"We interpret this statement as meaning that should the IWC pass an RMS,
then WWF will not oppose the lifting of the moratorium and the
allocation of commercial whaling quotas ..... Recent statements made by
Cassandra Phillips ... are, however, contradictory to this
interpretation ....
- Will an RMS passed by the IWC satisfy WWF International's demands on
safety with regard to the sustainable harvest of whales?
- Will WWF continue to oppose the lifting of the moratorium even when
the RMS is in place?"
Until the content of the whole RMS is clear and it has been
adopted by the IWC, WWF cannot say whether we consider it adequate or
not .... With regard to your quotation from Stig's letter, this
position was discussed with several other WWF National Organisations,
but consensus has not yet been reached.
WWF International has the national WWF organisations behind it in the view that as soon
as one can ensure a sustainable commercial harvest of the great whales under secure
international control, then whaling will no longer be a WWF concern. WWF works to
safeguard the biodiversity of the Earth, giving priority to efforts designed to ensure the
conservation of endangered ecosystems and species. WWF is thus not an opponent of
sustainable whaling on principle, irrespective of whether it is carried out by aboriginal
peoples or commercially.
It is, however, imperative that the management of the great whales be regulated in
accordance with international treaties, since these species migrate over wide areas of ocean
and should therefore not be regarded as national resources. The International Whaling
Commission (IWC) is the only legitimate, international body for the management of the
great whales.
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is the world's major network of voluntary
conservation organisations. The national organisations are sovereign bodies as long as they
adhere to WWF's common goal - to safeguard the earth's biodiversity thus securing its
future for coming generations. The WWF network has a joint coordination office in
Switzerland, WWF International, which is led by a board consisting mainly of
representatives from the national WWF organisations.
Naturally enough, in such a large network as WWF, continual debate goes on within the
organisation in order to reach common views on individual issues. These are expressed in
WWF International's policy. This is also the case when it comes to the whaling issue, and
every year the WWF organisations take part in discussions with a view to reaching a
united WWF policy. Consequently, the national organisations are under no formal
obligation to comply with the views of the network/WWF International. A WWF
organisation that complies with the democratic decisions of the network, will, however,
have a greater opportunity of influencing the WWF network than one that chooses to stand
alone.
Obviously, the various WWF organisations will also adopt quite different (culturally
determined) positions in international debates, and this will influence their views and
statements, even after the WWF network has reached agreement on a common position.
The quote by WWF USA's president in the following-up letter of April 29, is a good
example of this and also shows that not all WWF organisations stick to WWF's united
policy.
On calling for US sanctions against Norway recently, WWF USA has taken the issue
further than WWF International's policy allows for, but they explain that this is a vent for
their deep frustration over the fact that the Norwegian authorities year after year continue
to defy the express wishes of the IWC. WWF Norway dissociates itself with WWF USA's
line of action in this issue, and will make this clear when we discuss the matter with
WWF USA.
In the letter of April 29, WWF International's 1992 (not 1993) whaling policy is further
cited. The passage referred to has not been included in more recent policy documents,
including the 1996 policy, and is therefore not relevant. Policy documents from 1993 and
up to the present day, contain no passages that can be interpreted to the effect that WWF
International will for ever be opposed to whaling.
I hope the above discussion, together with our previous reply, will provide the Moskenes
Municipal Council with a satisfactory explanation, and that the borough will now be able
to endorse the 1996 TV fund-raising campaign that will be of such importance to many
poverty-stricken people around the world.
Yours Sincerely,
Stig Hvoslef
WWF Verdens Naturfond
In the 1996 WWF policy document we find a quote that has caused some confusion: "In
addition, WWF sees no benefit to the conservation of whales from commercial whaling,
and therefore does not support its resumption." There is a simple explanation to this:
WWF is not an industry-based organisation and does not actively support the utilisation of
resources. We have taken upon us the task of working to ensure that man's use of nature
is carried out in a sustainable manner for the good of generations to come. When WWF
supports, or actively works towards, the harvesting of resources, it is in such cases where
conservation benefits are attained. An example of this is WWF's support of one of the
projects included in the TV fund-raising campaign, known as CAMPFIRE, where help
given to the local game resource management/harvesting bodies has contributed to protect
the fauna of Zimbabwe.
On May 23, the director of WWF International's policy programme, Gordon Shepherd,
said to Icelandic TV (STOD 2) that, "WWF's opinion is that currently whaling cannot in
any way be shown to be sustainable, and that the moratorium imposed by the IWC should
be maintained." This statement has also caused confusion about WWF's position. His
statement does not, however, contradict WWF's common policy. WWF supports the IWC
majority that wishes to maintain the moratorium as long as negotiations on a new
management regime (RMS) are in progress. In WWF 's opinion, the RMS is a
precondition for sustainable harvesting, amongst other things, an internationally approved
inspection system must be applied. It will therefore be difficult to prove that whaling is
sustainable before the RMS has been put to use.
Since WWF Verdens Naturfond has received several enquiries about this issue, I hope that
it is alright with you that I send a copy of this letter to other interested parties.
Yours Sincerely,
Stig Hvoslef
Letter from the Mayor of Moskenes, Geir Wulff-Nilsen to Gordon Shepherd,
Director of Policy Development, WWF International:
Moskenes Municipal Council
Gordon Shepherd
Dear Gordon Shepard,
In a letter dated May 22, 1996, Mr. Stig Hvoslef wrote that "WWF International has the national
WWF organisations behind it in the view that as soon as one can ensure a sustainable harvest of
the great whales under secure international control, then whaling will no longer be a WWF
concern."
We interpret this statement as meaning that should the IWC pass an RMS, then WWF will not
oppose the lifting of the moratorium and the allocation of commercial whaling quotas.
This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that WWF's most important argument against
acceptance of Norwegian minke whaling is that Norway does not comply with the decisions passed
by the relevant international body. Therefore, we take it for granted that WWF will respect the
decisions of the IWC.
Recent statements made by Cassandra Phillips to the newspaper Lofotposten (on Tuesday July 9,
1996) are, however, contradictory to this interpretation. Phillips states, amongst other things that
she cannot say when, or even if, WWF will ever accept whaling. She also indicates that, in her
opinion, the quota calculation model, RMP, should be revised in order to take into account any
environmental threats to whale stocks.
With reference to the above, we request further clarification of the following issues:
We find it very unfortunate that such manifestly divergent opinions regarding WWF's position on
whaling have been put forward by different parties within the ranks of WWF. We assume that it
will be in WWF International's own interest to provide clarification of these matters. If not, we
will be forced to conclude that statements regarding the importance of the sustainability criterion
are to be treated as a smoke screen, and that WWF still retains its fundamentalistic position of
1992, opposing whaling even when it is guaranteed to be sustainable. Such a standpoint is not
based on ecological arguments and is far beyond the confines of what might be called a legitimate
conservation standpoint.
We look forward to an early reply.
On behalf of Moskenes Municipal Council,
Yours Sincerely,
Geir Wulff-Nilsen
Letter from Gordon Shepherd, Director of International Policy Unit, WWF
International, to Moskenes Council, Norway, dated July 31, 1996:
Dear Geir Wulff-Nilsen,
Thank you for your fax of 16 July.
First let me say that I understand some of the real concerns expressed
on this difficult conservation issue. I also understand the position of
the Norwegian coastal communities.
I have seen Stig Hvoslef's letter of 22 May to Moskenes Council, but not
the report of the telephone conversation with Cassandra Phillips printed in
the Lofotposten newspaper. It does not appear to be an accurate report
of what she said. She did not say that the RMP needs to be revised to
take into account any environmental threats to whales. Until the content
of the whole RMS is clear and it has been adopted by the IWC, WWF cannot
say whether we consider it adequate or not.
Regarding the moratorium, our position is set out in the WWF 1996
position statement (which is enclosed). As explained above in answer to
your first question, WWF, as a conservation organisation must adhere to
the precautionary principle and cannot commit itself in advance of
necessary conditions being met. We have to remain cautious about saying
when we can be quite sure whaling would be conducted on a sustainable
basis. With regard to your quotation from Stig's letter, this position
was discussed with several other WWF National Organisations, but
consensus has not yet been reached.
In answer to your last question, WWF is well aware of the Scientific
Committee's work on the RMP in relation to specific environmental
threats, and accepts that there is no need to revise the RMP on ground
of these threats. The points made in the first paragraph above are again
relevant in answer to this question.
In case you have not seen it, I also enclose WWF's full mission
statement, which underlies all the policy and field programmes of the
whole WWF network. In accordance with this mission, many of our hundred
of conservation projects worldwide are concerned with the consumptive
use of particular renewable natural resources, such as forests or
fisheries, and with ensuring that use is as sustainable as possible on a
long-term basis.
I do not think it is very productive to search out differences or
emphasis between different parts of the WWF network on this or other
questions. We encourage healthy policy discussions with the WWF and
these need to take account of the cultural differences in different
parts of the world. I can confirm that WWF Norway's views were fully
discussed with WWF International, are in accordance with those of
several other WWF's other offices, and were clearly reflected in
Stig's letter.
Finally let me say what a fantastic opportunity the TV campaign offers
and what a great reflection it is on the generosity and genuine concern
of the people of Norway for the conservation and sustainable use of
natural resources particularly where they are vitally important for the
wellbeing of communities in countries suffering from developmental
problems. I hope the programme is a great success, that people give
generously and I am completely committed to WWF using the funds as
planned by the TV campaign.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Shepherd
Mayor Geir Wulff-Nilsen's Proposal:
In his reply to Moskenes Council, dated July 31, 1996, Gordon Sheperd, Director of
WWF's International Policy Unit makes it quite clear that WWF has not reached
agreement within its ranks regarding whether commercial whaling under international
control can be considered acceptable.
That is, with quotas set by the International Whaling Commission and managed in
accordance with the management scheme that the Whaling Commission is in the process
of developing.
This is in conflict with the written account by Stig Hvoslef, leader of WWF Norway,
regarding the whaling policy of WWF International.
Pursuant to Sheperd's explanation, the Council Executive Committee concludes that
WWF's whaling standpoint is not based on ecological arguments and is not consistent
with the basic principles of conservation.
In the borough of Moskenes, and a great number of other coastal communities at home
and abroad, settlement and life as a whole are completely dependent on the right to the
sustainable harvest of all renewable marine resources, this also includes marine mammals.
WWF's anti-whaling campaigns constitute a threat to this fundamental management right.
The campaigns also constitute a threat to an industry which is important to many coastal
communities and represent an attempt to deprive whalers of their legitimate livelihood.
The Council Executive Committee regrets that WWF Norway does not realise that its
participation will contribute to diminishing the support attainable by the TV-campaign.
In accordance with the above grounds, Moskenes Council will not take part in the 1996
TV funding campaign.
The Council Executive Committee will, however, once again stress its support for the
objectives of the TV-campaign and for conservation work in general.
Moskenes Council encourages inhabitants to support organisations that do not oppose the
coastal population's right to the sustainable harvest of renewable resources.
The Mayor's proposal was passed unanimously.
* In accordance with the general policy of the WWF network, WWF Norway is not an
opponent of sustainable harvests and is thus not an opponent of sustainable Norwegian
whaling. In the light of the current whale counts we have no doubt that today's minke
whale harvest is sustainable.
* WWF requests that Norway comply with the decisions made in international fora in
order to safeguard respect for international agreements. This is an important principle if
one is to attain results within international conservation. WWF is therefore opposed to
Norwegian whaling as long as the IWC, the International Whaling Commission, maintains
its majority ruling for a moratorium and is in the process of negotiations with regard to a
new management system designed to guarantee sustainable whaling.
* WWF can guarantee that all the funds will be spent on projects, and that no TV project
will have any connection to whales or whaling.
* WWF Norway is a sovereign conservation organisation and is not subordinate to the
international WWF office except on issues where the WWF network has, by way of
discussions, arrived at a common policy.
* The letter from WWF International's director for international policy addressed to
Moskenes and dated July 31, is not in conflict with WWF Norway's views and arguments
as they appear in our correspondence with the Council. The letter confirms that the WWF
network has so far not come to a decision on the new management system, and cannot do
so until the negotiations on the new system have been brought to a conclusion. Logically
enough, it is therefore impossible to have a policy on prospective whaling quotas based on
this system. This does not mean that the WWF network will oppose whaling whatever the
case. As mentioned in the letter to Moskenes of May 22, we have brought to light a
discussion of principles within the ranks of the WWF group that is working, amongst
other things, on whaling, and the discussions ended with a clear majority for our views.
* WWF Norway strongly believes that the IWC negotiations will lead to a management
system for the great whales that will ensure a sustainable harvest, and in that case, we will
not work against Norwegian minke whaling based on IWC quotas in accordance with this
management system.
Yours Sincerely,
Stig HvoslefCorrespondence between WWF and Moskenes Municipal Council, North Norway
Extract:
"WWF International has the national WWF organisations behind it in the
view that as soon as one can ensure a sustainable commercial harvest of
the great whales under secure international control, then whaling will
no longer be a WWF concern."
Stig Hvoslef, WWF Norway, in a letter to Moskenes Municipal Council.
Geir Wulff-Nilsen, Mayor of Moskenes, from a letter to Gordon
Shepherd, Director of WWF's International Policy Unit, WWF International. Dated July 16, 1996
Gordon Shepherd, Director of the International Policy Unit,
WWF International in a letter to Moskenes Council,Norway dated July 31, 1996.
The letters are cited in full below:
WWF Verdens Naturfond
World Wide Fund for Nature
Box 6784 St. Olavs plass, N-0130 OSLO
Street Adress: Kristian Augusts Gate 7A
Email: verdens.naturfond@wwf.no
The 1996 TV Fund-raising Campaign and WWF's Position on Whaling - Further Clarification
On April 29, Moskenes Municipal Council replied to WWF's letter of clarification (sent
on the same day), requesting that WWF Norway provide a further explanation of WWF's
position on whaling. Furthermore, in a letter dated May 8, the Council asks WWF Norway
to explain its position on advances made towards the American authorities regarding the
implementation of sanctions against Norway designed to put a stop to the minke whale
hunt. The Council is of the opinion that such an initiative is attributable to WWF
International. It was, however, an initiative taken solely by WWF USA and has not been
sanctioned by WWF International.
General Secretary
World Wide Fund for Nature
Box 6784 St. Olavs plass, N-0130 Oslo
Street address: Kristian Augusts Gate 7A
Email: verdens.naturfond@wwf.no
Oslo, May 31, 1996
To the Moskenes Municipal Council
c/o Mayor Geir Wulff-Nilsen
Fax no. 76 09 22 73
WWF's Whaling Policy
Following the previous round of explanations (our letter of 22/5/96), several questions that
require our comments have arisen from a number of different sources. From the past
week's media coverage we understand that there is still some confusion with regard to the
content of the WWF network's common policy. At present, WWF's policy is concentrated
on the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) annual meetings, and our policy
document is published prior to these meetings. This document is submitted to each and
every national WWF organisation enabling them to comment upon it before it is finally
passed by way of consensus. Other WWF publications do not have the same authorization
and are naturally enough influenced by their author(s).
WWF Verdens Naturfond
General Secretary
The Mayor's Office
N-8390 Reine
Norway
WWF International
In conjunction with Norwegian TV's national fund-raising campaign, WWF Norway has
provided the Moskenes Municipal Council with clarification of WWF International's standpoint on
whaling. I assume that you are familiar with this matter.
Mayor of Moskenes
Director, International Policy Unit
Subsequent to the above correspondence, the Executive Committee of the Moskenes Municipal Council unanimously passed the following proposal as submitted by the Mayor:
After being notified of Moskenes Council's decision on the issue, WWF Norway's General Secretary, Stig Hvoslef, wrote the following reply, dated August 27 and addressed to Mayor Geir Wulff-Nilsen of Moskenes and Mr. Morten Eriksen of the 1996 TV-fund-raising campaign, Oslo:
WWF Norway's Attitude To Whaling
After Moskenes Council's reaction to the letter from WWF International, a new round of
explanations and a summary would seem imperative.
General Secretary