Whale Watching and Ecotourism: A Field Study in Northern Norway - Manuscript

1 “Whale-watching and Ecotourism” – a field study in northern Norway Heike I. Vester Ocean Sounds info@ocean-sounds.com Abstract (300 words)

Introduction/Background Whales are often used as icons by whale watching companies self awarding them an “eco” label, which do not meet the requirements of ecotourism. As an example “ecotourism activities should have minimal emissions, noise or waste, and they should monitor their impacts and should promote the conservation ethic” (Hoyt 2005).

This is in many cases not fulfilled by the whale watching industry, leading some places to poor quality, unmanaged, and most probably detrimental to the ecosystem.

In fact, there is little proof that whale watching can be considered sustainable, “nonconsumptive” activity with low impact on nature.

I will present examples from worldwide whale watching operations and compare it to my own ongoing research project in of whale watching impacts in northern Norway.

The first commercial whale watching started in 1955 in the US, viewing grey whales off the coast of San Diego. Now, whale-watching is a world wide (over 90 countries) growing form of wildlife tourism with viewing at most of the 85 (including endangered and threatened) species. Between 1991 and 1998, whale watching activity increased by 12.1 % worldwide, involving more than US$ 1 billion and 9 million people / year and this trend is increasing (Hoyt, 2001).

It has been discussed that whale watching can promote cetacean conservation, commercial vessels can be used as a platform for research and it may provide a viable economic alternative to whaling. As for today whale watching generates more than US$ 1 billion a year world wide, whereas the killing of whales only produces around US$ 50 a year. One of the most important organizations to promote responsible whale watching is the International Fund for Animal Welfare (www.ifaw.org). An important aspect of sustainable tourism is environmental education. In 1997 the IWC proposed that “all whale watching should contain an educational component adhering to a high standard of quality”. In a perfect world whale watching would be beneficial to the local economy, to environmental conservation, would have an educational value, be satisfactory to tourists and, have least impact on the whales.

On the other hand, recent concerns that whale watching activities have negative impact has questions those opinions. Impact of whale watching is still poorly understood but can range from disturbance and displacement of the whales to injury and death (review of Parsons, et al., 2006; Johnson, 2005). Research on impacts lags behind the explosive development of whale watching and is typically conducted after the industry has already been established in an area (Orams, 2004). However, existing research results show that there are short- and long-term effects on the whales (Parsons, et al., 2006). Short term effects are measured in immediate responses, such as changes in behavior or vocalizations, and horizontal or vertical avoidance. Longterm effects range from long term displacement, shift in habitat usage or the decline of the population (Bejder et al., 2006; Lusseau etal., 2006 ), however effects on the

2 energy costs and survival rate on the population level are difficult and often impossible to assess.

To decrease possible negative effects of whale watching on the animals, federal whale watching regulations or voluntary codes of conduct have been created for different situation all over the world (www.iwcoffice.org/). These regulations include descriptions of the way and speed of a boat approach, max distance to the whales, max time spent with the whales, amount of boats and signs of avoidance. A recent review of recent whale watching research concludes that “research on compliance with whale watching regulations world wide have consistently demonstrates low level of success.. but the common theme throughout latest studies remains that the whale watching industry continues to grow exponentially worldwide and further research is need to gather baseline data and develop long-term studies that will ultimately provide for more effective wildlife conservation and management.” (review of Parsons, et al., 2006).

In Norway whale watching has been introduced in 1988 in 2 places; Andøya watching sperm whales in the summer time and in the Vestfjord / Tysfjord area watching orcas in the winter time.

Hoyt assessed whale watching for IFAW in 2001 and stated in his report that Norway has an “outstanding potential, some of it being realized at Andenes, and by some of the Tysfjord operators. Whale watching continues to grow steadily, with an average 18.8% increase between 1994 and 1998.

Year No. of whale watchers Direct expenditures Total expenditures USD 1991 4,563 $459,000 $1,607,000 1994 11,227 $834,000 $4,567,000 1998 22,380 $1,632,000 $12,043,000 In the Tysfjord area, local hotels have been filled in the mid-autumn, adding offseason income, and hotels have helped organize educational workshops and events which have attracted tourists and contributed to the educational value of the tours.”

Several environmental organizations promoted whale watching in Norway, including a long-term project in Tysfjord funded by the WWF, and recommending Tysfjord whale watching on their web pages (IFAW; Green peace). Research in connection with the whale watching in Vestfjord / Tysfjord was introduced in 1983. Voluntary guidelines were created in Tysfjord by researcher in 1996. These codes were improved in 2004 and a workshop initiated by the leading scientists working with the whale watching company and the WWF was hold in Tysfjord in 2005. This and the fact that the leading scientist signs documentations of snorkeling with killer whales, gives the tourists the impression that whale watching was monitored and had no negative effect on the whales.

However, the amount of whale watching companies and thereby the number of boats increased from 3-4 boats in 1998 to 14-17 boats in 2007 (personal observations).

This increase in tourism during the winter time has an economical importance for the area (numbers of income not yet available), during a time, when otherwise there is no tourism at all. No federal regulations exist, and the industry is increasing uncontrollable. Also, Northern Norway is the only place in the world, were people can snorkel with killer whales, and this in addition attracts more and more tourists.

Despite the increase in whale watching activities, studies on possible impacts of snorkeling or other whale watching activities on the whales were never conducted.

3 Killer whales follow herring populations into Vestfjord during the winter months from October-January since early 80’s. During that time killer whales engage in feeding and breeding. During the last 3 years there seem to be a change in the whales’ distribution pattern; last season were less groups of killer whales visiting the fjord and in a shorter time (November to 14. January, personal observation).

This change may be attributed to the following reasons: Herring changes migration pattern (ecological aspect) again and less herring was in the fjord this winter than the last seasons.

Due to an increase in herring population size, there is an increase in fishery activities that changes the distribution of killer whales, since they feed from herring boats.

In addition anthropogenic activities increased in the Vestfjord during winter time, there are more whale watching boats, and invasive research has been introduced tagging and biopsy taking and tests of military sonar on killer whales behavior (last November).

Ongoing research project in northern Norway (ocean sounds): In 1998 I worked as a guide onboard a whale watching vessel in the Tysfjord area. At that time, there were only 3-4 boats, and only one diving boat exercising snorkeling with the whales. The whale watching was only done in October- November and I only observed avoidance reaction of the whales to boats on 2 occasions. When I returned to the Tysfjord area in 2003 to assist researchers on board a whale watching vessel, the activities have increased and you could see more than 15 boats around one whale group on week-ends in November. I observed avoidance behavior of the whales and lack of compliance of code of conduct on a regular basis. It was only natural to record this behavior and to update the code of conduct. In 2004 I started to study sound production of killer whales during the winter months when whale watching was operating at the same time. This was when I discovered the incredible amount of noise produced by whale watching boats. When analyzing my sound recordings from 2005 and 2005, I found that the whales either increased the frequency of the calls, use more high frequency whistles or cease calling when the noise level became high. To find out whether that was just a coincidence or was a result of the increased noise level by whale watching boats I stared to direct my studies towards whale watching impacts. The aim of the study is to understand the behavior of killer whales in the presence of anthropogenic activities, such as whale watching, in order to find ways to minimize possible negative effects on the whales.

Material and Methods: We used a 7,3m zodiac with a new 4-stroke outboard engine as research platform. At least 3 researchers were needed to conduct the data collection; a driver that recorded GPS coordinates, measured distance to whales and boats with a range finder and calibrated time; a person for one minute sampling of behavioral data of the focal group of whales; a person to take picture for photo-ID and to collect sound recordings. We were driving out very early in the morning, trying to find the whales before the whale watching companies started their search. We approached the whales slowly and once within 50m of the whales we stopped the engine and started data collection. We called the whale watching operators and gave them our coordinates for them to approach. We followed the whales and whale watching boats at a distance of 100-200m, while recording data. After the whale watching boats left we continued collecting data in a distance of 200m until the whales got out of reach. Later we compared data from situation before, during and after whale watching boat approach and when possible without whale watching boats present.

Preliminary results:

4 Pilot studies from October 2006 until January 2007 were conducted and xx hours of behavioral observations, 6 hours of sound recording and xx hours of one minute samples were collected. Photo-ID material revealed that at least xx animals were sighted during that time. In 80% of the sound recording there was boat noise present from either whale watching boats or adjacent fishing boats.

The data analysis is not finished and I present here preliminary results that indicate a trend.

• Whales change their behavior and started avoiding boats when more than 3 boats approach them • When boats were constantly drive, or move in stop and go mode, the whales showed avoidance behavior (dove and moved away from the boats) • 90% avoidance behavior happened when snorkeling were with whales • No sound production of the whales when boats were present and the whales showed avoidance behavior, especially during traveling.

• Constant sound production of the whales during feeding and socializing, even in presence of boats.

• There was always a difference in behavior between situation, before during and after whale watching boat approach • There were differences in avoidance reaction between groups of whales, some whales were more sensitive to boats than others • There were daily differences of the same group in their reaction to boats • There were differences between situations when the whales showed different behaviors: when resting avoidance of boast was strongest, followed by traveling whales, feeding whales did not show a strong avoidance reactions, unless they lost their herring, and during socializing the whales showed even positive behavior towards boats and snorkelers, then they approached them actively and showed more aerial behavior, such as spy hopping (lifting their heads out of the water to scan the environment visually).

• Solitary males or male groups showed strong avoidance behavior towards boat approach The overall trend directs towards that hale watching activities influence the whales’ behavior in a negative manner.

Compliance with guidelines: • All boats never followed the rule of max 30 minute viewing time, they viewed the same group of whales often 1-2 hours and up to 4 hours • Distance of 50m was often violated, especially by small boats (RIB’s) and with snorkelers, they had to drop the customers right in front of the whales • Boats with snorkelers do not have a maximum number of people to introduce to whales at a time, there are no restrictions • More than 3 boats approached the whales at the same time • Boats came from all direction, often driving right into their path of trapping the whales between them and land • Boat-speed was always to fast (observation of RIB’s approaching with 40 knots) • Boats often were leaving with full motor power leaving behind an awful lot of noise

5 •

• •

Boats did not react appropriate to the signs of disturbance and avoidance of the whales with leaving them alone, unless the boats found another group close by.

There was no good cooperation and communication between all of the boats, however some boats communicated with each other and our research group.

Often boats were even cutting off the path of other boats

These results show a widespread ignorance of the guidelines and the respect of other boats and the whales.

Discussion Killer whales in Vestfjord northern Norway have been viewed by whale watchers now for over 25 years. During the first 20 years this was more or less a small scale business, putting little stress on the ecosystem. However, the uncontrolled expansion of this business during the last 5 years has resulted in a stressful situation both for the whales and the people.

Our results show that there is a need for action in order to reduce negative impact on the environment as well as on the tour operators. There is a shift in killer whale distribution in the winter time to areas difficult for whale watching boats to approach.

This shift has several reasons, one of the main reasons being ecological in nature, the shift in herring migration. This leaves the Vestfjord area vulnerable for impacts of human activities, since fewer groups of killer whales will enter the fjord in the winter time. Therefore, precaution is needed when interacting with the whales, since the risk of displacement of the whales will result in a serious “problem” for the whale watching industry.

Whales react to more than 3 boats, when boats drive irregular or too fast, this behavior of the boats creates more underwater noise and whales are being directly chased. Also, when more than 3 boats approach, the pressure of the skippers to show the whales to their customers increases, this may cause the skippers to drive irregularly, putting more attention on the other boast then on the whales and thereby violating codes of conduct. There seem to be a conflict between boats that introduce snorkleres and the existing guidelines. To offer the customers a satisfactory experience, they have to see the whales underwater, which often means to approach the whales closer than 50m, and driving in front of them. The overall lack of compliance with the guidelines may be a result of simply misunderstanding or not understanding them at all.

The fact that whales seem to stop calling in the presence of many boats and while they are traveling, could be due to the increase noise levels by moving boats. Whales continue calling each other during feeding and socializing, even in the presence of boats. During feeding and socializing the whales stay in a defined area, which means the whale watching boats do not have to move constantly to see the whales. This results in less noise. Also, whales depend on vocal communication during feeding to coordinate the feeding movements and may therefore continue calling even if it gets difficult to detect the calls due to background noise.

The whales also react differently during different behaviors; they are more sensitive to boat approach in certain context, which means that guidelines and whale watching boats have to be adjusted to the different situations, in order to minimize negative effects.

There also seems to be a difference of reaction for different whale groups, some groups are more tolerant to boat approach than others. In this case it is important that

6 pictures are taken for photo-ID and that researchers can identify the different groups and teach the whale watching operators about how to identify the groups and how to react. For certain situation, e.g. when males are alone or in a small group approach by whale watching boats should be avoided, because they always elicit avoidance reaction and one can prevent that.

Also, the same whale group that was boat friendly one day, can be boat sensitive the other day. There is no guarantee for a successful whale watching day and the crew on board have to be trained to understand the different behaviors of the whales.

Our preliminary results show that influence of whales by boats is far from simple and a long-term study should be applied. But since the shift in distribution is happening so rapidly there is no time for such a study.

There are several other examples of the impact of whale watching in different areas of the world (Parson et al., 2006). A recent study by Corbelli (2007) of Humpback whale watching in Newfoundland, showed that compliance with a cod of conduct was low (25% of trips), the educational value of the whale watching was and that the whales responded to the approach of boats. He suggested increasing the effectiveness of whale watching management. Whale watching can be unsustainable, as a study from Fjordland in Australia showed: Bottlenose dolphins are prawn to get extinct within the next 50 years if the dolphin - boat interactions of whale watching remains at the current level (Lusseau et al., 2006).

However, there are some places where whale watching sow precaution and fulfill at least some of the ecotourism requirements: 1) Kaikura in New Zealand, where whale watching is benefiting a local community, which is completely owned by the Maori.

2) Azores, in Portugal, where local knowledge of the whales by whales has been incorporated into whale watching management.

3) West Coast of Canada, where the tour boat association trough peer-pressure has increased compliance to the guidelines.

4) Shannon Estuary, in the UK – limited number of licenses have been given until data collected from the tour boat themselves shows that no impact are occurring (precautionary principle).

Lessons learned from the above cases We can learn from other examples in the world and apply guide lines and reinforce them either by peer pressure of the whale watching boat operators and/or by governmental institutions. More precise guidelines should be used precautious until results from long-term studies of the impacts are available.

Whale watching guidelines have to be specific for the Vestfjord area and species, and have to be described for different whale behaviors and for different groups and individuals. Guidelines should be based on experience of the local people, people working in the whale watching industry and local scientists.

In addition the quality of the educational aspect should be increased to ensure customer satisfaction and add to environment conservation. The tours have to involve high quality educational programs, as well as high quality guiding on board and deep knowledge of the whales’ biology by the crew.

Tour operators should cooperate with each other, maybe fund an association to help increasing compliance with guidelines.

7 And tour operators must work collaboratively with researchers and support research and conservation projects. Scientists should be unconnected to the operations but knowledgeable of the area and subject to complete monitoring (Leaper et al., 1997).

And last but not least research as well as compliance with whale watching regulations and other human activities around the whales have to be monitored regularly to evaluate the success or failure of wildlife management in Vestfjord area.

Conclusion: The case of whale watching operations in northern Norway demonstrates the urgent need for introducing and reinforcing wildlife regulation and management!

And the question is how?

Parsons et al., 2006 concluded that the whale watching business will continue to grow exponentially and more research is needed to gather baseline data and develop longterm studies that will ultimately provide for more effective wildlife conservation and management. This in fact may require large-scale resources, since gathering appropriate data may be logistically difficult and lengthy.

Therefore it may be more beneficial to first reinforce more precautious guidelines, restrict the amount of whale watching activities and increase the educational value of whale watching tours, rather than thinking in a short term economical term and ignore guidelines. However, in the case of northern Norway, code of conduct worked fine at first, when only a few operators were in the area and scientists were involved in the operations, but failed as soon as whale watching activity increased and became uncontrollable. Since restriction and reduction of established whale watching is not possible on a voluntary basis, it may be necessary to involve governmental regulations based on experience and scientific investigations.

In addition, I propose instead of putting all our attention on the negative impacts (what not to do) on whale watching and even discussing areas where whale watching should not occur at all, we should look towards whale watching companies that managed to operate with least negative impacts and learn from them (what to do!).

References: