To:
Cassandra Phillips
Gordon Shepherd
Kevin Lyonette

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
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.

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:
Basically, we do not feel that the case made for opposition to any commercial whaling is very convincing.

- 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
In a wider perspective, we fear that the policy stated in the position paper may:

- 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,
Tommy Dybbro