Proactive Protectionism
WWF Sanctuary Addresses Hypothetical Problem
Sadly this is becoming an annual event, but the Harpoon must once again decry the time and effort wasted by the World Wide Fund for Nature on whaling, while so many genuine conservation issues cry out for attention.
In most of its spheres of activity, WWF supports consumptive use of wildlife provided benefits for conservation can be shown. And since any conservation effort involving consumptive use is accompanied by risk, WWF also endorses what is known as "adaptive management".
Conversely, WWF opposes consumptive use of wildlife if it is likely to be harmful to conservation.
Whaling, however, falls into neither of these categories.
For much of this century whaling was a conservation disaster, and there is always a possibility, however slim, that history will repeat itself. But for now, no threatened whale species is being taken (with the possible exception of the bowhead), and no nation has expressed interest in harvesting a threatened species. Furthermore, some biologists have even proposed that harvesting plentiful whale species might actually aid the recovery of others.
In other words, while whaling as currently practiced may or may not benefit conservation, there is no evidence that it is a threat to conservation, and nor would it become a threat as long as quotas were set under the Revised Management Procedure.
Under such circumstances, WWF should content itself with taking a back seat, while spending its time and money on real conservation issues. As Tommy Dybrro of WWF Denmark wrote to WWF International in 1992, the perception that whaling has no conservation benefits "is a good criterion for not supporting - but not [sic] hardly one for opposing."
Dybrro went on to explain why WWF International's rationale for continuing to oppose whaling was unacceptable. "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."
Yet six years later, Dybrro's plea continues to go unheeded. WWF's profile in the whaling debate is, if anything, becoming higher, and the message which it preaches has less to do with conservation than ever.
"Proactive Protectionism"
The Global Oceans Whale Sanctuary which WWF now hopes to foist upon the world cannot be justified in terms of extant conservation concerns, or even concerns that will probably arise in the foreseeable future. It can be justified only as a means to head off a hypothetical conservation crisis that may happen if the whalers are allowed to run amok again - a crisis that in all probability will never happen.
Can such an approach be called conservation at all, or is a new term needed?
Sanctuaries epitomise an approach to conservation known as "protectionism", which most conservationists these days use as a last resort, but nonetheless like to have in their toolbag. Typically it can be justified in cases of extreme environmental illness, when nature cannot cure itself. Occasionally, when one knows that an illness will result if no intervention is taken, it can be prescribed as a form of preventive medicine.
But a global whale sanctuary would not address an existing illness, or even qualify as sensible use of preventive medicine. It belongs in the Howard Hughes Guide to Healthy Living, alongside never shaking hands, wearing a face mask and never going out, all to avoid catching a virus that may not even be there.
Harpoon will do WWF the courtesy of dressing its sanctuary proposal in fancy words: "proactive protectionism". Less charitable observers will draw comparisons with the Wilderness Movement.
"Moral Compass"
Meanwhile, through its New Zealand office, WWF is waging a complementary campaign to kick Japan's researchers out of the Southern Ocean, where they are taking 400 or so minke whales each year from a population estimated at 760,000.
Could WWF possibly justify this campaign in conservation terms? The answer is "No", and it doesn't really try.
"This campaign is not about stopping all access to taking whales for cultural and food purposes, it is about realising it is time for a 'moral compass'," writes spokeswoman Kath Short. "Humans have exploited and over-exploited whales intensively, the last hundred years being the worst. WWF-NZ is campaigning to protect ALL WHALES in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as this is an internationally declared sanctuary."
And that says it all. WWF-NZ is waging a "moral" campaign to make amends to the whales for past abuses by ensuring they are never abused again. No actual conservation issue is being addressed, and we are expected to infer that, as the sanctuary must have been set up for conservation reasons, this must be why WWF is fighting to enforce it.
Yet as WWF well knows, the Southern Ocean Sanctuary serves no conservation purpose, which is why it clearly states in the amendment to the IWC's Schedule that the "prohibition [of whaling] applies irrespective of the conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary."
Hence Kath Short must resort to the risible secondary justification for the campaign, "WWF-NZ is campaigning to protect ALL WHALES in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as this is an internationally declared sanctuary."
Dodgy Partners
The larger picture which WWF must be aware of is the damage which such campaigns do to its reputation as a mainstream conservation organisation. And it does itself no favours by the company it keeps.
Perhaps because genuine conservation NGOs are so scarce at the IWC these days, WWF has sought companionship with leaders of the protest industry, and in particular Greenpeace and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Indeed, at last year's IWC, WWF actually issued a joint position statement with these two organisations.
Associating with any advocacy group, not least Greenpeace, is inherently risky for conservationists who value their credibility. But if taking risks is your thing, then just being seen with IFAW places you in the risk category of "I'm going over the Niagara Falls in a barrel".
No major protest group has a worse reputation for failing to work with resource users, for bringing grief to indigenous peoples (IFAW is despised throughout the Arctic), and for misleading the public on resource use issues.
If WWF is planning a lasting relationship with IFAW, we suggest that first it re-read Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living, which it co-authored with UNEP and the world's largest umbrella group for conservationists, the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Armed with the wisdom to be found in these pages, it should then ask why the IUCN has twice voted down IFAW's application for membership by an overwhelming majority.
Save the Frog
At the end of the day, the Harpoon does not expect WWF's First Lady in Oman, Cassandra Phillips, to listen to the rantings of a propaganda newsletter. She may, however, take heed of a message from the director general of WWF International, Dr. Claude Martin.
In a recent article entitled "The Silence of The Frogs", Martin warns his troops to be wary of allocating excessive resources to high-profile causes to the detriment of more urgent, but less obvious, ones.
"While the attention of conservationists and nature-lovers is focused on the threats to high-profile animals such as the tiger and the elephant, other species are facing almost unnoticed far greater dangers with profound implications for the future of the planet," writes Martin.
"Butterflies, lizards and frogs may lack the instant appeal of a tiger or a gorilla, but their stories may contain more warnings about what is really happening to our world than do the obvious problems of the more charismatic species. It is time we paid more attention to the fact that throughout the world sinister processes, which are difficult to identify, let alone quantify, are killing large numbers of inconspicuous microfauna because they are developing so rapidly that nature is given no time to adapt."
Significantly, we like to think, Martin makes no mention in his article of the minke whale, perhaps because he does not consider it to be threatened. In any event, his message is clear: identify the issues which are most deserving of attention, and allocate WWF's resources accordingly.
While WWF busies itself "saving" each and every whale, will the last frog croak?
Back to Whales / Marine Mammals / Home