Report of the Workshop on the Scientific Aspects of Managing Whale Watching

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Scientific framework to guide the formulation of rules

Decisions about where, when and how to regulate whale watching will be made on the basis of various factors, such as public perceptions, local and national economic needs, cultural factors, practicability of proposed rules and the ethics of human relationships with animals. The following discussion assumes, however, that such decisions will be made and adjusted, at least partly, on the basis of scientific knowledge. All available pertinent information, including local experience and studies from other animals, can be used to develop and implement "common-sense" initial or interim rules. Such rules might include guidance to:

• minimise speed and avoid sudden changes in speed, direction or noise
• minimise noise from all sources
• not pursue, encircle or separate whales
• determine appropriate angle of approach
• consider the cumulative impacts on whales of platform numbers and length of exposure
• allow the whales to control the nature and duration of the "interaction"

These rules are intended as "rules of engagement" for individual vessels and groups of vessels. They should continue in force until results of experimental or observational studies indicate a need for change.

The group surveyed the existing rules for humpback whales (animals which are worldwide in distribution, targets of widespread whale watching operations and increasing in numbers) (Table 3) and right whales (which have a limited distribution and are thus the targets of whale watching in only a few locations, and are severely depleted) (Table 4). The exercise shows clearly that while rules for a given species may vary from area to area, they could form the basis for selecting initial rules.

An iterative decision procedure (algorithm) (Figure 1, inside back cover) was developed to help guide decision makers in modifying initial or interim rules based on "minimum information" and adjusting those rules based on results of additional information. The various options are numbered in the decision tree and below for ease of discussion.

The group has identified a list of dependent variables it called "Measurement Parameters" (features of whale behaviour, population dynamics, etc.) which it believes can be quantified and interpreted meaningfully as an indication of short-term or long-term impacts. It also identified a list of independent variables which it called "Influence Parameters". The particular "Influence Parameters" selected are especially relevant because they are subject to regulation and change to eliminate or reduce the impacts.

It is suggested that the relationship between influence parameters and measurement parameters be addressed through experimental and/or observational studies addressing the hypothesis:

Ho: in the short term, the individual (or group) is unaffected by whale watching (as measured through parameter x).

A. If one is unable to reject that null hypothesis, then one may elect to:

1. recommend further study;
2. modify no further the existing common-sense rules, or;
3. consider relaxing rules (when most or all foreseeable "Influence Parameters" have been examined and found to have no or inconsequential impacts, It may be appropriate to relax initial or interim rules).

B. If, on the other hand, results direct that the null hypothesis be rejected, i.e. they indicate that some short-term impact has occurred, there are several possible actions, including:

1. proceed to 3, or;
2. define precautionary thresholds to guide formulation or modification of rules, and;
3. use those thresholds as a basis for further refining interim rules.

The group also identified a list of "Measurement Parameters" which it believed were indicative of long- term impacts. Again, it was suggested that these topics (Parameters 1-i) be addressed through experimental or observational studies addressing the hypothesis:

H_o: in the long term, the population is unaffected by whale watching (as measured through parameter x).

A. If one is unable to reject that null hypothesis:

1. further modification of existing rules may not be made or they may be deferred pending further study, or;
2. further modification to rules may be made based on:

   a. precedents indicating population impacts on other mammal species, or;

   b. precautionary grounds.

B. If, on the other hand, results direct that the null hypothesis be rejected, i.e. that results indicate that some population impact has occurred, one would recommend that appropriate changes be made to existing rules.

Several difficulties were noted with this approach for incorporating results of science into evolving rules:

1. Information pertinent to informed rule-making does not derive only from carefully designed experiments. The flow of information from whale watch operators and participants, scientists and the public is critical to the iterative process of making and refining rules. In any case, responsible authorities, when setting rules in each situation, must consider at least the minimum required information (e.g. distribution and numbers of individuals in the species and proportion of total numbers and range affected by the whale watching). in support of any interim rules that are adopted, it would be helpful to identify a previously unexploited situation in which the effects of programs incorporating various values are experimentally determined.

2. There was concern that once interim rules were defined there would be no further opportunity to revise them. To prevent this potential for intransigence, it must be made clear from the outset that definition of rules is an iterative process which requires periodic updates based on evaluation of new information and a schedule for the frequency of those updates. In this regard, the New Zealand example illustrates clearly the importance of the governing body setting the rules having the flexibility to issue or revoke a permit or declare changes to procedures, requirements and rules at any time.

3. The workshop discussed and supported the establishment of interim rules at the initiation of new whale watching activities. Though concerns have been expressed, hard evidence of adverse impacts of existing whale watching activities is sparse. Thus there is little scientific reason for proposing that an activity may not begin until appropriate research has been conducted. An exception may be when the proposed activities involve "use" of a remnant and perhaps declining population of an endangered species. Another might be the launch of whale watching in an area where an endangered but non-target species also lives. In all cases it would be desirable to establish common-sense Initial rules before the activity is permitted.

In most cases concern that the particular new whale watching activity might be in some way detrimental to the whales will increase if the growth of the activity is rapid, or involves more platforms, bigger or noisier platforms, or a different kind of platform. Expressions of concern may not have a scientific or objective basis. Nevertheless once they have been voiced, it may be necessary to re-visit and modify the existing rules.

In formulating any such interim rules, account should be taken of experiences in other localities with whale watching of similar kinds and with similar subject species. Account should also be taken of the likely social and educative benefits from permitting continuation and some continued growth of the activity. Such benefits will in some circumstances include the involvement of local communities in conservation efforts. Another benefit could be the raising of public awareness of wild (particularly marine) nature in general and of cetaceans in particular.

In the decision algorithm illustrated, stage 2 is stated as a test of a null hypothesis of the form "target unaffected by parameter x". However, in considering tests, of short-term impacts in particular, the way in which the null hypothesis is formulated may be important: for example that a possible cause may have no impact on the animals, or alternatively, that it may have a certain anticipated effect. The choice of null hypothesis is not strictly a scientific matter, though it may be conditioned by the precise specification of management objectives. Examples of such specifications might be that whale watching may not be conducted in such a way as to cause change in behaviour of any whales, or that it must not be detrimental to population viability, and so on. One such guideline suggested as a basis for objective specification was "minimum acceptable impact".

In many, perhaps most, circumstances the statistical power of such tests may be low. A reasonable procedure, in the absence of precise management guidelines, is to test both forms of the hypothesis, and 'to calculate the power of each test. The result will be a two-by-two matrix, in which the probabilities of type I and type 11 errors [i.e. the likelihood of incorrectly rejecting a true hypothesis, and the likelihood of incorrectly not rejecting a false hypothesis] can be examined and the various consequences evaluated.

The decision procedure for testing the alternate null hypothesis, i.e. that the target is affected by parameter x in a specified way (and perhaps to a specified degree), may be set out in a way corresponding but not identical with the illustrated diagram.

6.2 Other scientific issues

Contents

Back to Cetaceans's Ecological Legislation
Back to the Whale-Watching-Web