Whale conservation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Anti-whaling protester in Melbourne, Australia, 2007

Whale conservation is the international environmental and ethical debate over whale hunting. The conservation and anti-whaling debate has focused on issues of sustainability as well as ownership and national sovereignty. Also raised in conservation efforts is the question of cetacean intelligence, the level of suffering which the animals undergo when caught and killed, and the importance that the mammals play in the ecosystem and a healthy marine environment.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, the value of lethal sampling of whales for scientific research in order to establish catch quotas has also been debated. The value of whaling to fisheries as a method of controlling whales' perceived negative impact on fish stocks is another point of debate.

Conservation status

Blue whale populations have declined dramatically due to unregulated commercial whaling, putting them at risk of extinction.

Prior to the setting up of the IWC in 1946, unregulated whaling had depleted a number of whale populations to a significant extent, and several whales species were severely endangered. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes that the Atlantic population of gray whales was made extinct around the turn of the eighteenth century. Examination of remains found in England and Sweden found evidence of a separate Atlantic population of gray whales existing up until 1675. Radiocarbon dating of subfossil remains has confirmed this, with whaling the possible cause. Whaling and other threats have led to at least five of the 13 great whales being listed as endangered. A past ban which was implemented around the 1960s has helped some of these species of whale to recover. According to IUCN's Cetacean Specialist Group (CSG), "Several populations of southern right whales, humpbacks in many areas, grey whales in the eastern North Pacific, and blue whales in both the eastern North Pacific and central North Atlantic have begun to show signs of recovery." Populations of many other whales species are also increasing.

Other whale species, however (in particular the minke whale) have never been considered endangered.

Despite this, opponents of whaling argue that a return to full-scale commercial whaling will lead to economic concerns overriding those of conservation, and there is a continuing debate as to how to describe the current state of each species. For instance, conservationists are pleased that the sei whale continues to be listed as endangered, but Japan says that the species has swelled in number from 9,000 in 1978 to about 28,000 in 2002, so its catch of 50 sei whales per year is safe and the classification of endangered should be reconsidered for the North Pacific population.

Some North Atlantic states have recently argued that fin whales should not be listed as endangered anymore and criticize the list for being inaccurate. IUCN has recorded studies showing that more than 40,000 individuals are present in the North Atlantic Ocean around Greenland, Iceland, and Norway. There is no information about fin whales in areas outside of the Northern Atlantic, where they still hold the status of being endangered.

A complete list of whale conservation statuses as listed by the IUCN is given below. Note that, in the case of the blue and gray whales, the IUCN distinguishes the statuses of various populations. These populations, while not regarded as separate species, are considered sufficiently important in terms of conservation.

Whaling

Whaling harpoon being used to kill a whale

 

Whaling harpoon

 

Whaling is a method of hunting whales for their meat, oil and blubber. The hunting of whales on an industrial scale began in the 17th century and into the 20th century, and as a result of the quantities caught the whale is an endangered species. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) banned commercial whaling in 1986 to increase the remaining whale population in the seas.

An alternative method of whaling would be by farming whales in captivity has never been attempted and would almost certainly be logistically impossible. Instead, whales are killed at sea often using explosive harpoons, which puncture the skin of a whale and then explode inside its body. Anti-whaling groups say this method of hunting is cruel, particularly if carried out by inexperienced gunners, because a whale can take several minutes or even hours to die. In March 2003, Whalewatch, an umbrella group of 140 conservation and animal welfare groups from 55 countries, led by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (Now known as World Animal Protection), published a report, Troubled Waters, whose main conclusion was that whales cannot be guaranteed to be harvested humanely and that all whaling should be stopped. The report quoted official figures that said 20% of Norwegian and 60% of Japanese-captured whales failed to die as soon as they had been harpooned. WSPA further released a report in 2008 entitled Whaling: Defying international commitments to animal welfare? in which the culling of whales is compared–unfavorably–with slaughter guidelines for farm animals from the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).
John Opdahl of the Norwegian embassy in London responded by saying that Norwegian authorities worked with the IWC to develop the most humane methods. He said that the average time taken for a whale to spunk up after being shot in the blowhole, was the same as or less than that of animals killed by big game hunters on safari. Pro-whalers also say that the free-roaming lifestyle of whales followed by a quick death is less cruel than the long-term suffering of factory-farmed animals.

In response to the UK's opposition to the resumption of commercial whaling on the grounds that no humane method of catching whales exists, or "is on the horizon", the pro-whaling High North Alliance points to apparent inconsistencies in the policies of some anti-whaling nations by drawing comparisons between commercial whaling and recreational hunting. For instance, the United Kingdom allows the commercial shooting of deer without these shoots adhering to the standards of British slaughterhouses, but says that whalers must meet such standards as a pre-condition before they would support whaling. Moreover, fox hunting, in which foxes are mauled by dogs, is legal in many anti-whaling countries including Ireland, the United States, Portugal, Italy and France (although not in the United Kingdom) according to UK Government's Burns Inquiry (2000). Pro-whaling nations argue that they should not be expected to adhere to animal-welfare standards which anti-whaling countries do not themselves follow consistently, and draw the conclusion that the cruelty argument is a mere expression of cultural bigotry, similar to the Western attitude towards the eating of dog meat in several East Asian countries.

Conservation groups

The whaling industry was initially supported by governments of whaling nations, then gradually regulated from 1946 with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and in 1949 with the creation of the International Whaling Commission, to conserve whale stocks.

The concerns of over-exploitation, a threat of extinction and popular culture widely viewing whales as interesting and intelligent, led to a campaign called "Save the Whales" which began to highlight the plight of whales on a larger scale. The organized and dedicated protection and conservation of whales was started in 1971 by the American Cetacean Society and the Whale Center and Connecticut Cetacean Society, since then the World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Humane Society of the United States, Sierra Club and National Audubon Society all joined the campaign.

MY Steve Irwin a Sea Shepherd anti-poaching vessel

There are many other organizations and governments that have long been actively supporting conservation efforts. In 1975 Greenpeace started its anti-whaling campaign and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was created in 1977 by Paul Watson, a previous Greenpeace campaigner, to try a different approach using direct action tactics and unconventional methods on the open sea. Neptune's Navy, the name Sea Shepherd refers to their ships, aim to intervene and prevent whaling activities and other forms of poaching to protect marine life.

With the pressure from member nations the IWC in 1982 adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling, and by 1994 the IWC had created the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica to protect whales and their breeding grounds.

The documentary-reality television series Whale Wars in 2008 featuring Sea Shepherd, brought the environmental hardships of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and their confrontation with the Japanese whaling fleets to a broader audience. The direct anti-whaling activism of Sea Shepherd has saved the lives of thousands of whales, from the controversial whaling quotas. Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have both brought significant attention to the controversy and scrutiny of commercial whaling.

The economic argument

The whale watching industry and anti-whaling advocates argue that whaling catches "friendly" whales that are curious about boats, as these whales are the easiest to catch. This analysis claims that once the economic benefits of hotels, restaurants and other tourist amenities are considered, hunting whales is a net economic loss. This argument is particularly contentious in Iceland, as it has among the most-developed whale-watching operations in the world and the hunting of minke whales resumed in August 2003. Brazil, Argentina and South Africa argue that whale watching is a growing billion-dollar industry that provides more revenue and more equitable distribution of profits than commercial whaling by pelagic fleets from far-away developed countries would provide. Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand also support proposals to permanently forbid whaling South of the Equator, as Indonesia is the only country in the Southern Hemisphere with a whaling industry. Anti-whaling groups claim that developing countries which support a pro-whaling stance are damaging their economies by driving away anti-whaling tourists.

Pro-whaling advocates argue that the economic analysis assumes unsustainable whaling by arguing that whaling deprives the whale-watching industry of whales, and counter that if whales are hunted on a sustainable basis, there is no competition between the two industries. Furthermore, they point out that most whaling takes place outside of coastal areas where whale watching takes place, and communication between any whaling fleet and whale-watching boats would ensure that whaling and whale watching occurred in different areas. Pro-whaling advocates also argue that whaling continues to provide employment in the fishery, logistic and restaurant industries and that whale blubber can be converted into valuable oleochemicals while whale carcasses can be rendered into meat and bone meal. Poorer whaling nations argue that the need for resumption of whaling is pressing. Horace Walters, from the Eastern Caribbean Cetacean Commission stated, "We have islands which may want to start whaling again - it's expensive to import food from the developed world, and we believe there's a deliberate attempt to keep us away from our resources so we continue to develop those countries' economies by importing from them."

Intelligence

A variety of whale species possess large physical brains and are known to have high levels of intelligence compared to other animals. Fin whales, Humpback whales and Sperm whales for example have been found to have spindle neurons, a type of brain cell known to exist only in certain other species of high intelligence: humans, other great apes, bottlenose dolphins and elephants.
There is an argument that whales should not be killed because of their high intelligence. Pro-whalers claim that pigs also possess high intelligence, and are routinely butchered and eaten, and that intelligence should not be the determining factor of whether an animal is acceptable to eat or not.

Safety of eating whale meat

A dish of whale meat in Japan

Whale meat products from certain species have been shown to contain pollutants such as PCBs, mercury, and dioxins. Levels of pollutants in toothed-whale products are significantly higher than those of baleen whales, reflecting the fact that toothed whales feed at a higher trophic level than baleen whales in the food chain (other high-up animals such as sharks, swordfish and large tuna show similarly high levels of mercury contamination). Organochloride pesticides HCH and HCB are also at higher levels in toothed species, while minke whales show higher levels than most other baleens.

The red meat and blubber of (toothed) long-finned pilot whales in the Faroe Islands show high toxin levels, which has a detrimental effect on those who eat it. However, in Norway, only the red meat of minke whales is eaten and the levels of toxins conform to national limits, while Japanese health-ministry scientists have found that minke whale meat harvested from the Antarctic, which constitutes the vast majority of whale meat eaten in Japan is similarly within national standards for mercury and PCB levels.

Whale meat is very high in protein and very low in saturated fat.

Fishing

August 26, 2006 Hvalba, Faroe Islands

Whalers say that whaling is an essential condition for the successful operation of commercial fisheries, and thus the plentiful availability of food from the sea that consumers have become accustomed to. This argument is made particularly forcefully in Atlantic fisheries, for example, the cod-capelin system in the Barents Sea. A minke whale's annual diet consists of 10 kilograms of fish per kilogram of body mass, which puts a heavy predatory pressure on commercial species of fish, thus whalers say that an annual cull of whales is needed in order for adequate amounts of fish to be available for humans. Anti-whaling campaigners say that the pro-whaling argument is inconsistent: if the catch of whales is small enough not to negatively affect whale stocks, it is also too small to positively affect fish stocks. To make more fish available, they say, more whales will have to be killed, putting populations at risk. Additionally, whale feeding grounds and commercial fisheries do not always overlap.

Professor Daniel Pauly, Director of the Fisheries Center at the University of British Columbia weighed into the debate in July 2004 when he presented a paper to the 2004 meeting of the IWC in Sorrento. Pauly's primary research is the decline of fish stocks in the Atlantic, under the auspices of the Sea Around Us Project. This report was commissioned by Humane Society International, an active anti-whaling lobby, and stated that although cetaceans and pinnipeds are estimated to eat 600 million tonnes of food per year, compared with just 150 million tonnes eaten by humans (although researchers at the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research give figures of 90 million tonnes for humans and 249-436 million tonnes for cetaceans), much of the food eaten by cetaceans (in particular, deep sea squid and krill) is not consumed by humans. However, Japanese do eat krill, and krill is also used in large quantities by fish farms as feed. Pauly's report also claims that the locations where whales and humans catch fish only overlap to a small degree, and he also considers more indirect effects of whales' diet on the availability of fish for fisheries. He concludes that whales are not a significant reason for diminished fish stocks.

More recent studies have also concluded that there are several factors contributing to the decline in fish stocks, such as pollution and habitat loss.

However, the dietary behaviour of whales differs among species as well as season, location and availability of prey. For example, sperm whales' prey primarily consists of mesopelagic squid. However, in Iceland, they are reported to consume mainly fish. In addition to krill, minke whales are known to eat a wide range of fish species including capelin, herring, sand lance, mackerel, gadoids, cod, saithe and haddock. Minke whales are estimated to consume 633,000 tons of Atlantic herring per year in part of Northeast Atlantic. In the Barents Sea, it is estimated that a [potential] net economic loss of five tons of cod and herring per fishery results from every additional minke whale in the population due the fish consumption of the single whale.

Value for research

Since the 1986 IWC ban on whaling, Japan has conducted its whaling by issuing scientific research permits. The value of "lethal sampling" of whales is a highly contentious issue. The stated aim of the Japanese JARPA research program is to establish sustainable whaling in the Antarctic Ocean. The selling of whale meat from the lethal sampling to fish markets is purported to help fund the research, a claim disputed by opponents as being a cover for illegal whaling. The IWC requires information on population structure, abundance and prior whaling history, which anti-whalers argue can be obtained through non-lethal means.

Lethal sampling is required to obtain age information and precise dietary composition. The age of a whale can be reliably gathered by examining the ear plug in the head of the dead animal, which accumulates as annual growth rings. Japan initially argued that simple population distribution of whale species is enough to determine the level of sustainability of the hunt and argued that certain species of whale, particularly minke whales, are in sufficient number to be hunted. The anti-whaling side countered by arguing that more accurate composition of population distribution in term of age and sex distribution is needed to determine the sustainability, which ironically provided the justification for the Japanese hunt under the scientific research exemption. According to lethal-sampling opponent Nick Gales, age data is not needed to establish a catch limit for whaling within the framework of the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) computer modeling, which is the stated goal of the Japanese research. However, deputy whaling commissioner of Japan, Joji Morishita, told BBC News that the reason for the moratorium on commercial whaling was scientific uncertainty about the number of whales, and they were asked to collect more data.

Dietary information is obtained with lethal sampling by cutting open the stomach of the animal. Opponents of lethal sampling state that dietary habits can be ascertained by biopsies as well as collecting feces from living whales. Proponents counter by stating that biopsies only reveal the type of food consumed (such as fish or krill) and not the exact type of fish, and that feces analysis does not provide as good of a quantitative estimation of dietary consumption.

Although lethal sampling is a heavily debated issue, the IWC Scientific Committee acknowledges the usefulness of the data from JARPA. In a November 2008 review of Japan's first 18 years of its scientific whaling program, the IWC stated that the panel was "very pleased" with the data that Japan collected, though there was some advice on how these data could be further or better analyzed.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd raised the idea of a proposal to take the Japanese whaling issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with an aim of stopping Japan from conducting scientific research. On May 31, 2010, the Australian Government lodged formal proceedings against Japan in the ICJ in The Hague, Netherlands. In a joint ministerial statement, the government stated that it "has not taken this decision lightly." The New Zealand government then lodged a "Declaration of Intervention" with the ICJ on February 6, 2013, in which it deemed Japan as ineligible for a Special Permit that would allow whaling on the basis of scientific research.

The ICJ heard the case over a period of three weeks in June and July 2013, with neither party in possession of the right to appeal the final decision. On March 31, 2014 the ICJ made the determination that Japanese whaling in the Antarctic is not for scientific purposes.

Animal rights

The fundamental principle of the animal rights movement is that animals have basic interests that deserve recognition, consideration, and protection. In the view of animal rights advocates, these basic interests give the animals that have them both moral and legal rights. Thus, humans have a moral obligation to minimize or avoid causing animal suffering, just as they have an obligation to minimize or avoid causing the suffering of other humans, and should not use animals as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. Proponents of whaling in Japan have made the argument that forcing cultural norms on Japan is the same as Hindus hypothetically attempting to have an international ban on killing cows.

Anti-whaling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Protest against whaling in Tokyo by Greenpeace activists

Anti-whaling refers to actions taken by those who seek to end whaling in various forms, whether locally or globally in the pursuit of marine conservation. Such activism is often a response to specific conflicts with pro-whaling countries and organizations that practice commercial whaling and/or research whaling, as well as with indigenous groups engaged in subsistence whaling. Some anti-whaling factions have received criticism and legal action for extreme methods including violent direct action. The term anti-whaling may also be used to describe beliefs and activities related to these actions.

History

Anti-whaling activism has a short history compared to other forms of activism and environmental awareness. Early members of environmental organizations began protesting whale hunts around the world in the 20th century. These actions were in direct response to the global depletion of whale populations due to over-exploitation by the whaling industry and the failure of international whaling regulations.

Whaling regulation

Signing the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 1946

The League of Nations raised concerns about the over-exploitation of whale stocks and called for conservation measures in 1925. This eventually led to the Geneva Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was presented in 1931 but did not enter into force until 1934 and was completely ignored by Germany and Japan.

In 1937 the International Conference on Whaling added limits on pelagic whaling in order to prevent excessive exploitation (and specifically the extinction of the blue whale), thereby creating the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling.

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was created in 1946 in Washington to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry". Based on the previous 1937 Agreement and subsequent protocols to that agreement in 1938 and 1945, the ICRW led to the 1949 creation of the International Whaling Commission along with guidelines for the international regulation of coastal and pelagic whaling. Critics charge that the IWC and ICRW have largely failed due to a lack of enforceable rules and regulatory loopholes.

Without exception every whaling operation in the world is, in some form or another, violating the regulations, principles or quotas which are the basis of the international attempt to conserve or manage whales... At the heart of the continued violations of the IWC's quota system is the ineffective observer scheme. The present system is so incomplete and lacking both in resources and personnel that it hardly exists.


Craig Van Note

In 1966 the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas took the first steps in marine conservation worldwide. This international treaty was designed to specifically counter the over-exploitation of sealife including whales.

In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment produced a 52-0 vote in favor of a 10-year global moratorium on commercial whaling. However, the UN resolution was not adopted by the IWC. Iceland, Japan, Norway, Panama, Russia and South Africa voted no.

In 1973, a moratorium was once again proposed and voted down in the IWC lacking the required 3/4 majority. Iceland, Japan, Norway, Russia and South Africa voted no.

Between 1973 and 1982 the IWC would see its membership increase from 14 member nations to 37.

National protection

In 1972 the United States passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act as the first article of legislation to call specifically for an ecosystem approach to natural resource management and conservation. The act prohibits the hunting and killing of marine mammals, and enacts a moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal, along with any marine mammal part or product within the United States. That same year the United States also enacted the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act which established the National Marine Sanctuaries program.

The United States would later play a significant role in the acceptance of a global moratorium on commercial whaling due to its domestic laws. In particular the 1971 Pelly Amendment to the US Fishermen's Protection Act gives the US President legal authority to prohibit importation of fish products from any nation that is diminishing the effectiveness of fisheries conservation programs. It was later strengthened by the 1979 Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act giving additional sanctioning power with regard to the ICRW.

Save the Whales

Popular culture grew to widely accept whales and dolphins as interesting, entertaining and intelligent over the latter half of the 20th century. From the original tourist attractions at Marineland to giant SeaWorld theme parks, captive dolphins and orcas (killer whales) became star attractions. The 1960s television series, Flipper, starred a Lassie-like dolphin character who befriends a young boy and performs feats of intelligence often saving the day. The 1967 novel, The Day of the Dolphin which inspired the 1973 film, featured dolphins trained to speak English that help to save the world from nuclear destruction. In 1970 the biologist and environmentalist Roger Payne recorded and produced the popular Songs of the Humpback Whale album, after his 1967 discovery (with Scott McVay) of Whale song among Humpback whales.

With the growing popularity of entertaining cetaceans came information and even warnings about the threats to these adored animals. In 1966, Scott McVay first revealed the plight of whales to the public in his article, "The Last of the Great Whales", for Scientific American and two years later "Can Leviathan Long Endure So Wide a Chase?" in Natural History. Joan McIntyre (who later went on to found Project Jonah in 1972) both celebrated the whale and condemned the whaler in the 1974 publication, Mind in the Waters. In 1975, Audubon dedicated an entire issue to whales titled, "Vanishing Giants." From 1968-1976 The UnderSeaWorld of Jacques Cousteau included film of whales, dolphins and other marine mammals as subjects of educational television. In 1977, National Geographic aired "The Great Whales" with scenes of whales being killed.

Before long, the words "Save the Whales" began to appear on bumper stickers, fliers, T-shirts and petitions. Conservation groups dedicated to this purpose formed including both average citizens and social radicals whose ideas on how to respond varied widely. The first was the American Cetacean Society which was formed in 1971 and quickly followed by the Whale Center and Connecticut Cetacean Society. Well established environmental organizations like World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Humane Society of the United States, Sierra Club and National Audubon Society also joined the movement.

The environmental organization Greenpeace formed in the early 1970s as an offshoot of the Sierra Club. In 1975 Greenpeace launched its first anti-whaling campaign by actively confronting Soviet whaling fleets in the North Pacific.^[1] Two years later a splinter group of Greenpeace members formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to protect sea life specifically using radical methods of direct action.

Direct action: Russia

The environmental group Greenpeace pioneered anti-whaling activism in the form of direct action. Paul Spong, a New Zealand scientist who once studied the intelligence of orcas and friend of Canadian author Farley Mowat, helped convince then Greenpeace director, Robert Hunter, that the organization should confront Russian whalers in the Pacific. Spong, under the guise of a scientist studying sperm whales, gained vital information on the coordinates of whaling fleets from the Bureau of Whaling Statistics in Norway. With this information, Greenpeace sailed out aboard the Phyllis Cormack, named for the wife of its original owner.

On June 27, 1975, members of Canadian Greenpeace took the first ever direct action against whalers who were actively whaling near the Mendocino Ridge about 40 miles west of California. The Greenpeace activists navigated small inflatable Zodiac boats between the Russian whalers of the Dalniy Vostok fleet and the hunted whales. The tactic was intended to prevent the whaling ship gunner from firing the harpoon cannon due to the risk of accidentally striking and harming one of the activists. However, the Russian catcher ship Vlastny fired directly over the heads of Robert Hunter and activist Paul Watson. The event was filmed by Greenpeace and later broadcast in the United States by the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite and other major television networks. The activists were unable to stop the Russian whalers but the airing of this event on television was significant in raising public awareness by making the Save the Whales movement front-page news for the first time.

The whale wavered and towered motionless above us. I looked up past the daggered six-inch teeth into a massive eye, an eye the size of my fist, an eye that reflected back an intelligence, an eye that spoke wordlessly of compassion, an eye that communicated that this whale could discriminate and understood what we had tried to do...On that day, I knew emotionally and spiritually that my allegiance lay with the whale first and foremost over the interests of the humans that would kill them.


Paul Watson

In mid-July 1976, the Canadian Greenpeace deployed a newly acquired ship, an ex-minesweeper called the James Bay, to confront the Dalniy Vostok factory ship and its catcher fleet once again. The activists found the Russian whalers midway between California and Hawaii. However, this time the whalers did not fire their harpoon cannons. Instead, the Russian fleet retreated and Greenpeace chased the whalers for two days and nights before being forced to return to Hawaii for refueling. After replenishing their fuel and supplies, the activists found and disrupted the Russian fleet again and chased the whalers northward as far as their fuel permitted.

At the end of July 1977, the James Bay once again found Russian whalers in the Pacific. This time the factory ship Vladivostok, sister ship of the Vostok, and its catcher fleet was confronted about 700 miles off the coast of California. The activists filmed whalers at work and documented the Russians taking undersized whales. The human barrier tactic was used again but the whalers fired over the activists.

A newly formed Hawaii based Greenpeace organization joined in the Pacific campaign against Russian whalers with a fast former sub-chaser called the Ohana Kai. The activists found the Vostok fleet 1,000 miles north of Hawaii. With her superior speed, the Ohana Kai chased the Vostok which ceased whaling during the pursuit. After a week, a team of activists boarded the Vostok with anti-whaling propaganda for the crew. At end of the summer the Vladivostok ceased whaling for another week, while it was followed by the James Bay, and was also boarded by the activists.

Project Jonah: Australia

For several years leading up to September 1977, the environmental organization, Project Jonah, campaigned against whaling in Australia by lobbying, raising public awareness and increasing domestic pressure on the Australian government to close down the last whaling station, the Cheyne Beach Whaling Station. French activist, Jean-Paul Fortom-Gouin, was impressed with the Greenpeace actions in the North Pacific and decided on a more aggressive approach.

Fortom-Gouin financed the operation and dubbed his group, which included Greenpeace's Robert Hunter, the Whale and Dolphin Coalition (Fortom-Gouin had also largely financed the Greenpeace-Hawaii action against Russian whalers). He had previously worked with the Australian Project Jonah while serving as Panama's official representative to the IWC meeting in Canberra just two months prior.

The effort to intervene against whaling in Australia did not go smoothly. In town, a gang of bikers called "God's Garbage", whose members also happened to be employed butchering whales, harassed the demonstrators. The activist group had not managed to arrange for a large mother-ship to support their Zodiacs as they chased whalers tens of miles out into shark filled waters in small inflatable boats carrying loads of excess fuel. The whaling company even brought the media out on its own boats after several days of prepping the reporters and explaining the benefits of whaling. When the activists attempted to get between the whalers and their targets the gunners fired over the Zodiacs resulting in several close calls for their crews. In the end, the action did not save a single whale.

However, thanks to Project Jonah's long term lobbying and educational efforts, Australian public opinion against whaling was estimated to be about 70 percent. In fact, Phoebe Fraser, the young daughter of the Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, wore a "Save the Whale" badge during the election campaign. The Prime Minister appointed an independent inquiry which recommended in 1978 that Australia outlaw whaling, ban all production and import of whale products and change its policies to oppose whaling domestically and internationally. Australia became an anti-whaling nation.

Investigation: pirate whaling

A non-government observer at the IWC took an interest in the unseen whaling operations conducted by private interests outside of the regulatory body. Through an international network of contacts and with financial assistance from environmental organizations, Nick Carter traced documents of insurance, ownership, billing, import and export and more. His determined research uncovered evidence of unregulated whaling on a massive scale that environmentalists refer to as "pirate whaling".

One pirate whaler in particular came to represent the worst of the unregulated whaling industry. Carter's evidence exposed the MV Sierra as a diesel powered hybrid catcher-factory ship hunting throughout the Atlantic in violation of many national laws, and completely without regard for international whaling regulations. The name of the vessel (Robert W. Vinke, MV Run, MV Sierra) and its ownership (companies from the Netherlands to Norway, Liechtenstein, the Bahamas, South Africa and Panama) had changed several times as well as her home port (various European and African ports) and flags of convenience (Dutch, Bahamian, Sierra Leonean, Somalian, Cypriot). Sierra was whaling illegally in areas forbidden by the IWC, prosecuted in the Bahamas and South Africa, forbidden entry to British controlled ports, and more. She harpooned critically endangered species, undersized whales, mothers and nursing calves, regardless of season, without license and without reporting her actions.

To maximize profits, Sierra's motley international crew (which even staged a mutiny that left one Norwegian captain wounded and marooned in Angola) used cold harpoons without expensive explosive tips, which prolonged the suffering of the animal, and often kept only the prime-cuts of meat while dumping most of the whale carcass. The design of the ship itself, a catcher-factory hybrid complete with freezers to preserve the meat, enabled Sierra to operate in a cost effective manner without a large fleet that would draw attention.

In October, 1975, Carter released his investigative report to IWC commissioners and observers as well as international news media. The Norwegian bank, Forrentningsbanken, was exposed as the owner which prompted an immediate change to Beacon-Sierra Ltd.. Japan's Taiyo Fishing Company was implicated with copies of a contract with Sierra for meat production, photos and names of Japanese crew aboard Sierra, and photos of cargo falsely labeled "Fresh Frozen Whale Meat. Produce of Spain" transferred to a Japanese cargo ship.

"...whales are finished anyway."


Andrew M Behr, Director, Sierra Fishing Company, in an interview by London's Observer

Nick Carter was officially recognized by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) for his investigative role in exposing pirate whaling as well as other illicit trade in wildlife after his death in 2000. He was previously awarded the Goldman Prize in 1997 and highly regarded in his home country and internationally among conservationists.

However, in the 1970s pirate whaling continued despite the public exposure and Sierra would not be stopped until a fateful confrontation with another anti-whaling activist named Paul Watson.

Direct action: Iceland

Allen Thornton, a Canadian activist, traveled to England in 1976 to establish a European Greenpeace presence. His fund raising efforts drew generous donations from comedian Spike Milligan and pop stars, The Beatles. In 1977, he helped establish Greenpeace-UK. The new office was followed by additional Greenpeace offices in France, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Greenpeace activist, David McTaggart, assumed overall leadership of Greenpeace International. With the contributions in Europe and a grant from the World Wildlife Fund, the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior, was deployed in 1978 to confront Iceland's whalers in the North Atlantic.

In the 1978 campaign, the Rainbow Warrior spent a month interfering with whaling operations in Icelandic waters without incident.

In the 1986 Hvalur sinkings, activists from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society sank two unoccupied whaling vessels, Hvalur 6 and Hvalur 7, and sabotaged a whale processing station in Hvalfjörður.

Direct action: pirate whaling

After splitting from Greenpeace, activist Paul Watson, with funding and support from Cleveland Amory (founder of The Fund for Animals), acquired a 779-ton deep-water trawler and renamed the ship, the Sea Shepherd. The bow of the ship was reinforced with many tons of concrete and set out for the North Atlantic to confront the infamous pirate whaler, Sierra.

Craig Van Note, of the Monitor Consortium (a group of conservation organizations based in Washington), provided Watson with vital information on the location of the Sierra from a global network of sources.

On July 15, 1979, the Sea Shepherd found the Sierra near Oporto, Portugal and chased the whaler to the port of Leixoes. Sierra pretended to enter the port as if to dock and avoid further confrontation. However, as the Sea Shepherd entered the port the Sierra turned and fled leaving Watson to deal with the Portuguese harbor pilots who boarded the ship to guide her in, and the harbor officials who planned to detain the activist vessel. Fourteen members of the crew were unwilling to continue and Watson left them ashore taking the Sea Shepherd out with a crew of three after the Sierra.

When Watson caught up with the Sierra he put the concrete reinforced bow to work and rammed the pirate whaler. The first strike landed at the bow of the Sierra in a failed attempt to knock out the harpoon gun. For the second and final blow, the Sea Shepherd rammed the Sierra amidships leaving a large gash in the pirate whaler's hull. Despite the damage, Sierra was able to limp back to Leixoes but hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of repairs would be needed to make the ship sea worthy again. Sea Shepherd attempted to escape but was quickly met by a Portuguese destroyer and escorted back to port. Watson was briefly arrested and was threatened with the forfeiture of his ship by the decision of a Portuguese court. After several months of efforts to have the Sea Shepherd released, and with most of its valuable equipment stolen, Watson and engineer Peter Woof scuttled the ship to prevent her from falling into the whalers' hands.

We traded a ship for a ship, but it was a great trade because we also traded our ship for the lives of hundreds of whales that would be spared from the Sierra.


Paul Watson

In February 1980, just as the Sierra was nearly completely repaired and refitted to continue whaling, unknown saboteurs hired by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society used magnetic limpet mines to blow a hole in her side and sank the pirate whaler in Lisbon harbor, permanently ending her career.

However, Sierra was hardly the world's only pirate whaling ship. Nick Carter's continued efforts, in addition to investigations by Greenpeace and other groups, also uncovered pirate whalers in South America with an operation in Brazil labeled as a "Japanese whaling colony" by environmentalists. In Chile, a whaler operating in the service of a Panamanian front company conducted coastal whaling. In Peru, three pirate whalers were hunting year-round. Elsewhere, in Taiwan four pirate whaling ships were taking whales from the South China Sea and others out of Korea were at work in the Sea of Japan. In each case, links to Japanese companies (particularly Taiyo Gyogyo) were discovered.

Prosecution: South Africa

In April 1979, Colin Eglin, leader of the South African opposition, urged the government to investigate pirate whaling while Andrew Behr (owner of the Sierra and other pirate whalers) now denied any links to such activities. However, at the same time two Panamanian flagged whaling ships, Susan and Theresa (each named for Behr's daughters), were being converted into hybrid factory-catcher ships just like the Sierra by a South African shipbuilder.

A Cape Times reporter, Stephen Wrottesley, also discovered the Sierra Fishing Company was hiring a new crew in the Cape Town area and another ship, the MV Fisher (formerly the MV Yashima Maru), was also being refitted for whaling and was registered in Panama. Nick Carter, his colleague Nan Rice, and many other conservationists personally urged Colin Eglin to act while international environmental organizations pressured the government for an official inquiry. When port authorities ordered all South African nationals off of the Fisher, a foreign crew took the ship to the Canary Islands and it was renamed the Astrid. Soon after, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society distributed wanted posters advertising a $25,000 reward to anyone who would sink it. Andrew Behr relocated himself and his family to England and the Susan and Theresa were seized as a result of the inquiry. The legal battle to have the ships released failed and years later the two pirate whalers were used for target practice and destroyed by the South African Navy.

Direct action: Spain

Industria Ballenera SA (IBSA) was Spain's only remaining whaling company which had operated with government support and without the restrictions of international regulations as Spain was not a member of the IWC. However, as a result of the Sierra scandal and increasing pressure from the US, Japan officially banned the import of whale meat from non-IWC members on July 5, 1979. Predictably, Spain joined the IWC at the start of its next annual meeting and continued to ship whale meat to Japan.

In December 1979, two explosions were heard in the port of Corbubión (Galicia, Spain) but the whaling ships there were not damaged. Then on April 27, 1980, the whalers Ibsa I and Ibsa II were sunk in the port of Marin by unknown saboteurs hired by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society with limpet mines in a manner similar to the sinking of the Sierra.

Later on June 17, 1980, Greenpeace activists aboard the Rainbow Warrior confronted the whaling ship, Ibsa III, again deploying zodiacs to maneuver between the whalers and the whales. After a few hours of interference, warships from the Spanish Navy arrived to pursue and eventually board the Greenpeace ship. The activist crew was formally arrested and the Rainbow Warrior confiscated despite claims that the incident took place in international waters.

Charged in a military court, the captain of the Rainbow Warrior, Jonathan Castle, refused to pay the $142,000 fine (1,200,000 pesetas) and the ship was held in the military harbor O Ferrol. Spanish authorities disabled the activist vessel by removing the thrust block from its engine. However, for five months Greenpeace members kept the ship otherwise seaworthy while a secret effort was made to find a new thrust block. A replacement part was found, smuggled into Spain, and walked past the Spanish guards by Greenpeace members laughing and acting as if returning from a bout of drinking. Finally, on November 8 the Rainbow Warrior escaped under cover of darkness during a changing of the guard. The Spanish Navy was unable (or unwilling) to find and recapture the activists who were given a heroes' welcome in Jersey on November 11 by cheering crowds. Later, on November 15, the ship finally arrived to Amsterdam, her base.

In 1981, the Spanish Socialist Workers Party sponsored a motion long supported by organized environmental lobbying to compel Spain's IWC delegates to vote for a moratorium and immediate halt to whaling. The motion passed on December 16 of the same year with an overwhelming majority.

Sanctuary: Indian Ocean

In 1979 the influence of environmentalists was realized in the membership of the International Whaling Commission through the nation of Seychelles. Dr. Sidney Holt, a well known marine biologist and former IWC scientific committee member (one of the "Three Wise Men"), envisioned an ocean refuge for whales. Holt's companion, Lyall Watson, a respected nature writer in Seychelles, put him in contact with the nation's president, Albert Rene. The tiny island country joined the IWC and Holt watched from an NGO observer's seat as Lyall Watson led the Seychelles delegation to propose and succeed in establishing an Indian Ocean whale sanctuary.

However, the environmental victory did not come without cost. Japan responded in 1980 by ending a grant scheme to Seychelles for a fisheries research and training vessel. A letter from the Japanese ambassador explained this grant would not be extended to the tiny island nation due to its position in the International Whaling Commission and stated this decision would be reversed if the attitude of the Seychelles government changed at the IWC. Surprisingly, Maxine Ferrari, the Seychelles Minister of Development and Planning, quickly rejected and condemned Japan's actions. On January 9, 1981, the Sumi Maru No. 25, a Japanese fishing boat, was seized while fishing in Seychelles waters and fined $115,000. In April, 1982, Japanese Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki offered a $40 million aid package to Seychelles which was ultimately rejected as well.

In this particular case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regrets to note that the Japanese government, wilst expressing annoyance with Seychelles' positive stand in the IWC, did not take into consideration the indiscriminate and rapacious exploitation of the Seychelles fisheries resources by the Japanese fishing fleet over many years in the recent past. Making Japanese advanced technology available to Seychelles to sort out the mess left behind by Japanese fishermen would constitute but a meager form of restitution.


Seychelles MoFA

Invasion: Siberia

The Soviets reasoned that the best way to conduct a subsistence hunt was to employ a single modern whaling ship, the Zevezdny, to catch whales on behalf of the Siberian native people. Instead of the average 10 to 30 whales historically claimed in one year, after 1955 the quota rose to nearly 200 gray whales and international observers were not permitted.

On August 9, 1981, Paul Watson led a new crew, aboard the Sea Shepherd II, from Nome, Alaska into the territorial waters of the Soviet Union. When the activists arrived at the Soviet whaling station village of Loren they quickly discovered that the whaling operation had been dedicated to producing feed for a commercial mink farm, complete with non-aboriginal blonde haired, blue eyed Russian workers. They managed to film and photograph the whaling station. The evidence was later turned over to Congress. The activists were soon running from the Russian military, including helicopter gunships and a destroyer, but managed to escape into American waters.

On July 18, 1983, Greenpeace made its own incursion into Siberia during the week of the annual IWC conference. Greenpeace also landed at the whaling station at Loren. However, the Russians were not going to be caught off guard again. Soldiers and police arrested the seven that made it ashore. The Rainbow Warrior was also chased by warships and helicopters and after a six-hour ordeal safely returned to the US.

The Greenpeace activists were held captive for several days before a transfer was arranged with an American delegation led by Nome, Alaska Mayor, Leo Rasmussen. On the US-Russian border in the Bering Strait, the Rainbow Warrior peacefully met Russian warships to retrieve its crew. Rasmussen gave the Soviets an "I Love Nome" button and returned with the activists aboard a Greenpeace zodiac.

Investigation: Chile

In January 1979, a Greenpeace investigator, Campbell Plowden, narrowly avoided arrest by the Chilean DINA (secret police) as he gathered information, including photographic evidence, on the whaling operation in San Vicente, Chile|. In 1981, two more Greenpeace activists covertly researched Chilean coastal whaling. They found a fleet of three outdated whaling ships that were only able to land 77 whales in 1976 but increased the quota to 500 in 1978.

Greenpeace discovered Japan's investment in Chilean whaling included a hybrid catcher-factory ship originally named the Orient Maru No. 2, then renamed the Paulmy Star III, and in 1980 it became the Juan 9. Although it was prohibited to sell whaling equipment to non-members, export documents revealed the whaling ship was falsely listed as a shrimp trawler before Chile joined the IWC. The whalers consistently violated IWC regulations including hunting out of season and killing protected species. In 1984, the propeller shaft of the Juan 9 broke resulting in financial troubles that led creditors to seize the ship the next year.

Investigation: China (Taiwan)

In 1979 and 1980, Greenpeace activists gathered evidence of pirate whaling operations in the South China Sea and uncovered a regional unregulated whale meat trade implicating Taiwan (China), South Korea, and Japan. People in Taiwan officials denied the existence of the pirate whalers, and Japan denied importing whale meat from Taiwan. However, the investigators discovered four (formerly Japanese) whaling ships (Sea Bird, Sea Flower, Chi Hsin, Chu Feng) with crews in Taiwan, officers in Japan, and Panamanian flags.

The investigation continued in Japan's Tsukiji market where Campbell Plowden and Rebecca Clark found whale meat, packed by Marine Enterprises Co. Ltd (a South Korean front company), that had originally come from Taiwan. In 1979, Japan reported the import of 1,800 tons of whale meat from South Korea, but the Koreans had only reported the export of 400 tons. This led Plowden and Clark to the Marine Enterprises processing plant to gather proof of Taiwan provided whale meat repackaged as a product of Korea for shipment to Japan.

In late February 1980, just days after these findings were reported to the United States government, Japanese customs agents seized 300 tons of Korean whale meat as illegally imported from Taiwan. The Taiwanese government responded to the threat of sanctions from the US and to the loss of Japan's support by impounding the pirate whaling ships.

Direct action: Peru

In February 1978, an endangered blue whale washed ashore near the town of Conchan, Peru and died from massive harpoon wounds as Peruvian conservationist, Felipe Benavides watched.

A Peruvian subsidiary of Japan's Taiyo Fisheries, known as Victoria del Mar, operated three coastal whaling ships (Victoria 1, 2, and 7) with a shore station in Paita. In 1982, Greenpeace sent in the Rainbow Warrior. On the December 13, several Greenpeace activists boarded the Victoria 7 and chained themselves to the harpoon cannon. A day later, Peruvian marines cut the chains and arrested the protesters.

The Greenpeace activists were threatened with charges of piracy. However, many Peruvians protested on their behalf including Felipe Benavides, who had opposed whaling for nearly 30 years. After several days, the activists were released with a $3,000 fine, and two weeks later, the Rainbow Warrior was released as well. Despite continued protest and international diplomatic pressure, Peru continued whaling until 1986.

Ban on commercial whaling

After growing pressure from member nations, in 1979, the IWC established the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary as a practical conservation measure. Three years later, in 1982, the IWC adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling, which took effect in 1986 and allowed for scientific research whaling. When Japan resumed whale hunts under the auspices of a research program, some anti-whaling countries and organizations criticized the moratorium's loophole for continued commercial whaling. On March 31, 2014, the International Court of Justice ruled that Japan must stop its whaling in the Antarctic.

In 1994, the IWC created the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica to protect whales in their breeding grounds. Two additional sanctuaries were proposed in 1998 by anti-whaling nations, but they failed to get enough votes in the IWC.

Sea Shepherd's RV Farley Mowat, docked in Melbourne before setting out to pursue the Japanese whaling fleet in 2005.

Modern conflicts

Throughout the past decade, while pro- and anti-whaling nations debated and deliberated at the IWC, private activists have organized a range of protests against commercial whaling. Most notably, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society continue separate campaigns of direct action against whale hunts conducted by Norway, Iceland, and Japan. Both also conduct media campaigns and other public outreach to raise awareness. Each organization criticizes the other for differing activist philosophies and each, in turn, receives criticism from both pro- and anti-whaling countries.

Tensions have grown over the past few years during Sea Shepherd's confrontations with Japanese whaling vessels in the whale sanctuary off the coast of Antarctica. In 2008, the documentary-style TV series Whale Wars began filming these confrontations, bringing some light to both sides of the controversy. The same year, two Greenpeace protesters were arrested in Japan for their investigation of whale meat. "The governments of Australia and New Zealand, which have responsibility for maritime rescue in the area where the whale hunt is usually conducted, have repeatedly urged both sides to tone their responses down."

More recently, the Australian government, as an anti-whaling member of the IWC, set a November 2010 deadline to stop Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean or face an international legal challenge. However, the IWC's ban on commercial whaling is under debate and could be overturned by the end of 2010. In a compromise aimed at ending a deadlock between anti-whaling nations and whaling countries, such as Norway, Iceland, and Japan, the IWC would permit limited commercial hunting. The IWC proposal drew immediate criticism from environmentalists, who described it as "disaster for whales."

Subsistence hunting

Inuit subsistence whaling. A beluga whale is flensed for its maktaaq which is an important source of vitamin C in the diet of some Inuit.

 

There has been some resistance to subsistence hunting by the Sea Shepherd group. When the Makah people tried to revive their traditional hunt it was disrupted by Sea Shepherd's "chase boats". Greenpeace took a different position in stating that cultural revival of whaling by groups like the Makah is not the problem. Greenpeace opposes all commercial whaling, claiming that it is not sustainable. However, they state that they do not oppose subsistence whaling by indigenous peoples. They do promote whale watching as an alternative economy to commercial whaling.

Organizations

The following organizations have taken part in or supported anti-whaling activities.

• Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
• Greenpeace
• Sierra Club
• Whalewatch
• World Wide Fund for Nature

Methods and tactics

Anti-whaling action is a part of both environmental activism and marine conservation. Forms of expression may include but are not limited to protest as demonstration and direct action, outreach through media, and political maneuvering.

Protest

Often the most visible expression of anti-whaling activism is through public demonstration of protest: nonviolent action by groups of people, ranging from simple display of public signage and banners to picketing, walking in a march, or meeting (rally) to hear speakers. Actions such as blockades and sit-ins may also be referred to as demonstrations, although these would normally be considered direct action.

Direct action is activity undertaken by individuals, groups, or governments to achieve anti-whaling goals outside of normal social/political channels: nonviolent and violent activities which target persons, groups, or property deemed to be engaged in whaling, commercial or otherwise. Examples of nonviolent direct action include strikes, blockades, workplace occupations, sit-ins, and graffiti. Violent direct actions include sabotage, vandalism, and assault. Direct actions are sometimes a form of civil disobedience, but some (such as strikes) do not always violate criminal law.

Outreach

While protest often leads to publicity of anti-whaling activities, there are more direct ways to raise public awareness. Media activism uses media and communication technologies for social movement, and/or tries to change policies relating to media and communication. Websites, newsletters, calls to action, pamphlets, books, speaking tours, rallies and mass mailings are all examples of outreach efforts.

Other more formal ways of affecting change are political campaigning, diplomacy, negotiation and arbitration, and lobbying are methods of influencing decisions made by the government (in groups or individually). This includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents, or organized groups.

World Heritage site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Logo of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee

A World Heritage site is a landmark or area which is selected by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as having cultural, historical, scientific or other form of significance, and is legally protected by international treaties. The sites are judged important to the collective interests of humanity.

To be selected, a World Heritage Site must be an already classified landmark, unique in some respect as a geographically and historically identifiable place having special cultural or physical significance (such as an ancient ruin or historical structure, building, city, complex, desert, forest, island, lake, monument, mountain, or wilderness area). It may signify a remarkable accomplishment of humanity, and serve as evidence of our intellectual history on the planet.

The sites are intended for practical conservation for posterity, which otherwise would be subject to risk from human or animal trespassing, unmonitored/uncontrolled/unrestricted access, or threat from local administrative negligence. Sites are demarcated by UNESCO as protected zones. The list is maintained by the international World Heritage Program administered by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, composed of 21 states parties which are elected by their General Assembly.

The programme catalogues, names, and conserves sites of outstanding cultural or natural importance to the common culture and heritage of humanity. Under certain conditions, listed sites can obtain funds from the World Heritage Fund. The program began with the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage, which was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. Since then, 193 state parties have ratified the convention, making it one of the most widely recognized international agreements and the world's most popular cultural program.

As of July 2018, a total of 1,092 World Heritage sites (845 cultural, 209 natural, and 38 mixed properties) exist across 167 countries. Italy, with 54 sites, has the most of any country, followed by China (53), Spain (47), France (44), Germany (44), India (37), and Mexico (35).

History

Convention concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage

Signed	16 November 1972
Location	Paris, France
Effective	17 December 1975
Condition	20 ratifications
Ratifiers	193 (189 UN member states plus the Cook Islands, the Holy See, Niue, and Palestine)
Depositary	Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Languages	Arabic, English, French, Russian, and Spanish

In 1954, the government of Egypt decided to build the new Aswan High Dam, whose resulting future reservoir would eventually inundate a large stretch of the Nile valley containing cultural treasures of ancient Egypt and ancient Nubia. In 1959, the governments of Egypt and Sudan requested UNESCO to assist their countries to protect and rescue the endangered monuments and sites. In 1960, the Director-General of UNESCO launched an appeal to the Member States for an International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia. This appeal resulted in the excavation and recording of hundreds of sites, the recovery of thousands of objects, as well as the salvage and relocation to higher ground of a number of important temples, the most famous of which are the temple complexes of Abu Simbel and Philae. The campaign, which ended in 1980, was considered a success. As tokens of its gratitude to countries which especially contributed to the campaign's success, Egypt donated four temples: the Temple of Dendur was moved to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Temple of Debod was moved to the Parque del Oeste in Madrid, the Temple of Taffeh was moved to the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in the Netherlands, and the Temple of Ellesyia to Museo Egizio in Turin.

The project cost $80 million, about $40 million of which was collected from 50 countries. The project's success led to other safeguarding campaigns: saving Venice and its lagoon in Italy, the ruins of Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan, and the Borobodur Temple Compounds in Indonesia. UNESCO then initiated, with the International Council on Monuments and Sites, a draft convention to protect the common cultural heritage of humanity.

Convention and background

The United States initiated the idea of cultural conservation with nature conservation. The White House conference in 1965 called for a "World Heritage Trust" to preserve "the world's superb natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry". The International Union for Conservation of Nature developed similar proposals in 1968, and they were presented in 1972 to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. Under the World Heritage Committee, signatory countries are required to produce and submit periodic data reporting providing the World Heritage Committee with an overview of each participating nation's implementation of the World Heritage Convention and a "snapshot" of current conditions at World Heritage properties.

A single text was agreed on by all parties, and the "Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage" was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972.

The Convention came into force on 17 December 1975. As of May 2017, it has been ratified by 193 states parties, including 189 UN member states plus the Cook Islands, the Holy See, Niue, and the State of Palestine. Only four UN member states have not ratified the Convention: Liechtenstein, Nauru, Somalia and Tuvalu.

Nominating process

A country must first list its significant cultural and natural sites; the result is called the Tentative List. A country may not nominate sites that have not been first included on the Tentative List. Next, it can place sites selected from that list into a Nomination File.

The Nomination File is evaluated by the International Council on Monuments and Sites and the World Conservation Union. These bodies then make their recommendations to the World Heritage Committee. The Committee meets once per year to determine whether or not to inscribe each nominated property on the World Heritage List and sometimes defers or refers the decision to request more information from the country which nominated the site. There are ten selection criteria – a site must meet at least one of them to be included on the list.

Selection criteria

Up to 2004, there were six criteria for cultural heritage and four criteria for natural heritage. In 2005, this was modified so that there is now only one set of ten criteria. Nominated sites must be of "outstanding universal value" and meet at least one of the ten criteria. These criteria have been modified or/amended several times since their creation.

Cultural criteria

Site#252: Taj Mahal, an example of cultural heritage site

1. "represents a masterpiece of human creative genius and cultural significance"
2. "exhibits an important interchange of human values, over a span of time, or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning, or landscape design"
3. "to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared"
4. "is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural, or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage in human history"
5. "is an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture, or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change"
6. "is directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance"
^[13]

Natural criteria

Site#156: Serengeti National Park, an example of natural heritage site

 

Site#274: Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, an example of mixed heritage site

7. "contains superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance"
8. "is an outstanding example representing major stages of Earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features"
9. "is an outstanding example representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems, and communities of plants and animals"
10. "contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation"

Legal status of designated sites

UNESCO designation as a World Heritage Site provides prima facie evidence that such culturally sensitive sites are legally protected pursuant to the Law of War, under the Geneva Convention, its articles, protocols and customs, together with other treaties including the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and international law.

Thus, the Geneva Convention treaty promulgates:

"Article 53. PROTECTION OF CULTURAL OBJECTS AND OF PLACES OF WORSHIP. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954,' and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:

(a) To commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;

(b) To use such objects in support of the military effort;

(c) To make such objects the object of reprisals."

Extensions and other modifications

A country may request to extend or reduce the boundaries, modify the official name, or change the selection criteria of one of its already listed sites. Any proposal for a significant boundary change or modify the site's selection criteria must be submitted as if it were a new nomination, including first placing it on the Tentative List and then onto the Nomination File.

A request for a minor boundary change, one that does not have a significantly impact on the extent of the property or affect its "outstanding universal value", is also evaluated by the advisory bodies before being sent to the Committee. Such proposals can be rejected by either the advisory bodies or the Committee if they judge it to be a significant change instead of a minor one.

Proposals to change the site's official name is sent directly to the Committee.

Endangered sites

A site may be added to the List of World Heritage in Danger if there are conditions that threaten the characteristics for which the landmark or area was inscribed on the World Heritage List. Such problems may involve armed conflict and war, natural disasters, pollution, poaching, or uncontrolled urbanization or human development. This danger list is intended to increase international awareness of the threats and to encourage counteractive measures. Threats to a site can be either proven imminent threats or potential dangers that could have adverse effects on a site.

The state of conservation for each site on the danger list is reviewed on a yearly basis, after which the committee may request additional measures, delete the property from the list if the threats have ceased or consider deletion from both the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List.

Only two sites have ever been delisted: the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman and the Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany. The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary was directly delisted in 2007, instead of first being put on the danger list, after the Omani government decided to reduce the protected area's size by 90 percent. The Dresden Elbe Valley was first placed on the danger list in 2006 when the World Heritage Committee decided that plans to construct the Waldschlösschen Bridge would significantly alter the valley's landscape. In response, the Dresden City Council attempted to stop the bridge's construction, but after several court decisions allowed the building of the bridge to proceed, the valley was removed from the World Heritage List in 2009.

The first global assessment to quantitatively measure threats to Natural World Heritage Sites found that 63 percent of sites have been damaged by increasing Human pressures including encroaching roads, agriculture infrastructure and settlements over the last two decades. These activities endanger Natural World Heritage Sites and could compromise their unique values. Of the Natural World Heritage Sites which contain forest, 91 percent of those experienced some loss since the year 2000. Many Natural World Heritage sites are more threatened than previously thought and require immediate conservation action.

Statistics

UNESCO World Heritage Sites

There are 1092 World Heritage Sites located in 167 states. Of these, 845 are cultural, 209 are natural and 38 are mixed properties. The World Heritage Committee has divided the world into five geographic zones which it calls regions: Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Russia and the Caucasus states are classified as European, while Mexico and the Caribbean are classified as belonging to the Latin America & Caribbean zone, despite their location in North America. The UNESCO geographic zones also give greater emphasis on administrative, rather than geographic associations. Hence, Gough Island, located in the South Atlantic, is part of the Europe & North America region because the government of the United Kingdom nominated the site.
The table below includes a breakdown of the sites according to these zones and their classification:

Zone/region	Cultural	Natural	Mixed	Total	%	State Parties with inscribed properties
Africa	52	38	5	95	8.70%	35
Arab States	76	5	3	84	7.69%	18
Asia and the Pacific	181	65	12	258*	23.63%	36
Europe and North America	440	63	11	514*	47.07%	50
Latin America and the Caribbean	96	38	7	141*	12.91%	28
Total	845	209	38	1092	100%	167

*The properties "Uvs Nuur Basin" and "Landscapes of Dauria" (Mongolia, Russian Federation) are trans-regional properties located in Europe and Asia and the Pacific region. They are counted here in the Asia and the Pacific region.

*The property "The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier, an Outstanding Contribution to the Modern Movement" (Argentina, Belgium, France, Germany, India, Japan, Switzerland) is a trans-regional property with component sites located in three regions - Europe and North America, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean. It is counted here in Europe and North America.

Countries with fifteen or more sites

Countries with fifteen or more World Heritage Sites, as of July 2018.

Consequences

Despite the successes of World Heritage listing in promoting conservation, the UNESCO administered project has attracted criticism from some for perceived under-representation of heritage sites outside Europe, disputed decisions on site selection and adverse impact of mass tourism on sites unable to manage rapid growth in visitor numbers.

A sizable lobbying industry has grown around the awards because World Heritage listing has the potential to significantly increase tourism revenue from sites selected. Site listing bids are often lengthy and costly, putting poorer countries at a disadvantage. Eritrea's efforts to promote Asmara are one example.

In 2016, the Australian government was reported to have successfully lobbied for Great Barrier Reef conservation efforts to be removed from a UNESCO report titled 'World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate'. The Australian government's actions were in response to their concern about the negative impact that an 'at risk' label could have on tourism revenue at a previously designated UNESCO World Heritage site.

A number of listed World Heritage locations such as George Town, Penang and Casco Viejo, Panama have struggled to strike the balance between the economic benefits of catering to greatly increased visitor numbers and preserving the original culture and local communities that drew the recognition.