Earthtalk Tuesday: Why are some countries still whaling?
DiálogoEcológico
De
los Redactores de E/La Revista Ecológica
Querido DiálogoEcológico: La pesca comercial de ballenas
fue prohibida alrededor del
mundo hace años, pero algunas naciones continúan cazando ballenas. ¿Por qué
sucede esto y qué se hace al respecto? -- Jackie O’Neill, Hershey, PA
Lamentablemente
para nuestro mundo y su biodiversidad, las ballenas todavía son matadas a pesar
de una prohibición internacional de la pesca comercial de ballenas. En verdad,
la pesca de ballenas desenfrenada a través de los últimos dos siglos ha
diezmado casi todas las poblaciones de ballena alrededor del globo. Según Greenpeace, muchas especies
de ballena están ahora a alrededor de un uno por ciento de su abundancia
anterior antes de los días de la pesca de comercial.
Catorce
naciones que pescaban ballenas se reunieron en 1946 para formar la Comisión Ballenera Internacional (IWC)
para administrar la población de ballenas y recomendar límites a su caza cuando
fuese apropiado. Pero el descenso continuo de la población forzó a la IWC a
instaurar una prohibición total de toda la pesca comercial de ballenas en 1986.
Pero Japón, Noruega e Islandia continúan desafiando la prohibición, cada uno de
ellos capturando anualmente centenares si no más de ballenas.
"Los
japoneses inventaron el concepto de la pesca "científica" de ballenas
en 1987 como una manera de evadir la moratoria de la pesca comercial de
ballenas," informa Greenpeace. "Tal investigación no es realmente
investigación. Es una excusa para conseguir carne de ballena para el mercado
japonés". La investigación consiste, entre otras cosas, de análisis del contenido del
tracto digestivo. Los datos de lo que los animales comen entonces se utilizan
para afirmar que las ballenas comen demasiados peces comercialmente importantes
y que las poblaciones deben ser reducidas para salvar los pescados, indica
Greenpeace, y que los japoneses selectivamente publican datos sobre ciertas
especies e ignoran datos con respecto a otras.
Noruega
reasumió la pesca de ballenas en 1993 "como
una tentativa del
partido en el poder en aquel momento para ganar popularidad en el norte de
Noruega," dice Greenpeace. "Para
justificar su caza, los científicos noruegos hicieron un cálculo de la
población cetácea, que se vio después ser sumamente exagerado".
E Islandia aumentó su pesca de ballenas dramáticamente en los últimos
años. "En 2010 solamente los balleneros islandeses mataron cientos de ballenas—inclusive
rorcuales (ballenas aladas) en peligro—y enviaron más de 750 toneladas de carne
de ballena y productos a Japón, cuyo mercado ya está colmado de carne de
ballena proveniente de su propio programa de "pesca científica de
ballenas," reporta el Consejo de Defensa de Recursos Naturales (NRDC), un
grupo no comercial.
Varios
grupos verdes inclusive NRDC peticionaron recientemente la administración de
Obama para tomar medidas contra Islandia bajo la Enmienda Pelly
de la Ley de Protección a la Pesca.
"La Enmienda permite al Presidente imponer sanciones comerciales
contra un país que 'disminuye la eficacia' de un acuerdo de conservación—en el
caso de Islandia la moratoria de la pesca de ballenas y otro tratado
internacional que prohíbe el comercio en especies en peligro de
extinción," dice NRDC. La petición denomina varias empresas de
Islandia—inclusive compañías prominentes de mariscos con vínculos a la
industria ballenera de Islandia—como
objetivos potenciales de sanciones comerciales.
Greenpeace
ha estado presionando al Japón no sólo para terminar su propia pesca de
ballenas pero también su apoyo a la pesca de ballenas por otras naciones que no
respetan la moratoria del IWC. "Trabajamos alrededor del mundo para aumentar la presión sobre
Japón por gobiernos participantes en el IWC que toman seriamente la
conservación para cerrar las lagunas legales políticas que permiten que siga la
caza despiadada," dice Greenpeace, "y para subrayar la compra de
votos que mantiene estas lagunas legislativas en existencia".
CONTACTOS:
IWC, www.iwcoffice.org;
Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org;
NRDC, www.nrdc.org.
EarthTalk®
(DiálogoEcológico) es escrito y editado por Roddy Scheer y Doug Moss y es una marca
registrada de E - La Revista Ecológica. (www.emagazine.com).
Traducción española de Patrice Greanville. Sírvase enviar sus preguntas a: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Suscripción: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Pida un número
gratis: www.emagazine.com/trial.
EarthTalk®
E - The Environmental Magazine
E - The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: Commercial whaling was banned around the
world years ago, but some nations continue to hunt whales. Why is this and
what’s being done about it? -- Jackie O’Neill, Hershey, PA
Sadly for our world and its biodiversity, whales are still being
killed despite an international ban on commercial whaling. Indeed, rampant whaling over the last two centuries
has decimated just about every whale population around the globe. According to
Greenpeace, many whale species are down to around one percent of their
estimated former abundance before the days of commercial whaling.
Fourteen whaling nations came together in 1946 to form the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) to manage whale stocks and recommend
hunting limits where appropriate. But the continuing decline of populations
forced the IWC to call for an outright ban on all commercial whaling in 1986.
But Japan, Norway and Iceland continue to defy the ban,
each harvesting hundreds if not more whales every year.
“The Japanese invented the concept of ‘scientific’ whaling in 1987 as a way around the moratorium on commercial whaling,” reports Greenpeace. “Their research is not really research. It is an excuse for supplying whale meat on the Japanese market.” The research consists, among other things, of analysis of the contents of the digestive tract. The data on what the animals eat is then used to argue that whales eat too much commercially important fish and that the populations should be culled to save the fish, argues Greenpeace, and that the Japanese selectively release data on certain species and ignore data on others.
Norway resumed whaling in 1993 “as an attempt by the political party in power at the time to gain popularity in northern Norway,” says Greenpeace. “In order to justify its hunt, Norwegian scientists calculated a population estimate, which was later found to be much higher than the data supported.”
And Iceland increased its whaling dramatically in recent years. “In 2010 alone, Icelandic whalers killed hundreds of whales—including endangered fin whales—and shipped more than 750 tons of whale meat and products to Japan, whose market is already glutted with whale meat from its own ‘scientific research whaling’ program,” reports the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Several green groups including NRDC recently petitioned the Obama administration to take action against Iceland under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act. “The Amendment allows the President to impose trade sanctions against a country that is ‘diminishing the effectiveness’ of a conservation agreement—in Iceland’s case the whaling moratorium and another international treaty that prohibits trade in endangered species,” says NRDC. The petition names several Iceland firms—including major seafood companies with ties to Iceland’s whaling industry—as potential targets for trade sanctions.
Greenpeace has been pressuring Japan to not only end its own whaling but also its support of whaling by other nations not abiding by the IWC moratorium. “We are working around the world to increase the pressure put on Japan by conservation-minded governments at the IWC to close the political loopholes that allow the reckless hunt to continue,” says Greenpeace, “and to highlight the vote-buying that keep these loopholes in existence.”
CONTACTS: IWC, www.iwcoffice.org; Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.
“The Japanese invented the concept of ‘scientific’ whaling in 1987 as a way around the moratorium on commercial whaling,” reports Greenpeace. “Their research is not really research. It is an excuse for supplying whale meat on the Japanese market.” The research consists, among other things, of analysis of the contents of the digestive tract. The data on what the animals eat is then used to argue that whales eat too much commercially important fish and that the populations should be culled to save the fish, argues Greenpeace, and that the Japanese selectively release data on certain species and ignore data on others.
Norway resumed whaling in 1993 “as an attempt by the political party in power at the time to gain popularity in northern Norway,” says Greenpeace. “In order to justify its hunt, Norwegian scientists calculated a population estimate, which was later found to be much higher than the data supported.”
And Iceland increased its whaling dramatically in recent years. “In 2010 alone, Icelandic whalers killed hundreds of whales—including endangered fin whales—and shipped more than 750 tons of whale meat and products to Japan, whose market is already glutted with whale meat from its own ‘scientific research whaling’ program,” reports the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Several green groups including NRDC recently petitioned the Obama administration to take action against Iceland under the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act. “The Amendment allows the President to impose trade sanctions against a country that is ‘diminishing the effectiveness’ of a conservation agreement—in Iceland’s case the whaling moratorium and another international treaty that prohibits trade in endangered species,” says NRDC. The petition names several Iceland firms—including major seafood companies with ties to Iceland’s whaling industry—as potential targets for trade sanctions.
Greenpeace has been pressuring Japan to not only end its own whaling but also its support of whaling by other nations not abiding by the IWC moratorium. “We are working around the world to increase the pressure put on Japan by conservation-minded governments at the IWC to close the political loopholes that allow the reckless hunt to continue,” says Greenpeace, “and to highlight the vote-buying that keep these loopholes in existence.”
CONTACTS: IWC, www.iwcoffice.org; Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.
EarthTalk®
is written and
edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E -
The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com).
Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com.
Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial
Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
