maybe you should send a ship down there.or you could just leave it to sea shepherd and claim the glory for yourselves. didnt fancy posing for some photos this year then?

Hi Maurice - Greenpeace has already done nine expeditions to the Southern Ocean. The campaign has moved on - the the whalers are fighting a losing battle, and we're aiming to hit them where it really hurts - in their wallets. Stay tuned, there's gonna be lots more!

I like a good many other long time Greenpeace supporters I have spoken with, am more than a little concerned over the decision not to mount a 10th expedition to confront the whalers. I understand that the campaign needs to be fort on numerous levels but surly the benefits of having vessels in the water is essential.

I have just attended a presentation in Sydney by Cant’n Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd, who is just about to leave to intercept the fleet. According to Paul, they needed to have had Greenpeace there again this year to help keep up the pressure. Now when the Sea Shepherd is forced to break off contact to refuel after 6 weeks there will not be another vessel to stop the slaughter. The fleet will then be able to get onto business as usual. Surely if we are trying to hit the industry where it hurts, their hip pocket, deducing their savage harvest is crucial. This combined with the fact that we would be saving whales while attracting the attention of the global media to what is happening, surly is essential?

Greenpeace was founded on direct non-violent protest. Even if it was only a symbolic action and had no other practical benefit, we should still have a vessel there and our zodiacs in the water.

Phillip Relf
Sydney

Hi Phillip, thanks for the comment. I can understand your concern - however, we're concentrating on wearing down the whaling industry in ways that that they can't predict - while the expeditions have been an important part of the campaign, and obviously the most visible, in the background there's always been a lot of other work going on. It's less glamorous, less visual, and definitely less exciting - but at the end of the day, our job is stop whaling - and that's what we're going to do - but using radically different methods.

Hi Dave
As with other supporters and after supporting Greenpeace financialy on an off since 93, I'm more than a little suprised the GP ships won't be earning their keep this whaling season.
I certainly support GP's other campaigns, but... being aware of how GP operates on a media level, I'm sure you realise you have to provide some direct action in order to have something to market, other than some volunteers holding up a banner in a photo that only makes it onto the GP web site? It seems GP is pulling further and further out, direct action lock ons for instance seem only to last long enough for a few pictures e.g. NZ recent anti deforestation lockon, they were out of there by lunch time. I think GP has to really address this issue as more and more supporters are waking up to this and it's going to be harder and harder to pull funds in off the streets.
My question is as the Espernza was purchased primarly for its speed to out run the whalers will the ship now be sold?
I know the arctic sunrise, a few years ago, was running a $60,000.00 a day bill, so I imagine the espernza will be at least double that considering her size. Running a ship that size for touring and the odd publicit stunt seems strange, and you may as well throw 100k in the ocean every day.
Anyway I appreciate the good work GP does, but my funds are now split between GP and SeaShepherd.
You really need to get some more REAL victories on the board. Bring it up at your next monthly team meeting.

Cheers

James

Hi James,
First all of all, thanks for the comment, and thanks for your support!

Secoendly, Greenpeace ships do a lot more than works against whalers - the three ships, Esperanza, Arctic Sunrise and Esperanza work all over the world on several different issues. Even in the last few weeks, the Rainbow Warrior has been involved with blocking coal shipments in Rotterdam and in the building of a new power station in the UK.

Meanwhile, the Esperanza has been in Borneo, working to stop deforestation for the creation of palm-oil plantations. More of that here, showing what was happening in port! And also here.

This year, both the Esperanza and Arctic sunrise have been used for huge amounts of work in the Pacfic and Med respectively to protect threatened tuna populations, and to work with governments in those regions to protect the marine environment.

By the way, I'm only scratching the surface here of what the ships have been doing in the last 12 months. I work for Greenpeace, and *I* have problems keeping up!

They are very busy ships, and barely get time to rest before jumping from one project to the next.

Bear in mind that our campaign to stop whaling is just one aspect of our campaign to save our oceans - and that's just one campaign of seven that we work on.

What we do: the issues we work on worldwide »

To answer your questions about the ships - the Esperanza won't be sold - as I said, it's used for a whole lot more than stopping whaling. In the two decades that Greenpeace has spent working to stop Southern Ocean whaling, we've had a ship there nine times; so there have been years, for various reasons, why we didn't send a ship. While a ship is the most tangible aspect and publicly recognisable part of the campaign, our focus now is to win the campaign within Japan itself - we've already convinced the rest of the world! Actually, we're hoping that we don't need to send a ship to the Southern Ocean again - at least not to stop whaling. We're nearing the endgame of Southern Ocean whaling - so we're trying to hit the whalers where they least it expect it.

Also, in reference to marketing via direction action; please bear in mind that the concept the concept of "direct action", as you in NZ or I in Ireland understand it, is practically non-existant in Japan - which is why we've got two activists facing 10 years in prison for merely delivering stolen goods to the authorities. We don't need to preach to the converted, we have to take a different approach to get the Japanese people (71% of which DO NOT support whaling) to work with us to end whaling in Japan.

As for the $60,000 for running the Arctic Sunrise, I'm not sure where you got that from, because I know for a fact, that the daily costs of running the Esperanza are probably never more than 1/5-1/6 of that!

Hi Dave, thanks for the quick reply I appreciate it and am glad Greenpeace continues to communicate effectively with the public that’s certainly very positive.
I also can appreciate why the powers that be at GP elected to shift strategies and move out of the southern ocean, I’m sure it was a difficult decision and I know many employees will also be questioning it too, but I hope it is reviewed in the coming year. Because after all this is about stopping whaling. Swinging an election in Japan and/or winning hearts and minds though part of the process just doesn’t seem to demonstrate as much passion and determination as blocking the harpoons.
I know it’s very difficult to work with Paul Watson as he is certainly a bold character and would inherently draw media focus to himself and his organisation. But I believe the public, are quite able to differentiate between the two organisations and also I also believe they understand both organisations are committed to nonviolence.
On the high seas Sea Shepherd uses different tactics, and they are clearly designed to not danger people, though they appear to be very confrontational.
Greenpeace has and continues to use equally confrontational tactics all be it not in the same camera lens as Sea Shepherd.
Example: During at least one whaling campaign in the early 2000s Greenpeace activists boarded a whale that was being hauled aboard the Nissan Maru and attempted to cut the ropes that were hauling it on board. This was truly a brave act though resulted in damage to the lines of the ship.
Also as the Australian frigate HMAS Sydney was boarded by a Greenpeace activist as it departed for war in Iraq in 2003. As well as this a line was placed across the harbour under water at prop depth, where if the frigate had continued the prop could have been fouled and caused damage to the vessel, as the ship was operating on war footing this could have been extremely serious. However Greenpeace was committed and brave enough to follow through with the action.
There are a multitude of similar examples. If Greenpeace does not intend to physically block the harpoons this time could they please refrain from calling what Sea Shepherd does “violent” as this is clearly not true and counter productive to the cause.
At the same time I will ask Sea Shepherd to refrain from name calling against Greenpeace, as they are a very effective organisation and can proudly display a long list of victories.
And like all the supporters of both organisations have said many times if Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd can’t learn to work together what hope is there for world peace?

James -

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

I've been on board three expeditions, and each time restrained myself from responding to criticisms of Greenpeace by our fellow environmentalists.

I agree with you completely that we should focus on what we have in common.

At the same time, after a while it's only reasonable for us to set the record straight - if only so we can move on from a disagreement about appropriate tactics to putting the focus back on the issue.

If you check the Greenpeace website, you'll find that we spend exactly ONE page on this. And that's all we intend to give it.

Now, back to the real issue...

Thanks James.

You make some fair points - however, please don't forget here that the primary job here to stop whaling - demonstrating passion and determination is certainly important, but there are many ways to do this. For instance, two of my friends and colleagues Junichi and Toru are currently facing up to 10 years and prison for facing down the whaling industry within Japan itself - to me this shows incredible guts and determination. You can read an article about them here in the NZ Dominion Post

Point taken on previous Greenpeace tactics. However,we're a pretty dynamic organisations, and if you were to imagine that we have a 'product', then it's worth asking, what is that?

How does Greenpeace define itself?

The start of our About Greenpeace page starts with

"Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour"

Do achieve this, we have a bag of campaign tools - we don't define ourselves by those tools - e.g. ships, boats, tactics - we instead identify the problem (southern ocean commercial whaling) and decide on a solution (end whaling) and choose a best method of doing so (turning the Japanese people against whaling).

On the same page, we say "We use research, lobbying, and quiet diplomacy to pursue our goals, as well as high-profile, non-violent conflict to raise the level and quality of public debate."

So, to achieve what we want to achieve - stopping Southern Ocean whaling - we have to decide what the best tools for the job are. What fires up public sentiment in in Australia, Germany or the UK is not the same thing that involves the public in Japan - so we employ a new strategy, and then choose the tactics to suit the situation.

In other words, the tactics you discussed above e.g. boarding ships - well, that's something that Greenpeace does, most definitely. However, at this point in time, we feel that boarding Japanese whaling ships, while it might work well in countries that are already anti-whaling, would most definitely not further the campaign in Japan.

As for the line across Sydney Harbour - that 2003 protest is not something I'm familiar with - I'll check with my Australian colleagues, but I'd find it extremely unlikely that a line was deliberatley laid to foul the ship's props.

read more here about Greenpeace (James, I know you know what we do, this is just for other people!)

Andrew and Dave, thanks for that link I read the article and it does raise some very good points, especially the 91 agreement to not publicly criticise each other.
Both sides haven’t stuck to it, which is understandable over 17 years I guess. I’m sure the agreement can be rekindled after all neither organisation is going away in a hurry.

With two adversaries of different strengths I think this from Sun-Tzu applies on several levels:
If ten times the enemy's strength, surround them;
if five times, attack them;
if double, divide them;
if equal, be able to fight them;
if fewer, be able to evade them;
if weaker, be able to avoid them.
And all things considered I do agree with switching tactics (as long as funding is not reduced):
If he prepares to defend many places, then the forces will be few in number.
Therefore, if he prepares to defend the front, the back will be weak.
If he prepares to defend the back, the front will be weak.
If he prepares to defend the left, the right will be weak.
If he prepares to defend the right, the left will be weak.
If he prepares to defend everywhere, everywhere will be weak

I’m looking forward to the end if whaling so Greenpeace can focus on other campaigns and Seashepherd can go and stop the seal clubbers etc. The sooner the better!
With regard to the HMAS Sydney it could be argued the harbour line was merely to allow the flotilla of kayaks to be formed in a straight row, I don’t think it was intentionally set to foul the props but potentially could have.
Check out Deep Ocean, it’s an awesome doco about whales.
Keep up the good work.

Just a couple of points I'd like to bring up here... You know, I try to do what I can to stop whaling. But if I can only say donate $100, this year instead of $200, or 10% of my time instead of 20%, ...will you call me an 'Avon Lady'? I'm sorry you have to put up with all this Andrew, Dave, etc. People (Captain Watson), should be grateful for any help they might offer, if they truely believe in or care about their cause. I have some respect, and I don't assume I know more than the combined knowledge of a large group of very dedicated people who have been trying their very best to stop this, ...in the most effective way they can. Captain Watson doesn't want to work with Greenpeace, ...he want's to control it. Like a spoiled child that's been spanked. Be thankful Greenpeace is doing anything at all. They don't have to, and you know there are a few other issues on this planet that need attention as much, or if not more than the whales.
I commend anyone giving five cents or five hundred thousand dollars to this concern. I won't call them names if they can't do more, or have other crucial concerns and priorities which to allocate their funds to. Thank you Greenpeace for your continuing and heartfelt efforts. The ones that really care in this world are the ones that know you are doing your very best.

OK guys at the risk of continuing to flog a dead tactic. There has been a good debate going on here for the past week or so over the pros and cons of GP’s decision not to send a ship to the Southern Ocean. The debate has covered some ground from what is the most effective tactic to stopping whaling to if Paul Watson is a spoiled child who wants to bump heads with the whalers.

As in my first posting, I still hold that to have had one of our vessels down there would have been and still is essential in the overall anti-whaling campaign. On reading through the GP page devoted to the Paul Watson and why it is difficult to work with him, there was this section detailing GP’s effectiveness in dogging the whaling fleet.

…According to records kept by the whalers (we were too busy to keep records) we interfered with them 26 times in 2006. Shortly after sighting us the whalers departed at high speed - their own records show they lost nine days of hunting due to interference with their operations. The whalers rammed our ships twice, hit one of our crew members with a metal pole and used a high-powered water cannon against us. Despite this, they came in 82 whales short of their quota. In 2008, the whalers ran from us for 14 consecutive days, days that were lost to them for hunting. Since they need to catch an average of around 9-10 whales a day to make their self-appointed quota, this action alone saved the lives of over 100 whales.

This is pretty impressive data and surly this alone validates the need for GP to continue active campaigning in the Southern Ocean! I fully agree that any issue in the end is fought and won in the home domestic arena. But let us not loss sight that whales will die this season (as many as 100 by our own figures) and the World will be seeing only one organisation down their attempting to stop it!
Phil Relf
Sydney

Hi Phil...,
...and of course what you say makes sense. 100 whales could possibly be saved, ...maybe more. In that time it takes for those whales to die, hundreds of thousands of children will die of malnutrition, preventable diseases, and wars. Hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon from coal plants will be launched into the atmosphere, and into your oceans, nuclear power plants will be built for insideous profits, chemicals and pesticides will be pumped into our land, water, and our food. Forests will be burned and destroyed forever. All this destruction to our planet, while another hundred whales die. I'm only saying, it must be a hard collective decision, and moral choice to make, considering the cost of sending a ship there this year, as opposed to ending the crucial missions the ships are on now. Years ago, whaling was a more visible issue, because we were unaware, of what was happening to our planet, ...human, and all life, ...and now we are beginning to realize how paramount it is that we address other urgent issues, if we intend for our children, ...and the whales to survive. Hard choices where to spend your money...
I didn't mean PW bumping heads with the whalers, ...I meant with Greenpeace. Ever since he was let go, it seems he's held a grudge, and tries to discredit them every chance he gets. ...like that article on his homepage calling them 'Avon Ladies'. Just think if he succeeded in defaming, discrediting, and disgracing Greenpeace so no one would ever donate to them again. ...hundreds of selfless volunteers all over the world giving all they can, to so many critical causes, ...destroyed by Paul Watson. If he really cares about the future of this world, he needs to stop all that very hurtful talk, and think about the consequences of his actions. ...and you know, that's one of the things I really like about Andrew, Dave, etc, ...they always are gentlemen and treat him with courtesy, consideration, and respect, no matter the insults tossed against them. Real men, ...their focus is on the solutions, not the diversions. Thanks guys...