Some concerns about the draft WWF Position Statement on
Whaling and the IWC.
We would like to express some basic concerns about the
proposed WWF Position Statement on Whaling and the IWC. As an
NGO in a country with a long tradition of small scale whaling
we would appreciate if these concerns are somehow reflected in
the final draft position.
General concerns
If this opposition was based on criticism of the RMP or of its
scientific foundations we would not have any problems with it.
But as it seems to be based on other types of arguments -
concerning the "necessity" of whaling, its "inhumanity" etc. -
we find it difficult to go along with the opposition. It looks
a bit as if WWF is changing horses in midstream - as if we
have run out of scientific arguments and are therefore taking
on other more subtle arguments in order to be able to stick to
our opposition to any whaling that is not aboriginal whaling.
We find it extremely dangerous for WWF and our overall
messages if we begin to use non-scientific, purely ethical
arguments for regulating or even prohibiting the lifestyles
and cultural values of other people or cultural groups. What
real basis do we have for claiming, for instance, that the
ethics of middle-class Americans or Brits are better than the
ethics of the Icelandic, the Faroese, the Norwegians or even
the Japanese? Seen in a historic perspective it is a very hard
case to argue.
We fear that the result will lead to the ethics of the
dominant groups in the dominant societies being forced upon
other societies and groups. And we are convinced that this
will lead to strong opposition from these groups.
We also fear that the tendency to value ethical arguments higher
than scientifically based arguments runs counter to some of
the basic principles stated in the WWF's Mission, eg. that WWF
will be a multi-cultural organization and that we will listen
carefully to local communities and respect their position.
Specific concerns:
- Necessity. What is necessary? Foxhunting, angling and
gamehunting are hardly necessary - but yet we are not
opposed.
- Inhumanity. Who defines humane? The North Atlantic people
have a pretty good case concerning the humanity of european
pig and calf breeding.
- Luxury. Whale meat may well be a luxury in Japan - but not
in Greenland, Iceland and Norway. Norway and Iceland sell some
of the meat to get some of the basic necessities like food,
clothes, TV's and all the other commercial goods that are sold
all over Europe and the US. The Inuit and the Faroese consume
all the whalemeat they produce.
- No conservation benefits. This is a good criterion for not
supporting - but not hardly one for opposing.
Consequences of the draft position statement
- Immediately diminish our possibilities for doing
conservation work in large parts of the Artic where people
will not respect our position. Conservation work that is of
vital importance, re. WWF's Mission.
- In the longer term endanger our possibilities for working
with the Third World countries. As seen very clearly in the
UNCED-process, many of these countries are becoming
increasingly suspicious about Western attempts to dominate
them.
- Endanger the whole concept of sustainable utilisation of
nature. We are very worried about the increasing
aggressiveness of animal welfare movements in many countries -
though not in Denmark - and we feel that submission by the WWF
to animal welfare points of view may make it very difficult
for us to promote or defend the sustainable utilisation of
natural resources also in cases where it is useful or even
necessary for conservation.
We are not suggesting or asking that WWF should be for
commercial whaling. There is absolutely no reason for that.
And furthermore we do not ask that WWF should stop criticizing
the practices of "scientific" or existing commercial whaling.
All we ask is that WWF not be opposed to whaling on purely
"ethical" (and again consider whose ethics) grounds.
As an additional comment we would like to point out that in
other areas the WWF-family decides on positions by reaching
consensus, not by overruling. In the Forest Working Group this
method has led to lots of fruitful discussions and an overall
trust in the integrity of the final decisions. In the case of
the WWF-position on Sarawak it meant that the concerns of WWF
Malaysia were - by consensus - considered more important than
the concerns of WWF UK and WWF Denmark.
The position statement on whaling and the IBC as it is now is
unacceptable to WWF Denmark.
Kind regards,
Cassandra Phillips
Gordon Shepherd
Kevin Lyonette
Our main concern lies with the proposal that WWF be opposed to
the resumption of any commercial whaling regardless of
whatever will be proposed in the Revised Management Procedure
(RMP) by IWC's Scientific Committee.
Basically, we do not feel that the case made for opposition to
any commercial whaling is very convincing.
In a wider perspective, we fear that the policy stated in the
position paper may:
Tommy Dybbro