Norway Moves to Downlist Minke Whales at CITES

[Guest guest]

Hello:

 

As you may know, Norway is going to push strongly for a resumption in

trading of whale products at the next CITES conference in April. Attached is

a brochure detailing their position. The actual document can be downloaded

at this URL, but it is 3.5MB in size, so I copied the text below for you.

Also, you can order paper copies of this brochure from this URL, so I

encourage you to do so. In fact, order many! I'm sure you can think of a

reason to get them to send you 25 or 100 copies.

http://www.highnorth.no/CITES-2000/Publication/cites-2000-pub.htm

 

Regards,

Frank

 

Text begins:

 

Trade in minke whales

- conservation in action

 

Downlisting North Atlantic Minke Whales

CITES, 10-20 April, 2000

 

Third time lucky?

 

THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES (CITES) aims to

regulate trade in wild fauna and flora, thus aiding their conservation.

Countries agree a list of species " threatened with extinction " , known as

Appendix I, for which international trade is banned. Controlled trade is

allowed for species that are less threatened, listed in Appendix II. At each

Conference of the Parties, the 150 member countries consider proposals for

amendments to the listing of species in the Appendices, in accordance with

specific biological criteria. For the third time in a row, Norway has

proposed that the Northeast and the North Atlantic Central minke whale

stocks be transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II (known as

'downlisting'). The proposal fulfils the CITES criteria: firstly the

scientific data shows that these whale stocks are healthy and in no way

threatened with extinction, and thus should not be listed in Appendix I.

Secondly precautionary measures are in place; hunting is well-regulated and

Norway has established a unique DNA analysis trade control system.

Downlisting would give the green light for international trade in minke

whale products. This will increase the conservation and economic benefits of

whaling. Sustainable whaling is an environmentally-friendly means of

producing food, and should therefore be encouraged. In 1997, a simple

majority supported the Norwegian proposal, but it was not carried as it

failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority. The CITES Secretariat

also recommended downlisting. This brochure explains why North Atlantic

minke whales should be downlisted. More information can be found in Norway's

proposal, the Traffic report Minke Whale in Norway and at www.highnorth.no.

 

Whaling: Providing a livelihood

 

IN THE HIGH NORTH, whaling is as natural as fishing. It provides a living in

many communities, both as goods to be traded and food. Whaling complements

fishing so that, for example, when the winter cod season is over, fishermen

turn to whaling in the summer. This annual cycle reflects nature's seasonal

abundance of resources. Without whaling, many fishermen would lose their

livelihoods. Like most people, fishermen have mortgages to pay and children

to feed; without whaling they will have to find other ways to generate an

income. With fish resources commonly being more scarce in the summertime, it

is not easy to find an alternative fishery. Often fishermen have no choice

but to give up, move to urban areas, find a new job and start a new way of

life.

 

Whaling communities are found in Canada, the Faroe Islands, Greenland,

Indonesia, Japan, Norway, the Philippines, Russia, St Vincent and the

Grenadines, and in the USA. People hunt, amongst others, beluga, bowhead,

Bryde's, fin, grey, humpback, minke, narwhal, pilot and sperm whales. In

Iceland, whaling halted temporarily in 1989, but last year the parliament

decided that hunting should resume shortly.

 

Norway lodged an objection to the International Whaling Commission's

commercial whaling moratorium and is thus not bound by it. After a five year

break, Norway on this basis resumed commercial minke whaling in 1993.

 

Eco-meat

 

EATING WHALE MEAT IS FAR MORE environmentally-friendly than eating beef or

pork. Harvesting nature's surplus means that habitat does not have to be

destroyed and turned into agricultural land. Whaling does not pollute the

environment and is very energy-efficient -- producing beef requires much

more

energy than producing whale meat. As free-range animals, whales are spared

the prolonged suffering of factory-farm livestock. Minke whales are killed

quickly and efficiently. Whale meat is also good for you. It is 100%

natural,

rich in protein, lean and tasty.

 

" Lunching on the products of grotesque concentration-camp

farms nestled in our green and pleasant land, we choke the

idea of the whaler and his harpoon or the sealer and his

club. ... Presented with those cultures and with sustainability

in action, we rebuff them with moral indignation and try to

wreck their trade in seal furs and whale meat. "

FRED PEARCE, NEW SCIENTIST, 1997 3

 

Sound science says healthy stocks

 

THE MOST RECENT ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES are that 184,000 individuals make up the

two North Atlantic minke whale stocks. The Northeast Atlantic stock was

estimated to 112,000 by a unanimous Scientific Committee of the IWC in 1996.

The North Atlantic Central stock was estimated to 72,000 by the NAMMCO

Scientific Committee in 1997, while an IWC estimate from 1990 set the size

of this stock at 28,000. World-wide there are more than one million minke

whales.

 

Catch statistics

 

SINCE THE LATE 1920S, MORE THAN 100,000 minke whales have been hunted in the

North Atlantic. From 1938-1983, the annual average catch in the Northeast

stock was about 2,000, which is considered to be a sustainable offtake. The

Central stock has been hunted to a lesser extent, with a long-term annual

average of less than 150 animals harvested since the late 1920s. Presently

Greenland issues a quota of 12 minkes from the Central stock, and another

175 animals are taken from the West-Greenland stock. Norwegian whalers

mostly hunt from the Northeast stock, but also take a few from the Central

stock. The total Norwegian catch in 1999 was 589 animals, while the quota

this year is 655.

 

Unprecedented DNA trade control scheme

 

NORWAY MAINTAINS A DATABASE with DNA profiles from all minke whales hunted

since 1997. This means that any whale meat in the market can be DNA tested

and its origin traced in the database. DNA testing in domestic markets shows

that it works to control trade. This control scheme will be of enormous help

in monitoring that the products in the marketplace are legally caught and

traded. It is also likely to function as a deterrent to illegal activities,

such as an attempt in 1993 to smuggle whale meat in cartons marked 'shrimp'.

Although the DNA scheme has not been tested for international trade, it is

unique, and probably the strictest wildlife trade control system ever. If it

is not considered a sufficiently stringent control to justify downlisting,

the question is if any system ever will be.

 

Strict supervision

 

ON BOARD EACH NORWEGIAN WHALING VESSEL there is a

government appointed veterinary-trained inspector. In 1994, the

coast guard discovered that a boat had one more whale in its hold

than its assigned quota. The inspector was allegedly asleep. The

owner of the vessel was fined US $1,500, and both the owner and

the vessel were banned from whaling for five years. In addition,

international observers appointed by NAMMCO observe whaling

activities.

 

" My judgement is that the pro-whaling side has put forward a strong and

arguable case

for a resumption of commercial whaling, with all kinds of safeguards built

in to meet the

arguments of those governments that have been delaying. "

RAY GAMBELL, IWC SECRETARY, 1997 7

 

" It has also been argued that whales and other cetaceans should not be

hunted at all

because of their uniqueness. However, all things in nature are unique, and

it seems difficult

to argue that one species is more unique than another and should therefore

receive

special treatment. "

REPORT ON MARINE MAMMALS, COUNCIL OF EUROPE, JULY 12, 1993

 

Access to markets matters

 

THE ARCTIC AND SUB-ARCTIC REGIONS are very rich in marine resources, but

poor in other resources such as grain. Therefore trade in goods, including

whale products, has taken place for centuries. This continues today with

almost all seafood being exported.

A condition for an economic activity to take place is access to markets. It

is

therefore no surprise that the fight over trade constitutes one of the most

important

confrontations in the whaling conflict. The anti-whaling movement has

successfully pursued a strategy to influence national and international

legislation

such as CITES to close markets.

While the domestic market takes care of the meat, Norwegians do not have a

palate

for blubber. The export ban has resulted in several hundred tonnes of

blubber being

stockpiled. If they could sell the blubber on export markets, the

conservation and

economic benefits of whaling would increase.

It is not acceptable that CITES is abused as a tool to ban international

trade in

wildlife products harvested sustainably, thus depriving local communities

access to

markets and economic development.

 

IWC: Behind the mask

 

HAD CITES KNOWN THE TRUE FACE OF THE IWC, the minke whale

would already have been downlisted.

Opponents to whaling say that in view of the IWC moratorium on

commercial whaling, it is unnecessary for CITES to independently

assess the whale proposals. As they did at the 1994 and 1997 CITES

meetings, they urge CITES to keep minke whales on Appendix I,

claiming that the IWC is a science-based organisation working hard

to finish outstanding management issues. This echoes the statement

to CITES in 1997 by the IWC Chairman, who said " the Commission

is working on the Scheme (RMS) at present " and that this will be

completed " hopefully in the near future. "

But this is deliberately misleading. It is a clever illusion: using a

friendly mask of apparent competence in an attempt to hide the true

face of IWC. In reality, there has been no progress in the IWC for the

last ten years. Furthermore, there is no intention to make any

progress. A closer look at IWC's practice reveals that it is an

organisation which has abandoned its mandate, ignores science,

changes the rules, and acts in contravention of internationally

recognised principles.

The Commission is held hostage by the animal rights lobby, working

mainly through the governments of the USA, UK, New Zealand and

Australia. It is this group that will attempt to fool CITES by

promoting an illusion of IWC, and the same group is responsible for

the ineptitude of the IWC. As a result, the IWC is not a suitable

partner for CITES.

 

 

Coup d'Etat and sabotage

 

IN THE PERIOD 1979-1982, IWC'S membership doubled with 19

new states joining, most of them completely unconnected with

whaling. Several were recruited by people in the anti-whaling

lobby, such as David McTaggart, Director of Greenpeace.1 This

facilitated the three-quarters majority needed to carry the

moratorium. Greenpeace compared this process with " a coup

d'état. " 2 Ever since then, they have kept a firm grasp on the IWC.

The 1982 moratorium decision stipulated that it would only be a

temporary measure from 1986-1990, and " based upon the best

scientific advice " it would be reviewed " by 1990 at the latest. "

Despite the availability of the requisite scientific data, this has still

not been done, leaving the IWC ten years behind schedule.

Changing the rules

The anti-whaling faction said that it was not enough to do the

science, the IWC also had to work out a Revised Management

Procedure (RMP). When the RMP was finally completed, the IWC

refused to adopt it, causing the chairman of the Scientific

Committee to resign in protest in 1993. The RMP gives

precedence to the precautionary principle, and the core of it is a

quota calculation model which takes uncertainty fully into account.

Scientific editor of the IWC, Greg Donovan, points out that the

RMP " sets a standard for the management of all marine and other

living resources " , and it " is very conservative and certainly more

conservative than anything else that has gone before. " 9

Then in 1994, the IWC also decided to work out what became

known as the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) before the

moratorium could be lifted. The RMP will be at the heart of the

RMS, and in addition the RMS will include an observer and control

scheme. This requirement was not introduced until 10 years after

the temporary moratorium was decided. Furthermore, the IWC had

already established an international observer scheme in 1972.

Some governments are making unrealistic demands concerning the

scope of the RMS, calling for each whaling boat to carry an

international observer, one national inspector, one interpreter if

necessary, satellite monitoring, real time reporting, and the

establishment of a monitoring centre based at the IWC Secretariat

manned on a 24-hour basis, etc.

A number of working groups, subcommittee meetings and plenary

sessions have discussed the RMS, but made no progress. In 1999,

discussions on the RMS were quickly postponed to year 2000, for

which another two days have been set aside, most likely for

reiterating what has already been said.

New Zealand's opening statement to the 1999 IWC meeting

illustrates the sabotage process refusing to allow the IWC to decide

catch quotas on a scientific basis. New Zealand claims that it will

be working " in good faith " , and continues by stating: " We are

willing to consider a conservative regime (the RMS) as long as it

does not open the door to the resumption of commercial whaling

which we strongly oppose. "

The stalemate is due to neither lack of information nor the complexity

of the issues. It illustrates how the IWC has become hijacked by

animal rights interests which pay no heed to internationally

recognised principles of conservation and sustainable use.

 

Spurious legalese: Arguing that the earth is flat

 

IN AN ATTEMPT TO APPEAR SENSIBLE, the same anti-whaling faction puts forward

a number of spurious legalese arguments that CITES should be subjugated by

the IWC, i.e. keep

on Appendix I those whales covered by the IWC moratorium. They often argue

that Resolution 2.9 from 1979 obliges CITES to do so. However, this

resolution only recommends the parties not to issue any international trade

permit for whales protected by the IWC. It does not say what appendix whales

should be listed on, and thus is irrelevant when considering whether to

downlist healthy minke whale populations.

 

Article XV of CITES requires the Secretariat to consult relevant

international organisations with

a view " to ensuring co-ordination with any conservation measures enforced by

such bodies. " The anti-whaling lobby uses this to mean that CITES should

echo the IWC's decisions. Firstly, it must be noted that the criteria used

in CITES and IWC are different. Secondly, it is paramount

to note that the objective of co-ordination only applies to conservation

measures, and consequently not to non-conservation measures. The IWC admits

itself that its decisions are not conservation measures. For example in

1994, the IWC established a Southern Ocean Sanctuary where all whaling is

banned " irrespective of the conservation status of baleen and toothed whale

stocks. "

 

Furthermore, the IWC has neglected the promise that the moratorium was meant

to only

be a temporary measure from 1986 to 1990, maintaining it contrary to

scientific advice. An

assessment of the IWC moratorium reveals that this is an anti-conservation

measure denying

people sustainable utilisation of whales. Hence, CITES should seek to avoid

co-ordination with

the IWC. In line with Article XV, CITES must also consider NAMMCO's

management advice that an annual catch of 292 minke whales from the North

Atlantic Central stock is sustainable.

It is also claimed that downlisting would lead to free trade in whale

products beyond any CITES control. The argument is that Article XIV exempts

most IWC members from any CITES

requirements for an Appendix II listing, and hence also any annotation. This

catch-22

reasoning could also be used in the unlikely event that the IWC should lift

the moratorium.

The most relevant countries, Japan and Norway, have committed themselves to

abide by Appendix II requirements and to impose strict trade controls. A

vigilant international community will help ensure that this commitment is

upheld.

 

In the 1980s CITES did not automatically reflect the IWC decisions. While

the IWC issued quotas for fin, sei and Bryde's whales, CITES chose to list

them on Appendix I. In 1983, CITES chose to keep the West-Greenland minke

whale stock on Appendix II, because it was subject to an aboriginal

subsistence hunt. However, CITES has not applied the same practice to either

the Central Atlantic minke stock, or the various stocks of bowhead, grey,

humpback and fin whales, for which the IWC permits aboriginal subsistence

hunts. These examples show clearly the difficulties CITES encounters with

the diffuse cultural criteria of the IWC. The result is a lack of

consistency when amending the appendices, and listings that are in conflict

with the CITES

Convention.

 

" Here we have a fisheries convention (ICRW) which is being used not for

regulating a fishery but for preventing a fishery. "

RAY GAMBELL,

IWC SECRETARY, 1996 4

 

" ... the objective of the (CITES) convention, clear for anyone to see, is

not to stop the exploitation of wildlife, but to ensure it is limited to

avoid harm to wild populations. This may

not be protectionism, but it is conservation. "

IZGREV TOPKOV,

CITES SECRETARY GENERAL

1991-1998, 1994 6

 

" Since ... scientific analysis now shows that some populations of minke

whales are likely to sustain a limited harvest, it was time to review US

policy ... There is presently no support in the US Congress or among the

American public for commercial whaling. Therefore, the United States has

decided not to support resumption of commercial whaling. "

US NOTE TO ICELAND, 1993

 

" What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous

recommendations ... are treated with such contempt? "

PHIL HAMMOND, CHAIRMAN OF THE

IWC SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, LETTER

OF RESIGNATION, 1993

 

" At its worst the moral of the IWC's history could be this: will any nation

that signs a global environmental or resource convention find itself

ensnared in a regime that appears to discard its original premises and to

pay little heed to its own scientific advisors? "

CHRISTOPHER D. STONE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 1996 5

 

CITES: A Puppet of the IWC?

 

WITH 150 CONTRACTING PARTIES, more than three times that of the IWC, CITES

is a truly global body and much more representative than IWC. It seems

strange then that the anti-whaling lobby demands that CITES should become

IWC's puppet. The US has asked for just this, by submitting a resolution for

CITES not to downlist minke whales because of the IWC moratorium. This

resolution echoes another resolution adopted at the 1999 IWC meeting. Due to

the voting rules, it is not conceivable in the foreseeable future that the

IWC will lift the moratorium, because as little as ten countries will be

able to block any attempt to get the IWC back on track. It is a farce that

such a tiny group can hold the 150 CITES members hostage, in violation of

their own Convention.

 

IUCN urges IWC to become serious, but in vain

 

" (Decisions) shall provide for the conservation, development and optimum

utilization of the whale resources, ... shall be based on scientific

findings, ... and shall take into consideration the interests of the

consumers of whale products and the whaling industry. "

THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING

 

THE UN CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS) recognises coastal states'

sovereign rights to harvest natural resources, including whales, in their

exclusive economic zones. As a general principle, UNCLOS has adopted the

optimum sustainable use of living resources. However, it gives countries the

opportunity to " regulate marine mammals more strictly " , if they wish. But

this does not affect the rights of other nations to harvest marine mammals.

With regard to the management of whales, UNCLOS requires states to " work

through the appropriate international organisations " . e.g. the IWC and

NAMMCO.

 

NAMMCO

 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNCLOS, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission

(NAMMCO) was established as an international regional organisation in 1992,

with the objective to contribute to the conservation, rational management

and study of marine mammals in the North Atlantic. Membership is composed of

the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway, with Canada and Russia

presently as observers. In 1995, NAMMCO co-ordinated sightings surveys for

cetaceans. On the basis of these surveys, the Scientific Committee estimated

the North Atlantic Central minke stock at 72,000. Using this data, NAMMCO

issued management advice that a catch of 292 animals per year would be

sustainable (corresponding to the mean annual catch between 1980-1984). It

further noted the conservative nature of this advice. NAMMCO has also

adopted and implemented the Joint NAMMCO Control Scheme for the Hunting of

Marine Mammals, which appoints international observers for whaling

activities in member countries, including Norway.

 

 

" IUCN - THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION views the condition of the IWC with

increasing concern. ... The IWC has shown little sign of an intention to

resume its responsibility for the management of whaling. ... Each Commission

meeting that passes without any concrete progress on the RMS further dents

the credibility of the IWC and jeopardises its ability to re-assert its role

as a serious management body. ... In the absence of a clear signal from this

51st meeting that the IWC is able and willing to resume its lead role with

respect to the conservation and management of whales, the likelihood

increases that other intergovernmental mechanisms will take decisions on

whales that leave the IWC behind. "

(EXTRACT FROM IUCN OPENING STATEMENT TO THE 51ST MEETING OF THE IWC, 1999.)

 

Wrongly put on Appendix I

 

IN 1983 THE SEYCHELLES SUBMITTED a proposal to CITES to list the minke whale

(except the West Greenland stock) on Appendix I. The proposal admitted that

" there is no positive evidence that any putative population of minke whales

is endangered in terms of the literal interpretation of the Berne criteria

for CITES. " The CITES Secretariat recommended delegates reject the proposal

because it neither met the criteria nor the provisions of the Convention.

Similarly, a CITES committee set up to review species listed in the

appendices concluded that no changes should be made for cetaceans. The USA

commented that the proposal did " not appear to be justified on biological

grounds. " Switzerland, with the support of the European Community, suggested

withdrawal of the proposal. Despite all this, CITES accepted the proposal

with 29 votes in favour, 5 against and 23 abstentions. Iceland, Japan,

Norway and Peru hold reservations to this decision, i.e. they are allowed by

CITES to engage in international trade in minke whale products.

 

Taken off the Red List

 

The law of the sea IN THE IUCN-WORLD CONSERVATION UNION'S Red List, the

northern hemisphere minke whale is included in the non-threatened category

of " Lower Risk. " The most scientific information on minke whale population

status comes from the two largest stocks. These are the stocks proposed for

downlisting. The IUCN List confirms that the species as such is not

threatened with extinction, but on the contrary, is abundant.

 

The Global Deal: Sustainability

 

IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF SUSTAINABILITY that will lead humanity into the new

century.

The world community embraced the principle of sustainable use (including of

marine resources) as embodied in Agenda 21 at the 1992 UN Conference on

Environment and Development. Sustainable utilisation is also at the core of

the

ensuing Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as many other

international

environmental and resource management agreements established in recent

decades. International co-operation is essential for meeting the challenges

ahead,

and international consensus can only be built on scientific information.

" [We] have noted with satisfaction the consensus ... to extend practical

support to the

globally agreed principle of sustainable use of the world's natural

resources, based on

scientific evidence and objective data. "

 

EUROPEAN UNION, CONCLUDING STATEMENT TO CITES 1994

" Global conventions ... often ignores - or even militates against - aspects

of cultural

diversity. ... Perhaps the ICRW most eloquently displays the contradictions

and enigmas

we face, ... the ascendancy of global orthodoxy over cultural imperatives. "

PETER BRIDGEWATER (UNESCO),

FORMER IWC CHAIRMAN 1994-97, 1999 8

 

" This industry (whaling) should be consigned to the dustbin of history. "

GREENPEACE PRESS RELEASE, 13 JANUARY, 2000

 

" I believe it would be wrong, and in the nature of cultural imperialism, for

Ireland to

attempt to impose our cultural values on those nations whose populations

have

depended on the whale for generations. "

MR. HIGGINS, IRELAND'S MINISTER FOR CULTURE, 1995 IWC MEETING

 

ACRONYMS

CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora

ICRW: International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

IWC: International Whaling Commission

NAMMCO: North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission

RMP: Revised Management Procedure

RMS: Revised Management Scheme

UNCLUOS: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

 

References

 

1. Jeremy Cherfas, The Hunting of the Whale: A tragedy that must end, The

Bodley Head, 1988; David Day, The

Whale War, London, Grafton (1992) (First edition, 1987, Routledge & Kegan

Paul Ltd, London); Leslie Spencer,

with Jan Bollwerk and Richard D.Morais. " The not so peaceful world of

Greenpeace " , Forbes, November 11, 1991.

2. Dean Wilkinson, " The Use of Domestic Measures to Enforce International

Whaling Agreements: A Critical

Perspective " , Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Volume 17, No

2, 1989.

3. Fred Pearce, " Night of the Arctic hunters " , New Scientist, 28 June 1997.

4. In " New Scientist " , 22 June, 1996.

5. Christopher D. Stone, " Legal and Moral Issues in the Taking of Minke

Whales " , The International Legal

Workshop, Cetacean Research Institute, 1996.

6. BBC Wildlife, February issue, 1994.

7. In " Whalers say the wind is turning in their favour " , The New York Times,

23 July 1997.

8. Peter Bridgewater, " Globalisation of nature and culture: the imperative

for diversity " , Proceedings of the

Norway/UN Conference on the Ecosystem Approach for Sustainable Use of

Biological Diversity, 1999.

9. Greg Donovan, " The International Whaling Commission and the Revised

Management Procedure " ,

Additional Essays on Whales and Man, High North Alliance, 1995.

 

 

Respect cultural diversity

 

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION CAN NOT flourish without respect and tolerance

for each

other. If we are unable to accept and respect cultural differences, cultural

diversity will fall victim to coercion. This is not to say that we should

blindly tolerate harmful conduct in the name of cultural diversity. However,

we all have a moral obligation to respect cultural diversity, and this

includes embracing hunting cultures, provided their hunts are carried out on

a sound ecological basis. The bottom line of the whale debate as it is

played out in CITES and the IWC is respect, or the lack of it, for cultural

diversity.

 

Why take North Atlantic minke whales off the " threatened with extinction "

list?

¥ Science says stocks are healthy

¥ Sustainable hunt

¥ Unique DNA trade control scheme

¥ Increase conservation benefits

¥ Social and economic development

¥ Environmentally-friendly meat

¥ Promote globally agreed principles

¥ Put Agenda 21 into practice

¥ Respect cultural diversity

¥ Science-based management

¥ Make CITES work

 

This brochure is also available in French and

Spanish.

 

P.O. Box 123, N-8398 Reine i Lofoten, Norway

Tel +47 76 09 24 14, Fax +47 76 09 24 50

hna

www.highnorth.no

Arctic fishing and whaling community, Reine in the

Lofoten islands, Norway

 

Photo: Stig Einarsen

Front: A typical Norwegian combined minke whaling and fishing vessel

Photo: Knut Skoglund Film

 

" The hunters of the north live with their

natural environment in a way that most

urban Greens can only fantasise about.

To accuse them of not being concerned

for that environment is absurd. It is the

blind urban pursuit of animal rights that

is adrift from proper ecological concerns

for the sustainable use of natural

resources. "

FRED PEARCE, NEW SCIENTIST, 1997 3

 

High North Alliance/Reibo & Cetera RRA 110 For free distribution abroad.

Published with the support of the Regional Authority of Northern Norway.

Working for the future of coastal cultures and the sustainable use of marine

resources