Further written evidence submitted by Rob Deaville, Project Manager, UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme (MM0025)

Question 2- Why is the health of marine mammal populations important and to what extent does their health mirror that of the marine environment more generally? In other words, to what extent are they an indicator or sentinel species

In addition to evidence given during the oral session, I would also like to highlight that data collected from contaminants analyses of UK stranded harbour porpoises contributes to the 25-year environment plan H4 indicator[1]. As well as acting as an indicator of the overall health of the marine environment, this also demonstrates how effective policy action can potentially lead to environmental change in pollutant levels.  

Question 30- I want to touch on the threats to marine mammal populations. The April 2021 OceanCare report provided a very useful outline of the case using the main threats identified, so I will just go through them: bycatch, strandings, noise, vessel strikes, climate change, and pollution. Out of that list, are there any that you do not agree should be on it and, if you do agree that that is the definitive list, what would you consider the biggest issues requiring the most urgent action?

In addition to evidence given during the oral session, I would like to flag that this list may not necessarily be exhaustive and additional threats may continue to emerge in the future. And as Professor Lusseau raised in his oral evidence, these pressures may interact synergistically and gaining a better understanding of the cumulative effects of multiple stressors is also important.

For example, a harbour porpoise living coastally in the UK may be exposed to high levels of noise from multiple sources, locally extensive bycatch impacts, alongside overlapping issues with chemical pollution exposure and the increasing effects of climate change. The cumulative effects of these pressures may have more impact alongside each other, than they would when acting individually and this is becoming an increasingly important area of focus in marine mammal research[2]. 

Question 31- What are the biggest issues there that have been outlined?

In addition to evidence given during the oral session, I would also like to reiterate that from our perspective in the UK strandings programmes, evidence of all the threats listed in Question 30 have been observed in the UK. But bycatch/entanglement and issues with chemical pollutant exposure are two of the more serious issues in my view.

Beyond the issues I highlighted with legacy pollutants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which may be causing existential threats in some marine mammal populations, other issues with chemical exposure exist. Many chemicals are not routinely tested for their environmental impact and are not routinely monitored. Many chemicals have little to no available toxicity information. And as with issues around cumulative impacts described in the response to Q30 above, any synergistic interactions between the cocktail of chemicals found in the environment are also poorly understood. The regulatory process through the Stockholm Convention may also be considered to be relatively ineffective[3]. Much more work therefore needs to be done in this area, to gain a better understanding of both the scale and scope of the issue of chemical pollutant exposure and toxic effects across biota and the wider ecosystem.

Question 37- Can you give us some examples of the Arctic countries?

I would draw the committee’s attention to the submission to the inquiry by Defra, which has thorough summary information on countries where whaling/hunting still continue. This also includes detail on Arctic countries where these practices take place.

“The UK is a Contracting Party to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), whose governing body is the International Whaling Commission (IWC). A global moratorium on commercial whaling has been in place since 1982 (with effect from the 1985/1986 season) and is binding on those ICRW Parties who agreed it. The UK is a strong supporter of the global moratorium remaining in place.

There are currently three countries that hunt large whales for commercial purposes[4]: Norway (a Party to the ICRW which made a formal objection to the moratorium), Iceland (a Party to the ICRW which made a reservation to the moratorium[5]), and Japan (which is not bound by the moratorium after withdrawing from the ICRW in 2019).

The UK accepts whaling for subsistence purposes where there is a clearly defined need, and it is in line with the scientific advice about relevant whale populations. The IWC categorises “aboriginal subsistence whaling” (ASW) differently from commercial whaling and ASW is not subject to the moratorium. Four ICRW Parties conduct subsistence hunts for large whales: Denmark (Greenland), Russia (Chukotka), St Vincent and the Grenadines (Bequia) and the United States (Alaska and also potentially a resumption of hunts previously undertaken by the Makah Tribe of Washington State). The IWC sets catch limits for ASW in these countries taking into account advice from the IWC’s Scientific Committee[6]. Whaling by indigenous people also occurs in Canada which is not a Party to the ICRW.

Small cetaceans are not covered by the ICRW’s moratorium on commercial whaling. There are several places where small cetaceans are killed including Japan, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Canada, the Solomon Islands and Peru.

Other marine mammals are killed in several countries. This includes hunting of seals and walrus in some Arctic countries for both subsistence and commercial purposes. Canada’s commercial hunt of seals is the largest in the world and there is also a significant commercial hunt of Cape fur seals in Namibia.”

November 2022