita explained that Japan supports sustainable use of marine resources, especially being an island nation. He couldn't comment on whether T&T aid was tied in any way to a policy position regarding the IWC.

"My personal opinion is that if Trinidad and Tobago wants to join the IWC they would be very welcome."

The "Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources" (marine and wildlife resources) symposium was funded by ECCO, the Eastern Caribbean Cetacean Commission, themselves funded and trained by Japan.

Official governmental delegations came from Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts and Nevis and Suriname. There was a contingent of Japanese "technical people", but they did not contribute to the proceedings.

Caribbean IWC members staunchly defended their pro-whaling position over the two days, saying those engaged in whaling are doing so on a sustainable basis.

St Lucia's Chief Fisheries Officer, Vaughn Charles, said: "We target cetaceans and we use them for the benefit of our coastal communities on a sustainable basis."

Whale watching was deemed an impracticable alternative to generate income as it cost too much for poor coastal communities, up to US$100,000, to purchase the necessary boats.

Larger Caribbean territories such as Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago were urged to join the IWC so that they could have a say in the decision-making processes that affected our regional renewable resources.

However, Ann-Marie Jobity, the T&T Director of Fisheries, delivered a speech saying it was not T&T policy to join the IWC: "For Caribbean countries, it may be argued the focus of whaling is not food security or to satisfy nutritional needs, and only in a few cases is it cultural. Seven CARICOM states are members of the IWC. Donor funding, in particular to the fisheries sector, is linked to this membership and support of a particular position. Aid from proponents for the resumption of commercial whaling may many times compel a country to make decisions that are not in their national interest.

"Trinidad and Tobago is not a whaling country and hence, at this time, we would be interested in the work of the IWC mainly from a conservation standpoint and the promotion of non-consumptive use. Membership of the IWC is therefore not considered a priority at this time. Membership can be revisited if this country has sufficient reason to be concerned that the IWC requires additional support in respect of achieving its mandate."

William Benjamin, adviser to T&T's Minister of Agriculture and Marine Resources (Jarette Narine) and Organising Chairman of the symposium, interjected.

Benjamin rebuked the Director of Fisheries: she was a public servant, she had no right to express her personal opinion, just to explain Government policy. And what she said was not policy.

It has emerged that Cabinet had given approval for participation in a new project, recommended by the Fisheries Division. It is called the "Scientific basis for ecosystembased management in the Lesser Antilles including interactions with marine mammals and other top predators".

A senior Fisheries source told me the project would be executed by the United Nations FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), but that there was no budgetary allocation from Government. Funding would come from Japan. It will involve the technical expertise of the Fisheries Division in sampling methods and modelling approaches. The project will include survey cruises to determine the abundance of marine mammals in our waters.

Benjamin indicated government thinking at the end of the symposium in his closing remarks to the assembled delegates. He received loud applause.

"I recognise the newness of the issues, the new knowledge you have brought to bear. We did not realise the role these resources played in our development, and how these issues could be manipulated by institutions to control our lives and keep us in abject poverty. So now we understand we can develop strategies to allow for our development. From this point there will be no turning back.

"My Minister has told me that from tomorrow morning we are going to take steps to be in a position to participate in international decision-making with respect to use of renewable resources."

What was the knowledge that was brought to bear? How were we being manipulated and kept in abject poverty?

I interviewed Benjamin in his St Clair office.

I asked about the apparent differences in opinion between him and his Director of Fisheries, Jobity.

"She has her own policy on whaling," he said.

She is your technical director who presented something prepared by her technical staff.

"The technical staff of the ministry are supposed to carry out government policy. She came to the conference and she was the person who started with this anti-whaling this, and whaling that."

This is your Director of Fisheries you are talking about.

"Yes. I intervened and said no, these are your personal opinions. I said that because I knew Cabinet took a decision to involve what we call the ecosystem approach to the management of our fisheries, the study of all species. We look at the total ecosystem. We have to look at the top predators and the last organism in the food chain."

Does the government believe in the resumption of commercial whaling, and do you think we should be involved in it? I asked.

"Decisions concerning the utilisation of our marine resources should be based on sound scientific information. If the information indicates commercial whaling will be resumed, then let it be. This is food for some people."

Very few, surely.

"No, that's not true. Look at the people of South East Asia, the Japanese, the Taiwanese.

They are people too. Their culture is to consume all types of marine resource.

"Very few of us in the Caribbean utilise whale meat as food, but those who choose to do that, if it's their culture, they must be free to do so, once the resources placed here by God can be used in a sustainable manner.

"These decisions cannot be based on your emotions, or the Director of Fisheries' emotions," he continued. "They must be based on the scientific evidence. That was one objective of the symposium. Science and technology must inform decisions we make and not the emotions of other people prodding you.

"You know what prompted this symposium? The utilisation of our resources, partiularly food security."

Isn't over-fishing and marine pollution a greater threat to fish stocks than whales? I argued.

"You cannot just sit there and say these are far greater threats. When you bring the evidence to the table we can analyse it," he countered.

"Those are valid arguments, but people have been going overboard in an unscientific way.

People will tell you some species are endangered when in fact they are not. These people have an agenda. They are not forthcoming with the truth; the argument is very skewed to support the agenda of choice.

"People are saying we must not use our resources at all. Protectionism against conservation. Thirty years ago, the same people who banned whaling were decimating the whale population of the world to supply factories with oil and grease and to put light in street lamps. Then they discovered petroleum, they decide, okay, let us put the ban on whales. They telling Third World people not to use these resources as food. They were concerned about their Industrial Revolution."

Aren't we going rather a long way back into history?

"Mr Meredith, we here to talk about that fact that the same people who decimated the whale, put the ban on whale oblivious to those people who use those resources as food.

After 20 years the IWC has become a political instrument, and it is telling the world that the whale population is still endangered. Other researchers are telling us no, that some species of whales are recovered and allow for sustainable use."

Do we need whaling in the Caribbean?

"It's a big open sea; an environment that have all the marine resources in there. If we are to manage our fisheries in a sustainable manner then we have to take into account the impact of the whales on our fisheries.

"The Government of Trinidad and Tobago, and the Cabinet, has taken a decision to investigate that. We must investigate the impacts of whales on our fisheries resources."

How much fish are whales eating?

"The information will come when it come."

Are you going to make a decision on joining the IWC before the IWC annual meeting in July?

"I don't make that decision."

You are adviser to the Minister. I thought you might know.

"The Minister doesn't make decisions, Cabinet does."

Is it correct to say there's no chance of the Government signing up to the IWC before proper studies are made on the impacts of whales on our fisheries?

"Cabinet could decide maybe they already have enough information."

Do we have enough information?

"I don't know. Maybe. Since I know that whales would impact on our fisheries populationcould impact-once the population is large enough. Since it is well recognised that the IWC makes decisions that impact our fisheries and the food security of many Third World countries, then perhaps we as a country would want to participate in that decisionmaking. It would probably not aect us, our food security, but other Third World brothers and sisters. We must be concerned at their welfare and be there to support them."

So the view is definitely to join the IWC...?

Interrupting: "And all other organisations that take decisions with respect to the utilisation of marine resources.

PART 2

NGO’S COME IN FOR BLOWS Monday, April 12th 2004

MARK MEREDITH continues his examination of why Trinidad and Tobago may be wanting to join the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Yesterday, in the Sunday Express, he reported on an interview with William Benjamin, the adviser to the Minister of Agriculture, and on a recent symposium at which whaling was discussed. In today's conclusion of his report, he explains what upset the non-governmental organisations at the symposium.

SOME local NGOs expressed "outrage" at comments made at the Sustainable Use Symposium, especially at what they said was the "general slandering of NGOs". Dr Owen Day, a director of the Tobago-based NGO the Buccoo Reef Trust, said: "Unlike its stated aim, the meeting dealt primarily with whaling and the threats from NGOs and ecoimperialism. The presentations were in my opinion very biased and there were very few representatives from the private sector, academia and NGOs.

"While the issue of sustainable whaling in the Caribbean deserves proper debate with informed scientists, these scientists were not there. Dr Robin Mahon-probably the leading fisheries scientist in the region-was not even aware of the meeting. Day noted that President George Maxwell Richards "gave an excellent feature address in the opening ceremony, stressing the need for sustainable development and the importance of civil society, CBOs and NGOs in the formulation of regional solutions. He would have been very disappointed to know the real agenda of this meeting".

His sentiments were echoed by a delegate at the conference from the T&T-based Caribbean Network for Integrated Rural Development (CNIRD), whose public comments followed two contentious presentations on the NGO movement.

"For those who have had ears to hear at this meeting it is quite evident what the real agenda has been. It is unfortunate that in the process of trying to satisfy that agenda we have been willing to put at risk the positive and productive relationship of both governments and NGOs in the Caribbean, which we have fought so hard for for years, working so hard to develop and establish.

"The amount of time we have spent NGO-bashing, could have been much better spent devising strategy or possible solutions."

So what upset the NGOs? The two final speeches of the conference were the last straw for some.

The first was by Alan MacNow, described as an international journalist and a consultant to the Japanese Fisheries Association in Tokyo. His topic was on sources of funding.

These are the excerpts relating to NGOs that took up much of his presentation.

...I said money is there from foundations and the UN agencies. Much of it is going to NGOs. If you look at what the NGOs are doing with it, some are doing a fine job, helping people, providing medicines and hospitals. "But others, I feel, are using the money for trivial purposes, and just to build their own incomes. Or, they use the money to fundraise-what they call awareness programmes. They claim raising money makes people aware of problems.

"In the case of sharks, they'll say, 'save the sharks/, and send out fund-raising letters to millions of people around the world and say this beautiful animal is being driven to extinction.' Incredibly, 50 per cent or more of the money that these fund-raising NGOs get is being used for further fund-raising-or to pay their travel expenses to various conferences. "At these meetings on the environment they stay in lovely places like Bangkok, Geneva-always seem to be high-priced places which are very attractive to the bright executives of the NGOs."

"A recent poll of African schoolchildren found that 60 per cent wanted to be NGOs. Well, of course, it's a lovely life, if you can aord, or if you can get other people's money to live well on. I don't want every NGO to take this as a slant because there are some very fine NGOs who have used money well and gotten good results. "But we should ask them, 'what kind of results are you getting for all this money you are collecting through grants and contributions? What are you actually doing? What actual results are you getting?'

"Those that can't show them say, 'well, it takes a long time. You need years and years of education in order to educate people'. Maybe. But the world is hungry now, they're sick now. We have to address these issues now, not wait years and years for education to change the world.

"Enough lecturing. My friend McIntyre Douglas is going to do more of that when he gets up." He did. His presentation was called "NGOs-Who drives the NGOs and Why?"

McIntyre Douglas was adviser to the late Dominica prime minister, Rosie Douglas, his brother. He was introduced as a "vibrant and vigilant pro-sustainable use activist".

Douglas prefaced his remarks by saying that because of the drive for profits in this world of multinationals, watchdogs were needed to keep tabs on environmental wrongdoers.

But that was as good as it got for the NGOs. The remainder was a vehement attack on the agendas of international NGOs like Greenpeace and The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), their alliances and data.

Special scorn was heaped upon the founder of Greenpeace, David Mactaggert, who was labelled as a failed real estate promoter who ran o leaving investors in the lurch.

"It is not diďŹƒcult to see how a worldwide movement like Greenpeace, with over 5 million members, could be ruthlessly manipulated by a maverick, idiosyncratic leader or leadership to remodel the world in his or its own image. We are in danger of ending up with a new world order, blighted by the warped vision of this new breed of cultural and economic, ecological imperialist," said Douglas.

I decided to get a viewpoint on whaling in the Caribbean from a notable absentee NGO at the symposium, the Caribbean Conservation Association. I spoke with Dr Joth Singh, the executive director.

Q: What is the CCA's view on Caribbean countries being targeted by Japanese aid in return for votes at the IWC? A: The principle of providing development aid in return for votes at the IWC is very wrong.

This mechanism for securing support has received widespread international criticism and ridicule. The Caribbean region receives aid from many developed countries who are against commercial whaling. These countries include Germany, UK, USA to name a few.

These countries have not tied their aid package to guaranteed support at IWC by beneficiary countries.

The reality is that if you tallied up the support received by Caribbean countries from these anti-commercial whaling countries you would recognise that it is several multiples of what is being provided by Japan. What would be the position of Caribbean countries if this aid was tied to votes at IWC?

Q: Does the CCA support the moratorium on commercial whaling? If so, why?

A: The CCA absolutely supports the moratorium on commercial whaling. The decision for the moratorium on commercial whaling was not one of choice but an imperative to prevent the wanton slaughter of whales to the point of extinction of some species. Prowhalers are anxious for the moratorium to be lifted. However, there is not enough scientific data to show that various whale stocks have recovered to be out of danger if the ban on commercial whaling is lifted.

Furthermore, the CCA believes that non-whaling activities, such as whale watching, are proving to be much more lucrative in the Caribbean, where tourism is important to the mainstay of the economies of many of the region's nations.

Q: Is there an economic case to be made for whaling in the Caribbean region?

A: Commercial whaling has never been practised in the Caribbean. There is no evidence which supports whaling being a commercially viable venture in the Caribbean. Indeed, it is our sense that engaging in commercial whaling in the Caribbean could have very negative impacts on the tourism sector which relies on the region's tranquil and natural beauty.

In other words, the opportunity cost of engaging in whaling as compared to non-whaling activities is tremendous and does not make good economic sense.

Q: What is your view on the contention that whales are swallowing up the fish stocks?

A: This argument that whales are consuming fish stocks and therefore they should be hunted and removed is preposterous. There is no scientifIc evidence to support it. The greatest threat to fish stocks is mankind. Some 75 per cent of fish stocks are depleted and over-fishing by humans is the primary cause of declines. Whales and other top predators are components of healthy marine ecosystems, and removing or depleting their populations may even have negative consequences for fisheries.

The pro-whaling interests have introduced this 'misleadingly attractive in appearance' argument into fisheries fora around the world to cloak their true agenda, which is ending the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) ban on commercial whaling.

Q: In 2002 Japan's technical cooperation to T&T is listed on their website as 1,776 million yen. It seems a lot. Are these figures comparable to amounts given by Japan to its Caribbean allies on the IWC? A: Most of the aid from Japan going into the Eastern Caribbean countries are Fisheries Grant aid. They get significantly more money. For example, Antigua & Barbuda received US$1,680,000 during March 2004 for a Fisheries Centre Construction Plan. However, the more relevant question is: should voting in support of the Japanese position at the IWC be a necessary condition for receiving Japanese aid? We say, no sir!