Source: The International Harpoon, No. 3a, October 24,1997
Which international membership body allows a party to a conflict to perform as both advocate, referee and court of appeal in that very conflict? And which such body conducts scientific reviews without any documentation of the process or the evidence used to reach its conclusions?
Disturbingly, the answer to these questions is the World Conservation Union (IUCN).
The IUCN is one of very few international bodies that States, government agencies and NGOs can all join. It has about 865 current members, including more than 75 States. It has a huge network of expert volunteers organised in six commissions, with one of the most important being the Species Survival Commission. This commission, in turn, oversees many specialist groups such as the African Elephant Specialist Group, the Bear Specialist Group and the Cetacean Specialist Group. One of the tasks of the specialist groups is to assess the conservation status of, and threats to, species, and to advise inter-governmental bodies on their management.
The IUCN volunteer network mobilises a vast pool of expertise in the field of conservation, but its voluntary spirit and enthusiasm is accompanied by a lack of formal structures and procedures. As its advice can substantially influence decisions made by inter-governmental bodies such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), this can lay the system open to exploitation by special interest groups, with potentially serious political and economic consequences. A case in point concerns the Norwegian proposal to remove two North Atlantic minke whale stocks from CITES Appendix I, and thus make possible the resumption of international trade. One person played a key role in the IUCN treatment of this proposal, first as player, secondly as referee and third as court of appeal.
Role One: The Minority of One as the Player
Last year there was a bitter conflict within the IWC Scientific Committee over estimates for the Northeast Atlantic minke whale stock. This was not the first time, but to avoid such a conflict the Scientific Committee set up a special Abundance Estimate Working Group to provide estimates for the Northeast Atlantic minke stock. This working group achieved consensus on the final report (Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 47, 1997). However, after the finalisation one member changed his opinion. This divergent opinion was expressed for the first time just hours before the working report was made public.The IWC Scientific Committee normally only deals with whales. But in 1996, its report to the Commission included nearly a whole page strongly condemning one member. In the unanimous opinion of his colleagues in the Abundance Estimate Working Group, his behaviour was considered «unacceptable and an impediment to the work of the Scientific Committee.» They also called his description of the group’s working process «misleading» and considered it to do «severe injustice to the other members».
As written in the Scientific Committee report, he noted «the psychological fact that if one was in a minority of one, one tended to go along with one’s colleagues.»
On this basis, it was quite surprising to see the «minority of one» assume the key role in the IUCN analysis of the Norwegian proposal to CITES to remove the stock from Appendix I and thus make possible the resumption of international trade. The way he performed his role was perhaps less surprising.
IUCN provides the parties to CITES with «objective analysis» of proposals to prohibit trade in endangered species, or to declare species no longer endangered.
Three scientists were given the task of reviewing the Norwegian proposal to this June’s meeting of CITES in Zimbabwe to remove the Northeast Atlantic and the Central Atlantic minke stocks from Appendix I. In addition to the «minority of one», Jóhann Sigurjónsson of Iceland, and Koen van Waerebeek of the Netherlands were reviewers. Given the «minority of one’s» contentious conduct in the IWC, one would have expected the IUCN to balance his presence on the review panel with at least one person who could reflect the majority view of the IWC’s working group. However, neither Sigurjónsson nor van Waerebeek had been involved in the development of estimates for the Northeast Atlantic minkes.
One of the key criteria for CITES to downlist a species (the so-called «decline-criterion») is that the population must not have suffered a decline of 50% or more during its last two generations, which for this species would span the last 40 to 50 years. Sigurjónsson’s written input concluded that the Northeast Atlantic stock satisfied all the biological criteria for removal from Appendix I, including the «decline-criterion» — a conclusion which was in line with the recommendation of the CITES Secretariat. The "minority of one's" contribution created the impression that it was highly likely the stock had been depleted by more than 50%.
Role 2: The Minority of One as Referee
So, how did the IUCN handle this conflicting input? Incredibly, it appears to have given the task of sorting out conflicts in the inputs, and editing the final analysis document, to one of the reviewers: «the minority of one». The IUCN Secretariat insists that he was not the only editor involved, but has been unable, or unwilling, to provide the names of his assistants. Given this odd fact, it is no surprise to find that the final analysis document is, to a large extent, a replication of his input, even though it only provides references on two points to that effect.Sigurjónsson’s input, meanwhile, was totally ignored, yet his name is nonetheless listed as one of the three reviewers. «I was not consulted, nor given an opportunity to read over the "analysis" ... despite the fact that my name is even referred to as one of the reviewers, which would indicate that I have some kind of responsibility regarding the contents of the document,» he wrote to the IUCN Secretariat. He claimed that «the (IUCN) "analyses" ... goes against the (Norwegian) amendment proposal by highlighting non-relevant aspects, misleading or wrong information of the issue at stake.» This was «most unfortunate for a document that is meant to present a neutral view on the subject to help CITES delegates to reach their conclusion,» he said.
Third Role: Minority of One as Court of Appeal
In the enormous conference hall few people can actually see the speakers sitting at the back, and the speakers are not presented by name but by their organisation only. Few people were therefore aware that the voice talking on behalf of the IUCN was not a person with a leading position or a major responsibility within the organisation. The «voice» of the IUCN was none other than the «minority of one», whose only affiliation with the organisation is that he is a private, volunteer member of its Cetacean Specialist Group and that he has served as observer for the IUCN at the IWC. He did not comment on the criticism towards the process or his own role in it. He admitted that there were a few factual errors, but said the disagreement over the status of the Northeast Atlantic minke stock was a question of «interpretation» and that there was no need for correction.The Norwegian delegation did not follow up, as it turned out that there was no interest in discussing the population status. Most of the speakers did acknowledge that from a biological point of view the stocks should not belisted as «endangered». The discussion concentrated on the relationship between the IWC and CITES, and in particular on whether CITES decisions should be based on the IWC whaling ban. The question of whether it was possible to establish adequate mechanisms for monitoring the trade was also central.
«It is of fundamental importance for the credibility of IUCN that it develops and institutes clear procedures for ensuring the quality and objectivity of its advice to other international bodies,» says Johann Sigurjónsson to the Harpoon. «The most important requirement must be that the process is transparent. Today the process seems to be characterized by coincidence and private initiative. This implies a risk that the IUCN could be misused by various special interest groups.»Conclusion
To ensure achieving the goal of objective analyses of CITES proposals, IUCN must adopt adequate procedures. When there exist conflicting views on scientific issues, all relevant views should be properly reflected. The reviewers providing input should be a part of the editorial process, as part of the function of the editorial process is to resolve conflicting views among the reviewers. They must also be given a chance to see the final document before it is printed, and any comments they might have should be properly reflected. If possible, the draft versions of analyses should be circulated to a wider circle of scientists for comments. In the name of transparency, the input documents from reviewers should, on request, be available by the IUCN Secretariat.Taking account of IUCN’s commitment to objective science, and long-standing interest and involvement in the conservation and management of whales, as expressed in its opening statement to this year’s IWC meeting, the Harpoon not only hopes but also thinks that IUCN will do its uttermost to ensure objectivity.
Mistakes in IUCN Analysis
Decline last two generations
What makes the IUCN representation of decline during the last two generations for minke whales in the Northeast Atlantic misleading is the combination of what it presents and what it leaves out.
The estimate of 112,000 is the figure that gives us information about the status of the stock as of today. It is therefore this figure that provides the basis for discussion on potential decline over the last two generations. Despite this, the IUCN analysis refers to papers discussing the possibility of a decrease by 30-55% since 1952 based on the figure of 86,000. A recent study (SC/47/NA13) demonstrates that using a figure of 112,000 instead of 86,000 «has major influence on the estimation of the degree of depletion which becomes much less severe than alluded to in the "analysis",» writes Sigurjónsson.(Statistically) Significant Decline
The notion of a major decline is supported by a quote from the 1991 IWC Scientific Committee report that the stock in question has suffered a «significant decline ... over the period 1951-87». However, this does not properly reflect what is stated in the IWC document referred to (IWC Scientific Report, 1992). The report says «there has been a statistically significant decline ... during the period 1952-1983» (our italics). By omitting the word «statistically», says Sigurjónsson, this gives the statement «an entirely different and misleading meaning that has implications for the evaluation of the (Norwegian downlisting) proposal.» «Statistically significant» only means that it is possible to show a decline with statistical methods, although the decline might be small or of no significance to the present status of the stock. A «significant decline» implies that the decline is substantial and has significance for the stock’s status.
Protection Stock
The IUCN analysis furthermore refers to the classification of the Northeast Atlantic minke by the IWC Scientific Committee as a «Protection Stock» back in 1986. The criteria for this classification involve a decline to a level below 54% of the pre-exploitation level. What IUCN fails to tell us is that this classification came about as a result of highly disputed estimates based on mark-recapture data setting the stock to 44,000 animals. «Everybody familiar with the subject knows today» that this estimate was «not reliable», writes Sigurjónsson. The IUCN analysis also fails to inform us that this whole classification process is irrelevant as it has now been rejected by the IWC, and that a reclassification is therefore out of the question.«Not Equally Reliable»
The latest estimate for the Northeast Atlantic minke whale stock is 112,000 animals. It is based on a comprehensive counting survey in 1995. The IWC Scientific Committee notes that this estimate is «a more reliable estimate» compared to the estimate of 86,000 which originated from counting surveys in 1988 and 1989. According to the committee’s 1996 report, the reason for this is, amongst other things, «substantial new developments in methodology».The IUCN analysis informs us that the two estimates are «not equally reliable», but leaves out the important and relevant information about which of them is the more reliable. Instead IUCN states that the Scientific Committee did not adopt the figure of 112,000 «as a final figure». This is a rather tendentious interpretation of the Scientific Committee report. The text in no way suggests any lack of confidence in the figure agreed. The statement, however, does echo the opinion expressed in last year’s «minority-of-one» paper.
Based on the latest and most reliable estimate of 112,000, it is just not possible that a total catch of approximately 95,000 animals during the last 50 years could have depleted the stock with 50%. Then the original stock would have been 224,000 animals and its reproduction capacity — for some unknown reason — at a hitherto unknown low level.
Hawksbill Turtles:
IUCN Hides Head in Shell
Hawksbill turtles are listed as «critically endangered» by the IUCN, but attempts to obtain information from its Marine Turtle Specialist Group about what factors triggered the listing «were unsuccessful», wrote Dr. Nicholas Mrosovsky of the University of Toronto to Nature (Oct. 2, 1997). «To make listings objective and transparent, background information should be available.»
Mrosovsky was also highly critical of the IUCN analysis of the Cuban proposal to CITES last June to downlist its hawksbill population to allow for limited trade. The analysis «contained serious errors, as the authors acknowledged in a letter to the Cuban delegation apologizing for some of them.» But still, this was not the «worst feature of the analysis» — that was «the secrecy surrounding some of its sources of data.»
«Many of these are cited in the reference list as in litt., with a name, meaning that the information is in a letter written to the IUCN by that person,» he wrote. «The point of having reference lists is that people can look up the supporting details of statements in the texts.» But his attempts to obtain copies of some of the letters were in vain.
«What should be an analysis based on verifiable data has degenerated into assertion based on secret science,» he wrote. «No wonder some people are joking that SSC really stands for "secret science commission".»
The IUCN Red List:
No Answers Why
A question frequently asked by readers of the IUCN Red List is: why is this particular species placed in this particular category, and not in another? Good answers to such questions can be hard to come by, or even impossible.
Take, for example, the minke whale. This is placed in the most risk-free of the six main categories, the «lower risk» category. Within this category there are three sub-categories: Conservation Dependent, Near Threatened and Least Concern. The Southern Minke Whale is «Conservation Dependent» while the Northern Minke Whale is «Near Threatened».
Having looked at the criteria for listing, the High North Alliance was unable to tell why the difference, or why they weren’t both «Least Concern». So we asked the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group, which is responsible for the listing, to explain.
Because of time constraints and the volunteer nature of the group, we were told, no formal documents had been prepared presenting the rationale behind each listing. However it was said that there was wide agreement of the assignment to the main categories, but that there appeared to be considerable uncertainty about how to interpret the sub-categories.