Minke whale, (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Great Barrier Reef, Australia.
The Rainbow Warrior first sailed against Icelandic whaling on
her maiden voyage, in 1978. We are now returning to support local
groups who also fear the announcement by Iceland's Ministry of
Fisheries is a first step towards a resumption of commercial
whaling. In fact, the Ministry
of Fisheries website openly declares that Iceland wants to
resume commercial whaling in 2006.
The Rainbow Warrior was heading toward Greece when Iceland
announced that a hunt for minke whales this year. She'll arrive in
Icelandic waters in two weeks time.
Leipold said:
"Whaling is part of Iceland's past, and must remain so. Some
people of Iceland will regret this because whaling was so much a
part of their life. Whilst we don't expect to change everyone's
minds, Greenpeace hopes that we are able to give many Icelanders
the confidence to say no to whaling - forever. A clear message must
go to the Icelandic government - globally, as well as directly from
the people of Iceland - that this will not be tolerated. Iceland
can make more money from whale watching than whale killing and
should be doing all it can to protect those whales in its
seas."
No science justifies killing whales
Does a resumption of "scientific whaling" mean we can expect
better data about the new threats to whales from climate change and
shifting ocean currents? Will it mean a better understanding of why
minke whales in the North Atlantic are contaminated with mercury?
Will it mean new data to test the recent evidence that original
whale populations have been vastly underestimated?
Nope. All it will mean is more dead whales.
"No science justifies the killing of whales. This is simply an
underhand attempt by the Icelandic government to resume commercial
whaling." said Gerd Leipold.
Commercial whaling by the back door
Commercial whaling was banned by the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) in 1982, but a loophole allowing the killing of
whales for research purposes has been exploited by several
countries as a cover story for their commercial whaling
programmes.
While denying that they have a commercial interest in hunting
whales, the Icelandic Fisheries Ministry all but apologises at its
website for the fact that it
is "obliged" to sell the products of its scientific whaling
programme under IWC regulations and international law. Iceland
hasn't always been so worried about international law: they have
conducted illegal hunts in the past, but have chosen to put a more
respectable adverb on their activities, in preparation for a return
to full-scale commercial whaling in 2006. They're under internal
pressure to do so: the Icelandic Tourist Association demanded that
the government not undertake any whaling programme unless it's
legal, and Iceland's recent rejoining of the IWC appears to be part
of a strategy to silence critics at home.
Excuses, excuses
And as Icelandic Ambassador Helgi Ágústsson puts it in his
automated response to a Greenpeace Cyberaction: "The annual
consumption of fish, krill and other biomass by whales in this
region [Iceland's 200 mile economic zone] has been estimated around
6 million metric tons, several times the total Icelandic fishery
landings of 1.5 to 2.0 million metric tons."
So it's all about fish, and how whales are eating more than
their share?
Hang about. Have a look at that figure: the Fisheries Minister
has lumped "Krill and other biomass" into the tonnage consumed,
neither of which are particularly sought-after delicacies for the
Icelandic dinner plate or export market. If you read carefully
through the materials presented by Iceland, you might raise the
question of exactly how many fish the whales are consuming.
And that, says Iceland, is exactly why they need to kill whales:
to study how much fish they are eating.
Unecessary, irrelevant science
But the IWC's Science Committee failed to approve the Icelandic
"scientific programme" when it was submitted to their recent
meeting. And US Commission delegate Rolland Schmitten said the plan
was "not relevant science; it's not necessary."
There are plenty of non-lethal means of studying whale
interactions with the ocean food chain, and according to the BBC,
Australian scientists have perfected a new humane way of assessing
fish consumption. They sample whale poop instead of popping whales
with harpoons and slicing open their stomachs.
According to the study's principle scientist, Nick Gales, "We
will be telling the International Whaling Commission that this is a
robust, non-lethal method for studying whales."
"It's going to provide some real information to put into food
web models. If it points out that whales are competing for fish
stocks, then we'll have to deal with that."
What can we do?
You can help concerned Icelanders stop the Iceland's Fisheries
Department from taking a foolish step. If the Fisheries bureaucrats
are worried about Iceland's "long term prosperity," they really
ought to look at how commercial whaling will damage their
economy.
Iceland has been an increasingly popular tourist magnet, and a
burgeoning Whale watching industry has taken hold. More than
277,000 people visited Iceland in 2001. That's almost more than the
entire population of the island. It's estimated that in that year,
one third of those visitors went whale-watching. According to ENN, a
dozen firms have sprung up in Iceland over the past decade,
generating around US$8.5 million in revenue in 2001. Commercial
whaling brought in US$3 million to US$4 million annually between
1986 and 1989, when commercial hunts were stopped.
The Icelandic Tourist Association voted in April of this year to
strengthen its stand against whaling. One whale-watching village
hung its flag at half mast when the Fisheries Ministry made its
unpopular announcement.
And now, the
Voice of America reports that the US Government has expressed
"extreme disappointment" at Iceland's "unnecessary" lethal
research. The US will review options for trade sanctions against
Iceland under the Pelly Amendment, which mandates that the US State
Department take action against countries which are undermining
international agreements to protect endangered species.
Somebody higher up in the Icelandic government ought to be
running a cost calculation of the relative value of a renewed
whaling industry against lost tourism revenues, trade sanctions,
possible fishery or tourist boycotts, snubs by trendy British
clubbers who have been frequenting Iceland's shores lately, and a
redirection of tourist dollars away from Icelandic whale watching
to other, whale-friendlier shores.
You can help Iceland do the right thing. Tell
Icelandic officials to stop whaling now.
In reply to your letter you will
most likely receive an auto reply trying to portray the Icelandic
position in a 'fair and balanced' way. Refer back to this article
and the references above to see the real reasons why Iceland is
resuming whaling.