OVER SEAS September 2000: Between Slaughterhouse and Freedom: A Matter of Man's Choice or a Whale's Right?

	The Online Magazine for Sustainable Seas August, 2000 Vol.3 No. 8

Viewpoint

Between the Slaughterhouse and Freedom: A Matter of Man’s Choice or a Whale’s Right?

By Kai-J. Kühlmann
Consultant for Aquaculture and Coastal Resource Management, German Development Service, Guiuan Development Foundation Inc., 6809 Guiuan, P. O. Box 47856, Eastern Samar, Philippines

t was a sunny day of June 30 when Cathy, supervising community organizer of the Guiuan Development Foundation Inc. (GDFI), excitedly barged into the office, “Kai, there is a whale on the shore in front of the market. Alive! Alive and I saw it. Children are riding on its back!” I could not believe what I heard and so I asked over and over to check if I had understood correctly. Sensational photographs shot with my camera came into my mind—a visual testimony to a totally unexpected yet, utterly exciting experience during my two-year assignment as consultant for community-based coastal resource management at the GDFI in Eastern Samar, Philippines.

As we reached the market shore, we saw, from a distance of about 100 m, a small black dorsal fin gleaming out of the dark blue bay polluted by market and household wastes. From that distance the whale seemed to be weak and was rather floating than swimming. About seven children enjoyed playing and riding on its back. Luckily, Cathy met some members of one of our organized fisherfolk associations at the market side who have just arrived in a pump boat. They gave us a ride toward the distressed marine mammal. As we drove nearer to the approximately 1.5 m long whale, the muffled sound of exhaling air was clearly audible through its 3-cm diameter circular. According to Tan (1995), we had a baby pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) right in front of us.

The whale’s head and pectorals showed bloody grazes which may have been caused by net traps. Remarkable high pitch sounds from the whale made us immediately realize that this young whale was lost and looking for its group or parents through acoustic sounds. I searched for larger whales in the vicinity but it was in vain.

The fishers’ children riding on the whale’s back saw its weakness. It was quite probable, too, that profits from its slaughter have crossed everybody else’s mind. We, on the other hand, asked ourselves how we could contribute to save the whale.

Since GDFI has no legal authority over the protection of marine mammals, Cathy and I decided to return back to land to inform the local fisheries authority, the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR) Substation. Anzel, responsible for recording marine mammals at the BFAR Substation, obligingly joined us back to the bay. The whale was no longer at the site! What happened? Where was it? Fishers quickly informed us that the whale was brought to the slaughterhouse. Rushing to the slaughterhouse, about five fishers were busy pulling the cord-bound whale out of the water. What a surprise for them to see us back together with the BFAR-representative! Their questioning eyes were on us, partly respectful, simply waiting. The whale laid on the wooden floor, breathing heavily, eyes closed. Anzel, as the legal representative decided to set it back to the sea to check its condition. “If the whale dies it can be slaughtered anyway,” he concluded.

The fishers agreed seemingly sympathetic despite the potential profits. Together, we sailed towards the open sea, the whale beside us. Reaching cleaner shores away from the polluted market bay, the whale started to become more active and tried to dive and leap anticipating its freedom, back to the open sea, back home. After about 30 minutes, the whale started diving under the pump boat, swimming faster than the diesel engine could power us that we almost capsized. Although, we had not reached the open sea yet, we decided to set it free.

Soon enough, the pygmy killer whale swam around the boat repeatedly diving and surfacing in increasing frequency that culminated in small jumps.

Suddenly, the whale plotted a torpedo-like motion by diving under the boat starboard and jumping out of the water at the port side. “That was a thank you,” Anzel mentioned relieved. From a distance, we observed the pygmy killer whale swimming large rounds of about 500-1000 m in diameter hopefully, towards home.

After setting the whale free, fishers asked why the whale should be freed. To them, there are many and slaughtering it would have made good business for the day. Besides, “Is there really a law prohibiting whale catching?” A “seminar” on the value of such species was immediately held. Days later, fishers reported that they observed the whale in nearby Guiuan waters, but did not harm it.

Such attempts at protecting marine mammals, in general, might have been sparked during that event. In a matter of weeks, the local government released a “Legal Basis for Marine Mammal Protection Ordinances” to protect marine mammals like whales and dolphins in the municipal waters of Guiuan, Eastern Samar. Perhaps, this is a sign of better times ahead.

Regulatory Measures and Enforcement

Historically, whaling provided food and served as a source of income for the coastal populations of Samar. Later, processed whale products were developed, products that subsequently gained a high market value. Whales were chased and caught like fish although the whales’ reproductive capacity is by far lower compared to fish. Whales give birth only every one or two years to a single calf that requires more than a year of maternal care, while fish produces more fishes in the same time period. As companies strove to maximize their profits, commercial and traditional or “by-catch” whaling in gill nets resulted in continuous over-exploitation of some species. Agricultural or industrial development, in addition, caused degradation of natural habitats that negatively affected the recruitment of whale populations.

To globally regulate whaling and to keep under review measures for proper conservation of whale stocks, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was founded in 1946. The Philippines participated in the IWC from 1981 to 1986 and focused its endeavor in proper whaling by setting annual coastal whaling seasons from January to July (Barut 1994). Also, the Philippines ratified the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1981 wherein Feresa attenuata is classified as a species which is “not necessarily now threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade is strictly regulated” (BFAR 1996). In 1992, the BFAR issued Fisheries Administrative Order No. 185 that banned the catching, selling, purchasing, processing, transporting and exporting of dolphins. This was expanded to whales and porpoises in 1997. In addition, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources established an Inter-Agency Task Force on marine mammal conservation in 1993 to survey and assess whale populations in the country as well as to give popular education on how to rescue and salvage stranded or captured animals.

All these activities serve to regulate whale catch and contribute to its conservation. However, countless little steps are demanded to realize proper whale management in the Philippines especially in rural areas.

To enhance enforcement and development, collaboration with, environmental education of and alternative economic activities must be provided to the rural population. Non-government organizations (NGOs) can act as catalysts to strengthen the collaboration between local government units and fishers and farmer families. NGOs can focus on environmental awareness while the government can support various livelihood endeavors (e.g., fishing technologies appropriate to local needs) (McCloskey 1986). With this, the community can be capable to earn higher income as well as act more responsibly toward the environment. Non-consumptive utilization of whales (e.g., whale watching projects), for example, can supplement fishers’ income (Barstow 1986).

References:

Barstow, R. 1986. Non-consumptive Utilization of Whales. Ambio, 15(3): 155-163.

Barut, N.C. 1994. Policy and Management of Dolphins and Whales in the Philippines. Proceedings of a Symposium-Workshop on Marine Mammal Conservation: 35-37. Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. April 7-8, 1994.

BFAR. 1996. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. National edition (Brochure). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. 12 p.

McCloskey, M. 1986. Educational Campaigns for Marine Mammals. Ambio 15(3): 164-167.

Tan, J.M.L. 1995. A Field Guide to Whales and Dolphins in the Philippines. Studio Graphics & Bookmark Inc., Makati City, Philippines. 129 p.

Yu, V.P.B. 1998. Legal Memorandum on the Legal Basis for a Municipal/City Ordinance to Protect Whales, Dolphins and Other Marine Mammals. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center Inc.-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of Earth Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines. 3 p.

***

This website was made possible through support provided by the USAID under the terms of Contract No. AID 492-0444-C-00-6028-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID. As long as proper reference is made to the source, articles may be quoted or reproduced in any form for non-commercial, non-profit purposes to advance the cause of marine environmental management and conservation.