Thank you Mr. Chairman,
The minke whale was listed on appendix I of CITES in 1983 because it was covered by the moratorium on whaling proposed by the IWC in 1982, and effective from 1986. There was never a scientific assessment done justifying that listing, and comprehensive research, particularly during the last 10 years both regarding surveys and modelling, has shown that the minke whale is not a species threatened with extinction. We have, however, included only the two stocks that are relevant for Norwegian catch in our proposal, as it is for these two stocks that we now have the most comprehensive scientific data. As the research has progressed we have, together with the scientists in the Scientific Committee of the IWC, shown that the Northeast Atlantic minke whale stock consists of 112.000 animals, which is an extensively higher number than the estimate calculated after the surveys in 1988-89. For the North Atlantic Central stock, the newest estimate is 72.000 animals. This is much higher than the old 28.000 estimate we had to use when we prepared the proposal. The new estimate has been produced by Scottish scientists, and presented by the NAMMCO.
Norway has also, as presented in addendum prop. 10.22.l to the original proposal, developed a modern and effective method for control of trade in whale products. We have started, as you have seen, to take samples of every whale caught. From these samples we will develop DNA-fingerprints that will be kept in a register. This make identification of relevant trade products form these whales easily recognizable. Norway does not allow export for the time being, and we can also confirm here that no export of whale products will be allowed until an actual importing country is implementing proper monitoring and control systems. We have often heard that trade in some species or populations which can be harvested, will threaten other similar not harvested or threatened populations, but we also have to recognize that legal trade and control systems developed and in use for such trade, as proposed by Norway, may also contribute to discover illegal trade activity.
I will not go into details on the biological basis for the proposal here, but will reserve out right to come back to a more comprehensive explanation of the biology by Prof. Walløe, also taking into account questions and comments related to biology during the discussions.
Regarding the scientific justification for our proposal, we are highly surprised and disappointed with the lack of proper and honest scientific practice in the IUCN/Traffic analysis of our proposal. I know that many of you use the IUCN/Traffic input for making your decisions. We have made IUCN aware of all their errors, misconceptions and unscientific practice, and we are looking forward to their announced corrections. Their credibility will depend on their answer. We will, however also here reserve our right to respond to their intervention.
Why do Norway put such an effort into this proposal? We have launched a reservation to the listing of the minke whale to the Appendix I and could therefore technically and legally export minke whale products.
Well, there are many things at stake here. International conventions and their text must be respected. By listing species which does not meet the requirements of the convention we are both undermining the credibility of this body and, maybe equally serious we are not prioritizing and focusing our effort on those species which are really threatened and for which CITES is essential.
We also undermine the possibility of local people to use and benefit from their natural resources. As long as the scientific basis is solid and justified, the sustainable use objective is now accepted by all of you here in the Biodiversity Convention maybe with one or two exceptions. Sustainable use of renewable resources is now considered an integrated part of conservation.
The respect for cultural diversity is also crucial. Cultural diversity in many areas is threatened as biological diversity. No party to this convention should accept that other countries or organisations ruin the possibility for local communities to sustainably use their renewable resources for development. Many families and communities along the Norwegian coast rely on whaling in the summer season. Whaling is not subsidised by the government as many believe. Combined with fishing it’s their possibility of making a living. They use small vessels with a crew consisting of 4-8 men. It is these hardworking men that are described as bloody barbarians and their boats that are being attempted sunk and set on fire by extremist antiwhalers.
The respect for science and the scientific community is also at stake. IWC does not respect its own scientific committee. In 1992, the chairman of the committee resigned for this reason. CITES should not follow the same practice and continue to disregard scientific recommendations. What is the point in providing scientific data according to res. conf. 9.24 if its not at all considered by CITES!
We have heard here at COP 10 that the trade with minke whale products will come out of control if we downlist the relevant populations of this species. With all due respect, this is rubbish! Norway is strictly following the procedures developed by the scientific committee of IWC when setting quota. These procedures have a triple precautionary approach built into it. Each boat is given a set number of animals. The boat quota is not tradable. Each boat has to have a government appointed inspector (normally a veterinarian) on board. And we are taking samples of every animal caught which makes it possible to trace every piece of meat to nay restaurant in the world.
Mr. Chairman and dear colleagues!
We got the science right! We got the inspection and management right! We have developed a fool-proof method for tracing the products! It’s now time to get the CITES listing right!
After 20 years of CITES experience I see now that countries are desperately fighting against listing of species on appendix II of the convention. They have watched the development and practice. If a species or a population happens to be listed on the CITES appendices, it seems to remain there regardless of any development in its biological status and the actions taken to safeguard its management.
Fellow delegates, a vote for the Norwegian proposal will be a vote for the sustainable use of your own renewable resources, and the possibility for many of your local communities to benefit form it in their struggle for the daily life.
Thank you!