The UK and 25 other countries have officially condemned Iceland's recent decision to kill endangered whales.
Iceland recently killed around 125 fin whales, more than at any time since an international ban on commercial whaling was brought in more than 20 years ago.
In addition 79 minke whales were killed making it the largest commercial whale hunt in North Atlantic waters for decades.
The UK and 25 other countries including the US, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain issued a formal diplomatic position to the Icelandic ambassador in the UK against the decision to hunt the whales. The démarche as it is known will put pressure on Iceland just as the country is hoping to restore its damaged economy by joining the EU.
Huw Irranca-Davies, the UK wildlife minister, was deeply disappointed that Iceland has failed to overturn a quota of up to 200 fin and 200 minke whales for the 2009/2010 season.
He pointed out that the animals are endangered and that Iceland could make more money from whale watching.
"I am extremely disappointed to hear that nearly 200 whales have been taken so far this year," he said.
Animal welfare groups are incensed that most of the whales slaughtered will not even be consumed in Iceland but will be exported to Japan.
95
Animals
Dee
- 2 days ago - news.bbc.co.uk
Europe's largest slaughter of fin whales for decades was carried out this summer with 93 of the endangered species killed by Iceland, according to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.
The conservation group said at least 93 endangered fin whales were killed this summer, more than at any time since an international ban on commercial whaling was brought in more than 20 years ago.
In addition 63 minke whales were killed making it the largest commercial whale hunt in North Atlantic waters for decades.
The meat and blubber from the whales may yield a staggering two million kilograms of edible products, the charity said.
Kate O’Connell, of the WDCS, said the slaughter will reflect badly on Iceland at a time when the country is trying to recover from the recession and become part of the European Union.
"There is simply no way that so much whale meat and blubber can be consumed domestically, and the whalers are deluding themselves if they think they can make any money exporting whale meat to Japan," she said.
"Sales of whale products in Japan have made financial losses for much of the last 20 years, and market demand there has dropped. Iceland’s whaling policy seems as ill-founded as its economic policies have been."
Arni Finnsson, chairman of the Nature Conservation Union of Iceland, said it will prove very expensive to get Icelandic fin whale meat to market in Japan. It is out of the question that the Icelandic government is in a position to supplement the whaling industry with the extra hundreds of millions of kronur it has cost and continues to cost the nation every year.
Finnsson said in an article today in Fiskifrettir that the upper limit of supply to Japan is 116.4 tonnes per year, or around 13 fin whales from Iceland – nearly twice as much as whaler Kristjan Loftsson exported there in May 2008, mbl.is reports.
Finnsson says that the Japanese government has for years been trying to breathe life into the country’s whale output with advertising campaigns, free recipe books, free whale meat supply to schools and retirement homes etc; but all with little success. Japan has since closed its whale marketing office since it failed to increase domestic demand.
Finnsson believes the market for Icelandic fin whale meat in Japan is already being filled by Japanese fin whale meat and that Kristjan Loftsson’s chances of widening the marketplace are slim while damage to Iceland’s international reputation is huge.
1
Environment
Claudia
- 1 minute ago - tvnz.co.nz
8
Environment
Claudia
- 34 minutes ago - icelandreview.com
12
Animals
Cher
- 1 hour ago - guardian.co.uk
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jr9P_lwDddPKTpVLAh5NnYHJ_hwA
REYKJAVIK (AFP) — Iceland would probably be forced to end its controversial whale hunting tradition in its bid to join the European Union, the head of a leading Icelandic whaling company said.
Kristjan Loftsson, the 66-year-old chief executive of Hvalur, fears Brussels would clamp down on whaling in Iceland due to widespread opposition by European countries.
"I would not be surprised if whale hunting has to be stopped," Loftsson told AFP.
Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorise commercial whaling despite a 23-year-old moratorium set by the International Whaling Commission, which opens its annual meeting Monday in Portugal's Madeira island.
Iceland, which pulled out of the moratorium in 2006, launched its annual whaling season on May 26 with a larger hunting quota, sparking protests from EU powerhouses Britain, France and Germany as well as the United States.
Loftsson said Iceland should stay out of the EU, not in the interests of whale hunters but in the interest of the country's fishing industry as a whole.
Iceland's Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir campaigned in the country's recent elections on a promise to let Icelandic voters have the final say on joining the EU.
But Loftsson questioned whether many support membership.
"I am very sceptical that Iceland will join the European Union in the near future," Loftsson said.
"I think the Icelandic people are sufficiently well-informed to say 'No' to Europe," he said.
In February, Iceland sparked an outcry amongst environmental groups when it increased its whaling quotas to 150 fin whales and 100 minke whales per year, up from the nine fin whales and 40 minke whales per year.
But Loftsson, who started hunting at the age of 13, is defiant on this point. He stressed that whaling "like any other industry creates jobs, income and foreign currency" and is an essential part of the Icelandic economy.
The Hvalur chief executive also rejected the fears of environmentalists, who argue the whale is an endangered species and must be protected.
"This is just a natural resource that people want to use. It's estimated there are some 20,000 fin whales around Iceland. With that in mind, 150 (hunted this year) is unlikely to make a big difference," Loftsson said.
He dismissed claims by Greenpeace that the popularity of whale meat was on the slide.
"Each whale's value depends on its size and age. I don't know anyone in business and aims to lose money," he said.
Hvalur has been hunting whales since 1948 and employees about 150 people, of which 30 people are deployed on its two fishing vessels. It is currently the only company which is allowed to hunt fin whales around the Icelandic coast.
Iceland's higher hunting quota may add fuel to the always heated debate at the annual International Whaling Commission meeting, where pro-hunting nations have been fighting for an end to the moratorium that was set in 1986.
While Iceland and Norway openly defy the ban, Japan uses a loophole that allows "lethal research" on the ocean giants, with the meat then heading to restaurants and supermarkets.
Last year, Iceland decided to resume whale meat exports to Japan after an 18-year hiatus.
The World Conservation Union Red Book lists fin whales as endangered. The Red Book also estimates that the global population has declined by more than 70% worldwide over the last three generations (1927-2007).
Iceland urged to call off slaughter of endangered whales
As the first of Iceland's whaling ships reportedly heads to sea in an attempt to harpoon up to 150 endangered fin whales, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is urging the Icelandic government to call off this cruel and needless slaughter now.
Endangered species
IFAW opposes whaling because it is unacceptably cruel - there is no humane way to kill a whale and research has shown that whales shot with explosive harpoons can take more than half an hour to die. Targeting an endangered species also raises serious conservation concerns as it pushes the threatened fin whales closer to extinction.
Whale watching generates almost £5m a year
"Whale watching generates almost £5m a year for coastal communities in Iceland - it offers a humane, sustainable and profitable alternative to whaling."
The current whaling quotas were set earlier this year by the outgoing Fisheries and Agriculture Minister, Einar K Gudfinnsson. He granted commercial whaling quotas of up to 150 endangered fin whales and 100 Minke whales a year for the next five years. Iceland's new Fisheries Minister, Steingrimur J Sigfusson, later announced these catch allowances would remain for one year, despite only a limited domestic market for Minke whales and no domestic market for fin whales. In recent days the catch limit for Minke whales has been increased to 200.
The slaughter of Minke whales began last month, at which time representatives from IFAW and other animal welfare organisations held a protest outside the Icelandic Embassy in London and met with the Icelandic Ambassador to express their concerns.
High cost to Icelandic taxpayers
Only 1.1% of Icelanders claim to eat whale meat once a week or more, while 82.4% of 16 to 24-year-olds never eat whale meat (Gallup polling in Iceland, 2006).
According to figures released by the Fisheries Minister to the Icelandic Parliament on February 9, 2009, each Minke whale killed during "scientific whaling" from 2003-2007 cost Icelandic taxpayers two million ISK. The total cost for the four-year period was 400 million ISK. From this figure 180 million ISK was given in subsidies to the whalers or 0.9 million ISK per dead whale.
The World Conservation Union Red Book lists fin whales as endangered. The Red Book also estimates that the global population has declined by more than 70% worldwide over the last three generations (1927-2007).
Japan is the only viable market for whale meat exports from Iceland but Japan's own whale meat market is in decline (Marketing Whale Meat - Study on Current and Possible Markets and Cost of Operations in Minke Whaling, Thorsteinn Siglaugsson).
Japan currently has 3,000 tonnes of stockpiled whale meat in storage from previous hunts (Japanese government statistics).
Minke whaling has already greatly damaged whale watching
A recent release from the Icelandic Travel Industry Association, issued in January in response to Mr Gudfinnsson's quotas, stated that "Minke whaling has already greatly damaged whale watching and there are fewer and fewer animals to be seen in areas in which whale watching boats operate. Whale watching is the sector within the tourism industry which has had the fastest growth in the last few years, including jobs and income for the Icelandic economy. Hence, it is quite clear that this decision will damage the development of the tourism industry, throwing good money after bad".
Across the harbour, whalers prepare their ships for the hunting season.
"It's quite strange to have these two boats in front of each other," says Angela Walk, a 37-year-old tourist guide for one of nine Icelandic companies that offers whale-spotting tours off the coast of this island in the middle of the North Atlantic.
Walk, a native of Germany who settled in Iceland 12 years ago, says her company "is against whaling."
"We try to convince them to stop. It's not good for Iceland's image."
But whaling presents a paradox for the country: it's a precious resource both for the tourism industry, which wants to protect the animals, and whalers who want to hunt them in what they say is a traditional and cultural right.
Every day during summer's peak season, thousands of tourists spend 45 euros ($A80) each in the hopes of sighting a minke whale, or, if they're lucky, the more imposing fin whale.
"On a 60-tonne fin whale, 50 per cent is blubber and 50 per cent is meat," explains Olafur Olafsson, a 59-year-old fisherman and whaler who has worked at sea since the age of 14.
This burly redhead is the captain of the boat named "H", for "Hvalur" or whale in Icelandic which is also the name of the company. It is the only whaling company in Iceland licensed to hunt fin whales.
Olafsson says that after spending two decades docked in port due to Iceland's suspension of whaling, his 51 metre ship will soon be ready to set sail with its 15 crew on June 2 - a day after the hunt was set to officially begin on Monday, June 1.
"Mondays are unlucky," he says, citing local superstition.
Three years ago when Iceland, a country of 320,000 people, announced it was resuming commercial whaling it set a quota of nine fin whales and 40 minke whales.
In January of this year, the government sharply increased the quota to 150 fin whales and up to 150 minkes per year for the next five years, a move that sparked an international outcry.
Fisheries Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson, whose left-wing government inherited the quotas when it came to power in February, said Iceland was reconsidering the levels and may revise the numbers later this year.
He said whaling was a "complex" issue, but "the majority of Icelanders see it as a natural thing ... We are a nation of farmers and fishermen."
The pro-whaling camp says the quotas are needed to maintain the balance of the ocean's ecosystem, and to protect fish stocks, since a whale devours several tonnes of fish a day.
Olafsson insists that the whaling industry is strictly regulated: "We don't hunt whales smaller than 20 metres, nor mothers with calves."
And in 99 per cent of cases, the whale is killed immediately, on the first try, with a harpoon that fires off two explosive charges within a fraction of a second.
"We don't want to hurt the animal because we want the meat to be healthy," Olafsson said.
Meanwhile, on board the whale-watching boat, captain Roland Buchholz steers with one hand, his other hand clutching binoculars that slowly scan the horizon.
"I'm looking at birds. It's the only way to know where food is, and probably whales."
Suddenly, a minke whale surfaces, breaking the water for a fleeting moment, to the delight of tourists - who have mixed reactions to the whale hunt.
"We are very much against whaling. There's no scientific reason to justify it. It's simply for making money," says 50-year-old Martin Holway of Britain, who travelled to Iceland with his wife for a whale-watching tour.
Steve Feye, a 54-year-old from Boston, was meanwhile more understanding.
"It's cultural and a question of tradition."
"The whale show, with the whales coming up and down, is beautiful. But I can understand that whaling is also important for Icelandic people, especially during the economic crisis," he said.
The head of Iceland's conservative Independence Party, Bjarni Benediktsson, said whaling easily becomes an "emotional issue."
"It's a question of sovereignty to do whatever we want with our resources," he said.
"We are following the rules of the game ... in concert with experts and scientists who set the quotas," he said.
And, he asks, why can't tourism and whaling co-exist?
According to Angela Walk, a large majority of Iceland's whale meat is eaten by tourists, "out of curiosity".
Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorise commercial whaling. Japan officially hunts whales for scientific purposes, which are contested by opponents, and the whale meat is sold for consumption.
Dear Claudia,
Thank you for acting on behalf of whales by writing to the Icelandic Fisheries Minister.
You may have received a reply from the Icelandic Commissioner of Whaling, in which he justifies Iceland's whaling industry by claiming that it only hunts abundant species, and that it wishes to protect endangered species.
It is said that "actions speak louder than words" - so let's compare Iceland's actions with the claims made in the Commissioner's letter.
Iceland has joined or ratified several commissions/treaties regarding whale protection:
- When ratifying the Berne Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and Habitats in 1993, Iceland lodged a reservation on blue whales, bowhead whales, and the critically endangered northern right whale. This showed clearly that Iceland was more interested in hunting whales than in saving whales.
- On joining the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITE
in 2001, Iceland again did so with reservations for several whale species, including the endangered blue whale. Iceland was the only one - out of 160 countries - to take a reservation on blue whales. - Iceland did not object to the International Whaling Commission's decision to halt international commercial whaling in 1983. However, it left the International Whaling Commission in 1992, and when rejoining the IWC in 2003, did so with a reservation, a controversial decision protested by a number of countries.
Seeing a pattern here?
Iceland's attempts to avoid international protections for even extremely rare whale species shows that it is keeping its options open for whaling on all species.
Under international law, whales are classified as highly migratory species, so it is up to all nations to contribute to decisions regarding how whales should be "used", including those countries that do not want whales to be hunted.
Nations with robust whale watching industries know that whales are worth more alive than dead. Instead of pursuing whales with harpoons, Iceland should pursue a policy that capitalizes on its successful whale watching industry which offers a humane, sustainable, and lucrative alternative to whaling.
Thanks again for speaking out for these magnificent animals,
Fred O'Regan
IFAW President
From: sigurbjorg.oladottir@slr.stjr.is
To: patclaudowen@canada.com
CC: Iceland’s policy on whaling.
Thank you for your interest in Iceland’s policy on whaling.
As you may know Iceland is a consistent advocate of the principle of sustainable use of natural resources. This is reflected in Iceland’s whaling activities, which have never involved any of the endangered whale species, killed on a large scale by other whaling nations in the past.
Several countries catch whales, most of them on a much bigger scale than Iceland. The biggest whaling countries among the members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) are the United States, Russia, Norway, Japan and Greenland. The whaling operations practiced by all those countries, as well as Iceland, are sustainable and legal and in accordance with the rules of the IWC.
Iceland fully appreciates the need for careful conservation of marine resources. Our economy depends on those resources. Iceland was among the first countries in the world to extend its fishery limits to 200 nautical miles in the year 1975, in order to put an end to the uncontrolled fishing around Iceland by trawlers from other countries.
Iceland was also one of the first countries in the world to take a conservationist approach to whaling. As signs of overexploitation of whales by other nations emerged early in the last century, Iceland declared a ban on whaling for large whales around Iceland in 1915. Whaling was not resumed until 1948, except for limited catches 1935-1939. Strict rules and limitations were applied to whaling in Iceland from 1948 to 1985 when commercial whaling was halted again following a decision by the IWC.
Iceland believes that the whaling issue should not be handled as an exception from the principle of sustainable use of natural resources. A research plan on common minke whales was implemented 2003 – 2007 involving the take of a total 200 animals in order to gain better understanding of the role of common minke whales in the ecosystem. Important material was collected, which is now studied by scientists in order to increase our knowledge on the position of common minke whales in the food chain and how they prey on other species in their habitat affecting their abundance.
Commercial whaling was resumed in 2006 with 7 fin whales and one common minke whale caught commercially in that year, in addition to 60 common minke whales caught in accordance with the research plan. The following year a total of 44 common minke whales were caught in Iceland, including catches from both commercial whaling operations and the conclusion of the scientific whaling program. A commercial quota of 40 common minke whales is set for the year 2008. The scientific program is no longer operated. No quota for fin whales has been issued this year.
The abundance of both common minke whales and fin whales has been confirmed by the Scientific Committies of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the North-Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), as as can been seen from their websites www.iwcoffice.org and www.nammco.no.
Iceland is an advocate of international cooperation in ensuring sustainable use of living marine resources, including whales. This has been the position taken by Iceland within the IWC, based on the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling from 1946. The stated role of the IWC, according to its founding Convention, is to &ldquo
rovide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”.
I hope that this information will be useful to you in understanding Iceland’s position on sustainable whaling. You may rest assured, that the desire to ensure the conservation of the whale stocks as well as other marine species is fully shared by the Icelandic Government.
Sincerely yours,
Stefán Ásmundsson
Commissioner of Whaling
For information on the governance of Iceland’s living marine resources on the web, please refer to, www.fisheries.is For information on various scientific research projects
“Whaling can help rebuild our economy” has been the theme of a high-profile ad campaign in the Icelandic media in recent weeks.
Running across TV, radio and newspapers, it promises that the whaling industry can create up to 300 new jobs – a significant number in a country of 319,000 inhabitants struggling with rising unemployment, a worthless currency and a collapsed banking system.
The campaign has also been heavy on nationalistic imagery, showing images of the Icelandic flag juxtaposed with historical pictures of whalers and whaling ships. The message resonates strongly in a nation that used to survive on fishing and farming.
Iceland's hopes for a new beginning were dealt a blow today when its Minister of Fisheries, Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, the leader of the Green Party, announced that he would not repeal his deposed predecessor's last-minute order to resume commercial whaling of 150 fin whales and 100 minke whales starting this year until 2013.
Whalingstation in Hvalfjordur
In 2003, Iceland announced plans to kill 500 fin, sei and minke whales over two years for so-called ‘research’. In October 2006, Iceland announced the resumption of commercial whaling .
As of January 2007, Icelandic whalers have killed 7 endangered fin whales and a minke whale. They plan to kill a further 2 fin and 69 minkes this year, for profit. Iceland, like Norway, claim whales must be culled because they eat fish. This is nonsense. Human over-fishing is destroying fish stocks, not whales.
The biggest markets for Icelandic fish and prawns are the UK, EU and US. Do you want to buy seafood tainted by whale slaughter? If these countries can't sell their seafood then there's no point in killing whales. So let's show Iceland whaling is bad for business!
Please see our 'don't buy your fish from whale killers' section for details on how you can help our campaign to stop Iceland's whaling
Iceland was the first nation to begin a so-called ‘scientific’ whaling programme in 1986 defying the IWC whaling ban and selling or smuggling most of the meat to Japan. Japan of course, followed Iceland’s lead and began ‘scientific’ whaling in 1987. However, following sustained international pressure, including a boycott campaign against Icelandic fish products in the US, UK and Germany, Iceland stopped ‘scientific’ whaling in 1989 and walked out of the IWC in protest at the continuing moratorium in 1992.
The IWC has repeatedly passed resolutions condemning ‘scientific’ whaling and calling for whales to be studied by non-lethal means. . However, Iceland claims that whales are a threat to fish stocks when it is clear that human over-fishing is to blame for plumeting global fishstocks.
Iceland's whaling company owner has announced he intends to sell the whale meat to Japan. There is little demand for whale meat in Iceland. Meanwhile, Iceland has a rapidly growing whale-watching industry that clearly demonstrates that whales are worth far more alive than dead. However, the Icelandic authorities say they can have a watch-watching and a whaling industry. We have to convince them that they will lose more than can ever be gained by killing these whales.
How you can help:
Please protest to the Icelandic Embassy in your country today. If you do not know the address visit their website at www.iceland.org. Below are contact details of the US, UK and German Embassies.
Please tell the Ambassador you want Iceland to:
- Stop ‘scientific’ and commercial whaling immediately and to withdraw their ‘objection’ to the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling.
- Tell Him you will not visit Iceland ,or buy its fish products ,until all whaling stops
- Please see our 'don't buy your fish from whale killers' campaign section for further details
The Ambassador
Embassy of Iceland
1156 15th Street N.W., Suite 1200
Washington DC 20005-1704
Tel.: 202-265-6653
Fax: 202-265-6656
E-Mail: icemb.wash@utn.stjr.is
Web: http://www.iceland.org/us
Sverrir Haukur Gunnlaugsson
The Ambassador
Embassy of Iceland
2A Hans Street, London SW1X 0JE
Tel: 0207-259-3999
Fax: 0207-245-9649
E-mail: icemb.london@utn.stjr.is
Botschafter
Botschaft von Island
Rauchstrasse 1, 10787 Berlin
Tel. 49.30.5050 4000, Fax. 49.30.5050 4300
Kontakt: icemb.berlin@utn.stjr.is
Some helpful points you can use in your letter, fax &lsquohone call or email:
- 25 countries, including the US and UK, have called on Iceland to cease all whaling
- Iceland’s lethal research proposal was rejected by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in July 2003.
- You do not need to kill whales to study them. Scientists can learn much more about from photo id studies, tracking, DNA analysis, and sustained observation. Their diet can also be examined through observation, and the collection of faeces.
- Iceland’s most important markets for fish exports are the US, UK and Germany where the public are strongly opposed to commercial whaling.
- Whaling threatens Iceland’s rapidly growing whale-watching and eco-tourism. In 2002, more than 62,000 people went whale-watching in Iceland. Tourism in Iceland is second only to commercial fishing exports in its value to the Icelandic economy.
- The renewal of Iceland’s whaling also threatens possible sanctions from the United States government that could cut off fish imports from Iceland. If another boycott against Iceland’s fish products is mounted, Iceland stands to lose billions of dollars in annual income.
- If Iceland is allowed to get away with resuming whaling , other nations and pirate whalers will be encouraged to kill more whales.
- The world’s whales have been decimated by centuries of whaling, especially in the North Atlantic. The argument increasingly used by Japan, Norway and Iceland that whales are a threat to fish-stocks is patent nonsense.
The country has not whaled, whether commercially or "scientifically," since 1989 when fellow pro-whaling nation Japan stopped buying Iceland's whale products due to worldwide pressure. Having initially agreed to the global ban on commercial whaling, Iceland officially withdrew from the IWC in 1992.
Iceland’s minister for finance, farming and fisheries, the Green Party leader Steingrimur J. Sigfusson, today announced that his predecessor’s controversial increase in the whaling quota will stand – at least for this year.
Former fisheries minister Einar K. Gudfinsson made it his parting act to announce a quota of 100 minke whales and 150 fin whales per year for the next five years. Many observers believed the decision was made partly to cause the strongly anti-whaling Sigfusson a headache in his new job.
Sigfusson did not rescind the decision immediately, instead taking a few weeks to discuss the issue with all sides.
The minister remains anti-whaling on a personal level, and warned whalers that they cannot take for granted that Gudfinsson’s quota will stand for the next four years.
Environmentalists, tourist chiefs and the wider international community reacted with dismay to this largely unexpected outcome.
62
Animals
Jacquelin
- 11 hours ago - theaustralian.news.com.au
SEVEN countries including Britain, Germany and the United States have urged Iceland to reconsider a decision to increase its whaling quota sixfold, a copy of a letter obtained by AFP today showed.
Iceland's former government announced the increase in late January as one of its last moves, but a new left-wing interim government that came to power just days later said it would reconsider the increase.
"We are writing to you today to express our governments' extreme disappointment in the decision of your predecessor to issue a quota for 150 fin and 100 minke whales to be harvested in Icelandic waters," ambassadors and charge d'affaires from the seven countries wrote in the letter to Icelandic Fisheries Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson.
"We applaud your interest in re-evaluating this decision," they said in the letter dated February 12, adding: "We call on Iceland to reconsider this decision."
The other countries that signed the letter were Finland, France, the Netherlands and Sweden.
Prior to the recent announcement, Iceland, which pulled out of an international whaling moratorium in 2006 after 16 years, had a quota of just nine fin whales and 40 minke whales per year.
"It is critical that the continuation or expansion of Iceland's commercial harvest or international trade in whale meat does not undermine goodwill or hamper progress in resolving issues pending before the (International Whaling) Commission," the letter said.
Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorise commercial whaling. Japan officially hunts whales for scientific purposes, although the whale meat is sold for consumption.
The ambassadors to the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Finland to Iceland met with Minister of Fisheries Steingrímur J. Sigfússon on Friday to discuss their stance on commercial whaling.
The ambassadors handed over a joint declaration. “We know the attitudes of these states and there were no threats involved,” Sigfússon told Fréttabladid.
“But we discussed many things. The ambassadors for example raised awareness of the fact that roughly half of all tourists who come to Iceland come from these seven nations,” Sigfússon said.
Sigfússon’s predecessor Einar K. Gudfinnsson issued a new quota on fin whales and minkes shortly before he left his post and Sigfússon is considering revoking his decision.
The minister has also met with representatives of whaling companies and others who support commercial whaling to listen to their views on the matter. Iceland’s tourist industry is generally opposed to whaling.
Last week 36 MPs, the majority of MPs in parliament, signed a parliamentary resolution that commercial hunting of fin whales and minkes be continued with quotas issued for periods of five years, according to recommendations from the Icelandic Marine Research Institute.
According to a recent article in Vidskiptabladid business weekly, Iceland is a small player compared to the world’s most active whaling nations, the United States, Canada, Japan, Norway and Greenland, based on statistics from the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
In 2007, Iceland only accounted for two percent of the world’s total whale catch. However, the new whaling quota issued by Iceland’s Ministry of Fisheries is expected to lead to a considerably higher catch than in recent years.
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16568&ew_0_a_id=320045
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is calling a blanket boycott of Iceland. Paul Watson encourages everyone to say to people around the world to not buy Icelandic vodka, sweaters, and fish, to not go as tourists to Iceland and to not use Iceland as a refuelling station for private jets.
Sea Shepherd has outlined the following Companies to boycott (all of which are owned by ?Baugur? a wholly owned Icelandic company):
Karen Millen and French Connection clothing retailers - Don't wear clothing that supports the slaughter of endangered whales.
Iceland Frozen Seafoods - Boycotting this chain is a natural of course
Hamleys (Large Toy Retailer) - Children love whales and children would not want to have a toy made by a company that supports the killing of whales.
The House of Fraser (Department Store) - Not Scottish but 100% Icelandic and patronizing this chain is supporting Iceland's program to slaughter Fin and Minke whales.
If you wish to assist and join Sea Shepherd in this boycott for the whales, please follow the below instructions.
Below this is a template letter expressing your boycott. Please take a minute of your time and send it to the emails and online form links that are provided. All the contacts are for the companies that Sea Shepherd is calling a boycott to.
SEND THE BELOW LETTER TO THE FOLLOWING EMAILS:
enquiries@karenmillen.co.uk; info@icelandic.is; fiskval@fiskval.is; icelandicusa@icelandic.com; louis@blueice.is; info@icelandic.is; info@phhs.de; info@phhs.de; info@coldwater-seafood.co.uk; technical@seachill.co.uk; icelandic@icelandic.fr; iberica@icelandic.is; icelandic@icelandic.no; info@coldwater-seafood.co.uk; blueice@blueice.is; party@hamleys.co.uk;
AND ALSO SEND IT TO THE FOLLOWING ONLINE CONTACT FORMS:
http://www.randburg.com/is/salka/email.asp
http://www.houseoffraser.co.uk/on/demandware.store/Sites-hof-Site/default/Link-ContactUS?q=1
http://baugur.com/Contact-Us
____________________________
To whom it may concern,
I, INSERT NAME, am deeply saddened by the Icelandic Government announcement that they will slaughter 150 endangered Fin whales and 100 Minke whales over the next 5 years.
The Fin whale is listed as an endangered species and Iceland is already violating international conservation law by exporting Fin whale meat to markets in Japan without the required CITES export permits. Trading in endangered species is illegal under the provisions of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species.
I do not support the illegal trade or slaughter of whales and therefore I am hereby boycotting all your goods until the Icelandic Government revokes the authorization of whaling.
I am sorry that it has reverted to this, especially in this current economic crisis. However the Icelandic Government will not listen to us, therefore we must take these extreme measures.
It is also my personal goal to spread this boycott message to others.
Regards,
INSERT NAME
This post was modified from its original form on 12 Feb, 13:17
22
Environment
In A Mirr
- 21 hours ago - ipsnews.net By Lowana Veal
REYKJAVIK, Feb 10 (IP
- Two weeks ago, a day after the government of Iceland fell, outgoing fisheries and agriculture minister Einar K. Gudfinnsson announced a quota for commercial whaling for up to 150 fin whales and 100 minke whales for the next five years. Setting a catch limit for five years is common practice under the guidelines of the International Whaling Commission.
Gudfinnsson's decision was an answer to full-page advertisements by whaling interests in two national papers. A few days after the decision, the same people advertised to thank him, saying that whaling would provide up to 300 jobs. With unemployment rising rapidly in Iceland, this figure was supposed to provide some form of rationale for the decision. Iceland has a population of just over 300,000.
There were, however, several snags in the whaling announcement. Most importantly, it is doubtful Gudfinsson had the authority to make such a decision after the government had fallen.
Iceland's temporary new government, formed Feb. 1 by the Social Democratic Alliance (SDA) and the Left-Green Party (LGP), is against the move, and says it will revoke it.
But that too may not be easy. The minority government, in place until elections due Apr. 25, needs the support of the Progressive Party (PP) in the Althingi (Parliament). But new chair of the PP Sigmundur D. Gunnlaugsson has said his party members may not want a reversal of Gudfinnsson's decision.
The Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) has produced a set of 15 questions for MPs to consider. Issues raised include the cost of sending whale meat to Japan, net revenue, and whether this can pay the wages of 200-300 whalers.
Revocation of the decision could lead to claims of damages from the state. But Atli Gislason, Left-Green MP and lawyer, told IPS: "The new Prime Minister, (SDA) Johanna Sigurdardottir, immediately described the decision of the then fisheries minister as illegal. The decision should have been laid before the cabinet where more than one person has authority."
He added: "These are all issues that may mean that whalers cannot have justifiable expectations and apply for damages. What must also be looked at is whether they will have suffered damages if the decision is revoked. They must prove this, which could prove particularly difficult for them."
New fisheries minister (Left-Green) Steingrimur J. Sigfusson announced on his first day in office that his first task will be to discuss his predecessor's controversial decision with officials in the ministry, in the hope of getting it overturned.
At a meeting held last week in the fishing town Akranes, where facilities for processing whale meat would be set up, Sigfusson was besieged by locals and trade union representatives saying that whaling would create jobs in the town that they cannot afford to be without.
http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=319823
Export revenue from whaling products amounted to ISK 95 million (USD 825,000, EUR 641,000) last year, as former Minister of Fisheries Einar K. Gudfinnsson said in response to a question on the matter from Social Democrat MP Mördur Árnason in parliament yesterday.
Gudfinnsson explained that almost 82 tons of fin whale meat had been sold to Japan for ISK 94 million, 900 kilos of minke whale meat to the Faroe Islands for ISK 700,000 (USD 6,000, EUR 5,000) and 90 kilos of whale oil to Norway for ISK 400,000 (USD 3,000, EUR 3,000), Fréttabladid reports.
However, Árnason claimed that the cost for transporting the meat to Japan had amounted to ISK 112 million (USD 972,000, EUR 755,000) and was therefore considerably higher than what the meat was worth.
Independence Party MP Jón Gunnarsson objected to that claim, saying the transport cost was much lower than the selling price of the meat.
With thanks to In a Mirror Darkly
