Letter from High North Alliance to Greenpeace

Dear Member of Greenpeace Germany,

We are pleased to note that Greenpeace Germany intends to maintain "personal contact" and promote an exchange of views between its members and Norwegian citizens on the subject of Norwegian whaling.

However, the standardised letters written by Greenpeace Germany that are presently being sent out, complete with the signatures of individual Greenpeace members, do not live up to these intentions.

In the event of any Greenpeace members desiring genuine, personal and open communication with supporters of Norwegian whaling, we will be only too happy to facilitate such contact. Simply send us an email at the following address: hna@highnorth.no. Unfortunately, such correspondence will in most cases have to take place in English. We will also arrange for a public exchange of views between German Greenpeace members, Norwegian subjects and other interested parties by way of a discussion group on our web site at http://www.highnorth.no

In Greenpeace’s standardised letter it is claimed that arguments against whaling that are not based on animal rights philosophy are seldom heard in Norway. The purpose of the letter is said to be the advancement of these arguments. We cannot agree with this statement off-hand. We do, however, completely agree that it is not possible to have a qualified debate without being familiar with each other’s views and arguments. Therefore, we are publishing the Greenpeace letter on our web site, and we hope Greenpeace Germany will do the same with our letter.

With this letter, we hope to help build the debate on as good a factual foundation as possible. We are very clear in our opinion of which sources provide the best information on the current status of whale stocks, on the quality of killing methods, and on the content of the relevant international agreements. These things will be published on our web site. Should Greenpeace Germany be of the opinion that other sources are more relevant, we will be very glad to make these know there, too.

We already have a number of links to Greenpeace and other anti-whaling organisations on our web site. This reflects our desire for an open debate. Unfortunately, we have yet to register an anti-whaling organisation with a link to our web site from theirs.

We would very much like to present our organisation, and what we stand for, to the German public.

The High North Alliance is an umbrella organisation representing marine mammal hunters in Canada, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway. Our aim is to defend the right of these northern communities to the sustainable hunt of marine mammals and to ensure that it is kept at a sustainable level. This involves, amongst other things, monitoring the development of stocks and controlling the hunt.

All of the coastal communities that today harvest marine mammals are part of the global business and monetary economy, even though subsistence hunting is still important in many places. It is therefore of vital importance to the future of these communities that they have the possibility of finding markets for their products. This applies to aboriginal groups as well as to others. The Inuit communities that were hit by the Greenpeace anti-sealing campaign in the 1980’s are still suffering from major social and economic problems. (For documentation of this, please refer to the following: US Import Ban, Trade barriers and the indigenous peoples' products, The United States and trade in seal skins)

Greenpeace has declared itself in principal an opponent of the commercial harvesting of certain species. This applies to all marine mammals, both whales and seals and furthermore also to kangaroos. The anti-whaling campaign is the only one still active today.

We have repeatedly made inquiries with Greenpeace as to whether the organisation has altered its position and can now accept the commercial utilisation of the abundant stocks of kangaroos and seals, but have so far not received any other reply than "we do not have an active campaign".

It is quite obvious that a ban on the commercial utilisation of these species cannot be given an ecological justification. Former chairman of Greenpeace Norway and professor of biology at the University of Oslo, Leif Ryvarden, was of the same opinion regarding minke whale stocks in the North Atlantic: "As a natural scientist I cannot accept that Greenpeace is opposed to whaling. One must be allowed to harvest a renewable resource. To me, this is an important principle, and I have taken the consequences of it by resigning" (from the newspaper "Dagbladet", August 2, 1991). Here, Ryvarden is in complete agreement with all the Norwegian environmentalist organisations.

The Greenpeace letter does not reject the idea that opposition to whaling can be founded on animal rights arguments, but claims that there are also other substantial arguments. The problem is that if animal rights arguments are also a reason for opposition, then there is no point in discussing the other ecological or legal arguments. If one is of the opinion that certain groups of animals have the right to live, it makes no difference how abundant they are or how the hunt of them is limited and controlled. Animal rights is a dogmatic ideology that can only be satisfied with one single solution: no harvesting. An advertisement for a "whale’s funeral procession" published by Greenpeace Austria is a typical example of how whaling is compared to murder: "With profound grief we announce that our friend and brother Minke Whale, after an abrupt and brutal murder, has departed from us".

Greenpeace’s position, however, cannot be said to be built on animal rights as such, as it only advocates the protection of certain specific species, and then only against commercial utilisation. The dogma is the same, though. As the following statements show, there is no other solution than a permanent ban on all commercial whaling: "Greenpeace is opposed to all commercial whaling and would never support any system which would authorise quotas to kill whales, like the so-called Revised Management Procedure, which is due for discussion at this year's international Whaling Commission. Our objective is to ensure that the RMP can never be implemented" (Peter Melchett, Executive Director, Greenpeace UK, 1994). "No whaling, not now, not ever" (Greenpeace press release, 1992). The launch of the idea of a world-wide sanctuary is just another version of the same thing.

Greenpeace asks us to postpone the hunt until the International Whaling Commission has agreed on a management procedure and allocated quotas. It is hard to accept this as an honest move as long as the organisation on the other hand is running intense campaigns to prevent the Whaling Commission from adopting a management procedure. The process of developing a management procedure has already taken over 10 years. A quota calculation model has been developed, but there is no desire among the opponents of whaling (who also have the majority of votes in the Whaling Commission) to allow the last piece – a control system – to fall into place.

We have great difficulty in understanding what is wrong with the sustainable harvest of an abundant whale stock when it is controlled by an international organisation. The quota calculation model developed by the International Whaling Commission is described by the Commission’s scientific secretary as "the most rigorously tested management procedure for a natural resource yet developed. It sets a standard for the management of all marine and other living resources." (Please study the description of the management system and remarks on the Quota Calculation Model.)

The main argument in Greenpeace’s letter to Norwegian subjects is that even though the hunt is legal in accordance with the Whaling Convention, and even though it is sustainable, it represents a breach of "the spirit of this international agreement".

If we look more closely at the intent and purpose of the Whaling Convention, it becomes quite clear in fact that it is Greenpeace’s dogmatic, anti-whaling position that represents a breach of the "spirit" of the Convention.

The Convention's objective states that it shall "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry." Furthermore, it states that depleted stocks should be rebuilt, but that "... increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured." All decisions made by the Whaling Commission are to "provide for the conservation, development and optimal utilisation of the whale resources." They "shall be based on scientific findings" and "shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry."

The spirit of the Whaling Convention is clearly to make commercial whaling sustainable, not to forbid it as a matter of principle. "The whole convention is geared to promote whaling," the Whaling Commissioner from New Zealand complained in 1993. He claimed that the majority of member nations no longer agree with the Commission’s objectives as they are opposed to commercial whaling. Even so, no attempt has been made to renegotiate the treaty. According to the treaty, the member nations are obliged to work actively towards the fulfilment of the treaty's objectives, but this obligation is not respected by those countries that disagree with these objectives.

The man behind the proposal to give trees legal rights, American professor of law, Christopher Stone, warns against the consequences of such a lack of respect for these agreements: "At its worst the moral of the IWC's history could be this: Will any nation that signs a global environmental or resource convention find itself ensnared in a regime that appears to discard its original premises and to pay little heed to its own scientific advisors?"

This is precisely what is happening, Canada left the Whaling Commission and does not intend to apply for membership again even though the country has resumed whaling in the meantime. This is a result of, amongst other things, pressure from the Canadian Inuit who claim that the IWC "has come to be dominated by the protectionist anti-hunting sentiment". Iceland left the Whaling Commission too, and is now considering the resumption of whaling.

Obviously, this anti-hunting sentiment does not make the IWC attractive to whalers. "The authority of the IWC is at risk as governments continue to tolerate a deadlock over the future of commercial whaling," states a recent press release from WWF International, who fear that "decision making on whales may be taken out of the hands of the IWC". WWF recommends a compromise which would allow some very limited coastal commercial whaling. We do not agree with the solution they recommend, but the WWF approach - in contrast to the dogmatic Greenpeace stance - does at least open the door to communication and negotiations.

Greenpeace claims in its letter that the Norwegian example could lead to an uncontrolled resumption of whaling all over the world. The High North Alliance can only speak on behalf of its own members, but we can guarantee that there is no way the coastal communities of the North-Atlantic will give up their right to the sustainable utilisation of marine mammals. The only way to get whaling under international control is to bring into force a management scheme built on the Whaling Commission’s objective; to ensure that whaling is sustainable. If this does not happen within the IWC, other international bodies will take up the challenge. The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Organisation is the obvious alternative with regard to the North Atlantic.

There is every reason to be wary and to make sure that we do not relive the over-exploitation that took place at the hands of the whale oil industry. This former major industry, however, is no more, and will never be restored because today, far cheaper alternatives have been found. At the same time, we find it pertinent to point out that the multi-national capital interests that ran this type of hunt were not to be found in the high north, but belonged in more temperate areas. The harvest of today is of far smaller dimensions, and its most important product is meat for human consumption.

There is no other platform for man’s existence on this planet than the sustainable use of renewable resources. Given the international attention focused on it, and the enormous resources that have been invested in developing a management scheme to ensure its sustainability, whaling could become a positive example of sustainable resource utilisation safeguarded by international co-operation on its management. We would be more than happy to co-operate with environmental organisations to achieve such an objective.

Another major argument put forward in Greenpeace’s letter is that the Norwegian coastal communities do not need to hunt minke whales because they could earn more money by developing whale safari tourism. Firstly, it is surprising to hear a green organisation advocate the development of tourism! In our opinion, such activities, in contrast to whaling, may easily involve a number of adverse effects on the environment. It is difficult to find a more environmentally correct activity than the energy-conserving and sustainable utilisation of a renewable resource for food, as represented here by whaling.

Discussions on whale safaris have already taken place between Greenpeace and High North Alliance, and can be read on our web site. The High North Alliance has no objection to the development of whale safaris as long as steps are taken to limit the negative effects on the environment. On the contrary, we believe that this might help boost trade in certain coastal communities. But the occurrence of whale safari is no reason to give up sustainable whaling. On the contrary, one would imagine that an insight into hunting cultures would be of interest to German tourists. We assume that German tourists, whether they are members of Greenpeace or not, do not expect cultural standardisation as the basis for tourism. If that is the case, then we would recommend a trip to Euro-Disney instead.

And so to the topic of international trade: We realise that trade in whale meat and blubber obtained from legal, sustainable sources can give cover to the sale of products originating from illegal hunts and perhaps also the hunts of endangered species. Therefore, this kind of trade would need to be governed by strict control, and schemes designed to distinguish legal from illegal products will have to be established. This is why the Norwegian authorities are now taking DNA samples of every whale caught. The DNA fingerprints will be made available through a complete and comprehensive register. In this way, it will be possible to check whether the meat that is available on the market has originated from legal sources. Lifting the international ban may then be made conditional on such arrangements being effectuated, and can be limited to a certain period of time to make sure that things work as intended. In this way, if trade does prove to have unwanted consequences, it will be a simple matter to re-impose the ban. For further discussion of this aspect of the whaling issue, please refer to the following URL's; http://www.highnorth.no/ad-to-pr.htm and http://www.highnorth.no/ci-an-iw.htm.

Please note the information on abundance estimates for the two North Atlantic minke whale stocks that are harvested by Norway, the Northeast Atlantic minke whale stock and the Central North Atlantic minke whale stock.

Should anyone be missing a discussion of the animal welfare aspects of this issue, please read the opinion of Peter Sandøe, philosopher and leader of the Danish Ethical Council concerning Animals, and the description of killing methods  employed in the Norwegian minke whale hunt: (Times to Death Unchanged and The Hunt)

The publication "Marine Hunters – Whaling and Sealing in the North Atlantic" provides a good insight into the various hunting traditions in the North Atlantic and the reasoning of the hunting communities. The booklet can be ordered from the High North Alliance: hna@highnorth.no, P.O. Box 123, N-8398 Reine i Lofoten, Norway. Please read this booklet before you enter the debate!

Finally, we repeat that a clarification of Greenpeace’s position on the hunt is essential to further discussions. Does the organisation still adhere to the notion that certain popular species, i.e. seals, kangaroos and whales, may not be killed for commercial purposes? The answer to this question is prerequisite to an honest debate.

And in closing, we look forward to seeing this letter posted on Greenpeace Germany’s web site!

On behalf of the High North Alliance.

Yours Sincerely,

Rune FrøvikSecretary

Letter from Greenpeace

Back to HNA's homepage