Stichting Greenpeace Council, Greenpeace International
Keizersgracht 176
1016 DW Amsterdam
The Netherlands.
Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland
Prime Minister's Office
Akersgaten 42
0030 OSLO 1
Norway
5. August 1994
Dear Prime Minister Brundtland,
Despite the present international commercial moratorium on whaling, set by the
International Whaling Commission of which Norway is a member, you have
continued whaling and given permission to kill another 301 whales in 1994. By
doing this you are not only threatening a protected whale stock but also ignoring
international regulations prohibiting any commercial whale hunt. Additionally, in
the last month this whale hunt has been made possible by empowering your
coastguard to take violent actions against the non-violent protests of Greenpeace,
once more flouting international agreements by arresting two greenpeace vessels
and crew in international waters.
The arbitrary behaviour of Norwegian authorities not only damages the image of Norway within the international community bur also threatens all international agreements protecting the environment.
Greenpeace would like to offer you an opportunity to change your whaling policy. Although Greenpeace does not believe that Norwegian whaling is of any economic importance, we are prepared to cooperate with you to develop an economic alternative to whaling, since this appears to be a major obstacle.
In cooperation with the Norwegian government, Greenpeace would like to propose a plan to convert the whaling industry into a whale watching business. In Europe alone we have more than 2,5 million supporters, all of them hoping that Norway will stop whaling. We are convinced that several thousand supporters would be willing to go whale watching. Therefore, if the Norwegian government stops all whaling, both commercial and scientific, we have no doubt that by promoting the new whale watching business within the huge group of Greenpeace supporters, whale watching could easily compensate the minor economic return of the present Norwegian whaling industry.
Therefore we suggest that a group of experts form both Greenpeace and the Norwegian government should meet at the beginning of September 1994 in order to outline a concept for the conversion of the whaling industry into a whale watching industry.
We would be grateful for a proposal of a meeting date in the near future.
Yours Sincerely
Stephen D'Esposito
Executive Director
sign.
High North Alliance,
Pb 123,
N-8390 Norway
08.08.94
Open Letter to Greenpeace
At a press conference in Hamburg on May 5 1994, Greenpeace submitted a
proposal in support of the development of whale watching in Norway, on
condition that Norway puts an end to its minke whaling. Should Norway reject
the offer, Greenpeace threatens to take renewed action against Norwegian minke
whaling. In the invitation to the press conference it says that the offer is directed
towards the Norwegian government and "the Norwegian fishermen". In a letter to
the Norwegian prime minister, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Greenpeace says that
with their help, whale watching will easily be able to compensate for lost income
from whaling. Greenpeace will market whale watching in Norway among its own
supporters.
The High North Alliance is an umbrella organisation looking after the interests of fishermen, hunters and coastal communities in Greenland, Iceland, Norway and the Faroes in the ongoing conflict concerning the principles governing the management of marine mammals.
On the grounds of the aforementioned proposal put forward by Greenpeace, the High North Alliance requests clarification of the following issues:
1: What will be the environmental consequences of a transition from minke
whaling to whale watching? We assume that the Greenpeace proposal is
founded on an analysis of such consequences and that it takes into
consideration the energy consumption and pollution involved in
transporting tourists from Europe to northern Norway. Does their analysis
also take into account the fact that minke whale meat will have to be
substituted by other types of meat produced agriculturally? Does it
compare the environmental strain involved in these two varying forms of
production?
2: Is Greenpeace aware of the survey carried out by the Swedish organisation
Centrum för Studier av Hvaler och Delfiner (The Centre of Whale and Dolphin
Studies) which concludes that the sperm whale off the coast of Andøy are
the only whales capable of providing the basis for substantial, commercial
whale watching operations?
Is Greenpeace aware that this occurrence of whales is already being
exploited by Hvalsafari AS (Whale Safari Ltd) - a business established on the
initiative of, and marketed by, the WWF?
Has Greenpeace assessed the consequences for this limited group of whales
of being exposed to the strain of being "watched" daily by over 30 boats
(this is the number of boats involved in today's minke whaling)?
Investigations carried out in the USA indicate that such strain will cause the
whales to suffer considerable stress and will lead to behavioural deviation.
Will Greenpeace take initiatives to ensure the regulation and limitation of
the whaling industry on the basis of such considerations?
3: Has Greenpeace carried out market surveys regarding whale watching in
Norway, on the basis of the experiences gathered from existing activities?
(After over 5 years of operation, Hvalsafari AS in Andenes is still using
only two boats. The business has received substantial subsidies from both
the WWF and the Norwegian authorities. A recently established company
based on the same group of whales has already met with financial
problems.)
4: Will Greenpeace offer financial guarantees ensuring that the whalers attain
the same income from whale watching as they would from whaling?
5: How will Greenpeace ensure that the family businesses and boats that go
minke whaling today, are those that will be guaranteed income from any
prospective expansion of the whale watching market, and not larger,
commercial operators? (The minke whalers are dependent on the
combination of whaling and fishing in order to survive financially.
Hvalsafari AS in Andenes now employs a larger passenger vessel to take
the tourists out.)
6: How can a "green" organisation advocate increased tourism?
7: "Greenpeace is opposed to all commercial whaling and would never
support any (management) system which would authorize quotas to kill
whales." (Greenpeace Policy Statement, 19.05.94) Greenpeace has also
declared itself an opponent on principle of the commercial exploitation of
seals and kangaroos. Why does this standpoint only apply to certain species
and not to all wild animals?
We hope for a speedy reply to these questions on the grounds of which we will
return with a written assessment of Greenpeace' aforementioned offer.
On behalf of the High North Alliance,
Yours Sincerely,
Georg Blichfeldt (secretary)
Letter from Greenpeace
December 22, 1994
Georg Blichfeldt
High North Alliance
P.O. Box 123
N - 8390 REINE I LOFOTEN
NORWAY
Dear Mr. Blichfeldt.
A copy of your "open letter" to Greenpeace has been passed to me for reply. The answers follow your numbering.
1. We see a whale watching industry as part of Norway's growing tourist
industry. Since the government of Norway is making considerable efforts to
promote tourism, we assume that the Government of Norway has satisfied itself
that the pollution caused by bringing in tourists will be within the abilities of the
ecosystem to regenerate. Having these tourists go on whale watching trips will not
add to the pollution burden. We have not analyzed the effects of people eating
meat from land based production vs eating whale meat since the total whale meat
production in Norway is only about 400 tons a year and is thus negligible
compared to the consumption of meat from land based sources in Norway.
2. We don't agree. We note that whale watching for minkes is successfully
practised in Scotland and elsewhere.
2.a.Yes. This company is named in Norway's submission to the working group
on whale watching at the 1994 IWC meeting and it is noted that not only World
Wildlife Fund but also the Government of Norway has supported this enterprise.
Norway's submission goes on to say that the accounts of this company in 1993
show "a modest surplus". This indicates that the company may no longer require
outside support.
2.b.The working group on whale watching referred a number of questions on
this point - the effect of whale watching in whales - to the Scientific Committee.
We await with interest the recommendations of the Scientific Committee on this
point. We note that whale watching operations in many areas of the world are
subject to very strict regulations to protect the whales but remain profitable
businesses.
3. See answer above.
4. No. After all, the Norwegian government does not guarantee the income form
the hunt to the whalers - every business enterprise has a degree of uncertainty.
5. Greenpeace has no desire to dictate the exact nature of a future whale watching
industry. At the same time, as with fishing operations for many countries,
governments often assess the impact of large scale industrial operations on
smaller scale, artisanal fishers, and then take appropriate proactive or mitigative
measure, where merited, to assist small scale operators.
6. The appropriate level of tourism depends on numerous factors, including but
not limited to its impact on ecosystems.
7. While I am not aware that we made the precise statement you assert as having
been made by Greenpeace on 19 May, 1994, our views regarding commercial
whaling are a matter of public record. Since this entire exchange is about whales
and Greenpeace has not campaigned on seals or kangaroos in this decade we will
confine our reply to whales.
Greenpeace opposes any human activity which is harmful to populations of
whales. Therefor we oppose all commercial whaling because it has always led to
over exploitation of whales. In the case of the NE Atlantic minkes Norway's
whalers are hunting a population classified as a protected stock by the IWC and
one which has been depleted to less than half of its initial population and in
believed to still be at that level. Despite this, Norway's whalers are already calling
for a return to catches at a level of 1800 a year, the level that led to the depletion
in the first place.
Yours truly
Clifton Curtis
(sign.)
Biodiversity Political Advisor
Greenpeace International