So Greenland wants out of the IWC
Its reported on sermitsiaq.gl that Finn Karlsen (Greenland's Hunting and fishing minister) has urged Denmark's Foreign Minister to let Greenland leave the IWC over two months ago. The report goes onto say that Karlsen wrote to parliament's hunting and fishing committee Friday that he had asked the Danish foreign minister, Per Stig Møller, more than two months ago to pull Greenland out of the International Whaling Commission.
You will recall that during the IWC it was revealed that Greenland was not consuming all the whale meat that it had taken through aboriginal subsistence hunts, but in fact a significant amount was actually distributed through commercial distribution mechanisms. At the same time it was ignoring scientific advice about the killing of small cetaceans in Greenlandic waters, awarding quotas that are in no way sustainable. Stil Greenland wanted to kill more whales. Why? Not because it needs to, but because it wants to.
It would seem that the politics of Greenland's future as a separate entity to Denmark is being played out in the whaling debate. Not willing to abide by international rules, Greenland has decided that whilst it cannot convince the world through debate and science, it will simply go its own way and kill what it likes, when it likes. Its desperation to be seen as different to Denmark may mean a lot more whales will die.
Doesn't inspire confidence does it.
WDCS on Twitter
WDCS on Facebook
WDCS on YouTube
1. The quota requested by Greenland WAS sustainable, but denied for political reasons by nations who are against whaling out of principle.
2. The commercial distribution mechanism reffered to is internal trade in Greenland, where hunters with surplus whale meat and blubber, trade that surplus for other goods that they need.
3. Note that ANY nation which leaves the IWC is no longer bound by the IWC regulations and can hunt and kill as many whales as they desire within its economic sea zone - that is their RIGHT.
It is very easy to live in a nice and cosy environment, where you don't depend on whatever you can pull out of the sea, and condemn those who don't have it so easy.
Greenland can be an extreemly tough place to make a living.
Carl is right that any nation can hunt outside of the IWC; its a political judgement whether it wants to do that outside of the sanction of the IWC, and in contravention of accepted multilateral regimes. It would be a step backwards for Greenland, especially when it is awarding itself small cetacean quotas that even NAMMCO does not support. - see the previous entry on Greenland at http://www2.wdcs.org/blog/index.php?/archives/78-Greenland-snubs-world-and-awards-itself-higher-quotas.html
As to the evidence on the denial of the hunt, we would argue that there was not a demonstrated additional need to to take the humpbacks (see www.wdcs.org/news.php?select=139).
On the commercialization there is plenty of evidence of meat for sale in supermarkets. I am not sure how this resonates with what you say Carl, unless you mean the supermarkets are exchanging goods for the meat. however, it would appear that some 25% is ending up in the commercial cash market. More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7476652.stm
And yes, it is easier in a Society that has simpler access to resources of food, but that does not mean that Greenland can just take what it wants, when it wants. The IWC, whilst having a moratorium on commercial whaling, supports responsible and appropriate aboriginal subsistence whaling. Greenland's attempts to undermine this process by threatening to leave and do what it wants, does nothing for potentially legitimate claims that the IWC reviews.