|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For more Information Contact:
IWMC-World Conservation Trust Tel/Fax: (727) 734-4949 Email: iwmc@iwmc.org http://www.iwmc.org |
|
Media Release: 11 April
2000
Six of the world`s leading scientific authorities on Cetaceans have accused the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) of issuing a “misleading” and “unbalanced” analyses on CITES proposals for downlisting certain species and stocks of minke and grey whales. Their accusations pose grave consequences for the process of making sound policy decisions by delegates from 150 nations gathered in Gigiri, Kenya for the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP 11) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), April 10-20. “The importance of the IUCN analyses to the debate over whale issues cannot be overstated. The CITES Secretariat reversed its position from “support” to “rejection” of the downlisting recommendations based on the traditional credibility of the IUCN`s work. Many nations, rightfully so, place great emphasis on the opnion of the Secretariat in deciding how to vote;” said Eugene Lapointe, President of IWMC –World Conservation Trust and former Secretary General of CITES from 1982-1990. Five of the six scientists were part of review panels engaged by IUCN to provide the scientific support for IUCN`s recommendations on whale proposals that seek a sift in CITES` classification of certain abundant stocks of minke whales from Appendix I (no trade) to Appendix II (allows restricted, controlled trade). The grey whale, a species also being recommended for downlisting to Appendix II was taken off the United States` Endangered Species List because its numbers now exceed the population size of the species in the early 19th Century prior to its being hunted by the whale oil industry. Among the comments issued by the disgruntled scientists include:
“These charges are embarassing to IUCN, to the Secretariat and to CITES. The decision that must now be made is exactly what will be the impact on such revelations to the Secretariat`s recommendations?” said Lapointe. |
| Six Comments On IUCN
Analyses Of Whale Downlisting Proposals From Scientists Asked To Participate
In That Review Process Assembled By The IWMC - World Conservation
Trust.
John Bannister (former Chair of, and with over 30 years participation in the IWC Scientific Committee) "I have already expressed my
concern to IUCN over the extreme lack of time to comment on the final version
of their review. I was travelling in UK at the time and had as I recall
about 24 hours to respond. In those circumstances all I could do was to
ensure that the specific items ascribed to me (resulting from comments
I had made earlier on the Japanese submission on southern minke whales)
were correct. I certainly did not in any way endorse the general conclusions
or other detail. If 'reviewers' are to be involved in future there must
be adequate
Peter Best (former Vice-Chair of, and with over 30 years participation in, the IWC Scientific Committee) "In 1997 I acted as an IUCN reviewer of the whale downlisitnng proposals to CITES. I was dissatisfied on that occasion because the reviewers were not given sight of IUCN's summary report before its publication, and because this summary did not fairly reflect the reviewers' views. I was approached to act as an IUCN reviewer for the whale downlisting proposals to the 2000 CITES meeting, but declined in the absence of satisfactory assurances that these circumstances would not recur." Doug Butterworth (20 years participation in IWC Scientific Committee) "I was given less than 10 hours to comment upon the draft summaries prepared by IUCN from my and other reviewers' reports. There was no effective opportunity for the iteration necessary to correct misleading statements introduced, so as to achieve a balanced product. I am particularly concerned at requisite standards of inspection and quota allocation agreement for a species not be to listed on Appendix I, that these IUCN summaries imply. I am not aware of any current high seas fishery which would meet such standards. Is IUCN advocating the suspension of all high seas fishing?" Yoshio Kaneko (member of SSC/Sustainable Use Specialist Group, formerly with the CITES Secretariat from 1985 to 1990) "I wish to file my dissatisfaction with the IUCN analysis on some proposals, including the proposals submitted by Japan and Norway. From its analysis on the whale proposals, IUCN seems to be of the opinion that re-opening of legal trade will stimulate illegal trade. If IUCN insists on this hypothesis, it should provide sufficient evidence. It is interesting to note that the Crocodile Specialist Group has the opposite opinion. Since it is almost impossible for all reviewers to reach consensus, I suggest that the name of the specific person who is responsible for editing comments should be mentioned together with the list of reviewers." Tore Schweder (10 years participation in the IWC Scientific Committee) "The IUCN report on the Japanese proposal to downlist Southern Hemisphere minke whales from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II is problematic since it gives the impression that the reviewers generally critiqued the supporting statement. It is hard to see from the report that I, and probably nearly all the other reviewers, generally supported it. The IUCN comments should have been prefaced with a few sentences like "These commentaries have been prepared by the IUCN secretariat. The scientists listed below have reviewed the supporting statement which they generally supported. Only additional information or critical points are included in the present report." All scientists that reviewed the proposal should have been listed, and IUCN should have noted those whose names were withdrawn and also the reasons." Jostein Angell (Co-ordinator, Strategy for Sustainable Development in the Arctic) "The fact that I am listed as a reviewer does not mean that I concur with all the statements in the IUCN document. Indeed, I do not so concur. Despite putting substantial effort into providing as objective and balanced a review as possible, my own comments seem hardly to have been taken into account. The most important problem with the IUCN summaries is that their comments do not reflect that many of the reviewers supported the points made in the Norwegian and Japanese supporting statements. As the summaries have been compiled, it appears that reviewers criticised these statements, rather than supported them. As long as catch limits are kept at sustainable levels (why shouldn't they), the potential impact of trade would be non-existent for these stocks." Two further scientists, both with considerable experience in the IWC SCientific Committee, who acted as reviewers of the whale downlisting proposals also commented that they considered the procedures used to develop the IUCN summaries to be unsatisfactory. |