In August 2003, Iceland announced the resumption of its
"scientific whaling" program. After months of domestic and
international pressure from conservation groups and individuals, on
June 2, 2004 the government of Iceland advised it was scaling back
its original proposal to hunt 500 whales. The government killed 36
whales in 2003 and plans to kill another 25 this year.
Almost 60,000 of you pledged not to go to Iceland until it
cancelled its whaling practices. While Iceland's decision is not a
full moratorium, it is a testament to the impact the grassroots
community can make.
Taking a Stand
When Greenpeace first heard about Iceland resuming its whaling
practices, we sent our flagship the Rainbow Warrior there
to do something about it.
The Rainbow Warrior first sailed against Icelandic
whaling on her maiden voyage, in 1978. We returned the second time
to support local groups who fear the announcement by Iceland's
Ministry of Fisheries is the first step toward a resumption of
commercial whaling. In fact, the Ministry of Fisheries website
openly declares that Iceland wants to resume commercial whaling in
2006.
"Whaling is part of Iceland's past," commented Greenpeace
Executive Gerd Leipold, "and must remain so. We hope 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
underhanded attempt by the Icelandic government to resume
commercial whaling." said Leipold.
Commercial whaling by the back door
Commercial whaling was banned by the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) in 1986, 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
programs.
While denying that they have a commercial interest in hunting
whales, the Icelandic Fisheries Ministry all but apologizes at its
website for the fact that it
is "obliged" to sell the products of its scientific whaling program
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. They're under internal pressure
to do so: the Icelandic Tourist Association demanded that the
government not undertake any whaling program 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
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 on. 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.
Unecessary, irrelevant science
The IWC's Science Committee failed to approve the Icelandic
"scientific program." U.S. 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 feces instead of killing them
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."
Whale watching explodes
Iceland has been an increasingly popular tourist magnet, and a
burgeoning whale watching industry has taken hold. A report on the
economic benefits of whale watching has recently been released.
Whale watching has rapidly become one of the major pillars of
tourism in Iceland, servicing more than 72,000 tourists in 2003.
At the present growth rate, clients of the whale watching industry
will surpass 100,000 in 2007. According to the Environmental News
Network (ENN), a dozen firms have sprung up in Iceland over the
past decade, generating around $8.5 million in revenue in 2001.
Commercial whaling brought in $3 million to $4 million annually
between 1986 and 1989, when commercial hunts were stopped.
The Icelandic Tourist Association voted in April of last 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 U.S. government
has expressed "extreme disappointment" at Iceland's "unnecessary"
lethal research. The United States will review options for trade
sanctions against Iceland under the Pelly Amendment, which mandates
that the U.S. State Department take action against countries which
are undermining international agreements to protect endangered
species.
Someone high 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 and a redirection of tourist dollars
away from Icelandic whale watching to other, whale-friendlier
shores.
Take Action!
Even though Iceland has dramatically
reduced its whaling program, there are still 25 minke whales slated
to be hunted.
-
Send a letter to the Ambassador of Iceland and let him know
that commercial whaling has no place in the 21st century.
- Join almost 60,000 world citizens refusing to visit Iceland
while it continues to hunt whales. Pledge to consider
Iceland as a travel destination once the whaling ban is
re-instituted. In response to your pledge, you will most likely
receive an auto reply trying to portray the Icelandic position in a
"fair and balanced" way. Visit our cyberactivist
community to participate in discussions about this
response.
- Find out about the Rainbow Warrior tour from the ship's weblog.
Asbjorn Bjorgvinsson, head of the Icelandic Whale Watching
Association wrote Greenpeace regarding our recent visit. He
concluded his letter saying, "All in all, I can truly state that
Greenpeace has helped a great deal changing views concerning
whales, whale watching and conservation in Iceland."