WWF prefers to hide its wranglings on policy from public view, but in 1992, leaked documents showed a great rift over whaling between two Scandinavian nations and the members of the Anglo-Saxon Tribe — the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Put out in the name of WWF International, but without family consensus, the policy statement on whaling said: «Even if the IWC were to adopt a Revised Managed Procedure which could guarantee that whaling was only carried out on a truly sustainable basis, WWF would remain opposed to the resumption of commercial whaling.»
The language was toned down for the following year, apparently to everyone’s satisfaction. But now, thanks to a small group of Norwegian communities who threatened WWF’s wallet, the fragile family peace is disintegrating again and the dirty laundry is back on the line for all to see.
US Maverick
Each year, Norway’s TV channel NRK conducts a campaign to raise funds for charity, with the money being collected by municipal councils nationwide. Among the six organisations earmarked to receive the proceeds from this spring’s campaign was WWF Norway.
Concerned that they might be raising money for an organisation opposed to their way of life, several coastal communities refused to endorse the campaign until WWF could clarify its position on whaling. Of particular concern were statements from WWF-US which could be interpreted as endorsing whale rights.
«... to WWF whales are for watching,» wrote WWF-US president Kathryn Fuller last year. «We oppose commercial whaling because whales have an intrinsic value as mammals of great intelligence, whose behaviour and language set them apart.»
WWF-US also joined animal welfare and rights groups in urging the US to impose trade sanctions on Norway for going whaling.
Who did Fuller mean when she said: «To WWF whales are for watching»? Was this the position of WWF International, or had WWF-US become a maverick within the organisation? With the backing of the whaling communities, Mayor Geir Wulff-Nilsen of Moskenes, in the Lofoten Islands, wrote to WWF Norway demanding clarification. WWF Not Opposed to Whaling? «WWF is not an opponent of sustainable whaling on principle, irrespective of whether it is carried out by aboriginal peoples or commercially,» responded Stig Hvoslef, general secretary of WWF Norway.
«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,» he continued.
«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.»
WWF could not accept whaling without IWC approval, he said, but the position adopted by Fuller was an example of a «culturally determined» position, and showed that «not all WWF organisations stick to WWF’s united policy.»
Hvoslef furthermore said that WWF Norway had dissociated itself from the appeal for sanctions to be imposed on Norway. «On calling for US sanctions against Norway recently, WWF-US has taken the issue further than WWF International’s policy allows for,» he said. Just Give Me the Money! So if WWF-US was acting as a maverick, and WWF International’s only concern about whaling was the question of sustainability, how could Hvoslef explain International’s 1992 statement of unreserved opposition to commercial whaling?
No problem, said Hvoslef. That passage «has not been included in more recent policy documents ... 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.»
Satisified that WWF Norway, at least, was not opposed to whaling on principle, Wulff- Nilsen recommended to his Council that they endorse the fund-raising campaign, and all except one of the other communities are expected to follow suit.
But the true lesson that Moskenes, and the other communities, have learned is that a united WWF position on whaling cannot exist.
Semantic Interpretation
Given the difficulty of penetrating another’s thought processes, Harpoon offers the following as its humble analysis of WWF’s position on whaling. This position is based on two carefully contrived arguments.
The first is that the WWF family, as conservationists, do not actively support whaling. This much seems to sit comfortably with everyone.
Norway’s Hvoslef says, «WWF is not an industry-based organisation and does not actively support the utilisation of resources,» while International’s spokeswoman Cassandra Phillips told the Harpoon, «It’s not WWF’s task to support whaling or any other form of resource use, as our task is conservation.»
Not supporting whaling is, of course, very different from opposing whaling. Appreciation of this distinction is vital if one is to understand the 1996 International position paper, which states: «WWF sees no benefit to the conservation of whales from commercial whaling, and therefore does not support its resumption.»
This argument is, of course, nothing more than a crude exercise in semantics. But the second core argument places WWF International on a precarious high wire. This argument states that WWF will oppose whaling for the time being because its sustainability has not been demonstrated.
The appeal of this argument is its ambiguity. Norway and Denmark can promote the notion that if sustainability is demonstrated, whaling will become a non-issue. WWF-US, meanwhile, can give it a different spin and claim that whaling is unsustainable.
That said, International presents this argument in such powerful terms that one can almost see the US lobby peering over its shoulder.
«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,» said Gordon Shepherd, International’s policy programme director, to Icelandic television (STOD 2, May 23).
The IWC’s Revised Management Scheme (RMS) may be the most conservative fisheries management mechanism ever devised, but WWF demands even stricter controls. Thereby, it demonstrates enormous (but, in actuality, quite unreasonable) concern for whale stocks, while effectively supporting the anti-whalers’ strategy of making the RMS so onerous it can never be implemented.
Dysfunctional
With confidence in its razor-sharp analysis, Harpoon’s family counsellor approached International’s Phillips with the million-dollar question.
WWF International may not support whaling, but would it accept it — as Hvoslef claims — if the IWC, in its wisdom, decides to implement the Revised Management Scheme?
«That is a hypothetical question,» Phillips replied, «because new concerns could arise that would change the situation, such as environmental threats. It might be that the RMS does not take adequate account of these concerns.»
A reasoned response to statements like that eludes the Harpoon, but we feel sure it should include the terms «dysfunctional family» and «politics».