Reykjavík Grapevine - 03.06.2011, Side 6

6
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 7 — 2011
ICELAND’S POLAR BEAR POLICY
So what do y'all think about 'Iceland's polar bear policy'? Does it make sense? Is it maybe unreason-
able to fret for the fates of the rare polar bear that drifts to Iceland? Or are you maybe donating to
www.reykjavikpolarbearproject.org already? Tell us EVERYTHING!
News | Environment
Minister for the Environment Svandís Svavarsdóttir interviewed
The fourth polar bear in three years
landed in Iceland last month. This
one swam ashore in Iceland’s re-
mote Westfjord region and was
spotted roaming the countryside of
Hælavík. Much like its predeces-
sors, the bear was promptly shot
and killed.
While polar bears have never been
welcome in Iceland, they have until
recently been a rare visitor. When the
pair arrived in 2008, it had been two
decades since a polar bear stepped
foot in the country. As the polar ice cap
melts, however, an increasing number
of polar bears are drifting south via ice-
berg and inevitably some of them wind
up swimming ashore to Iceland. Given
that these majestic creatures are now
considered an endangered species by
countries like the United States and
Canada, Iceland’s actions have been
quite controversial.
In response to the latest killing,
members of The Best Party stepped up
their private campaign to bring a polar
bear to the zoo. The government, how-
ever, has left many wondering about
the official game plan. In the following
interview, Minister for the Environment
Svandís Svavarsdóttir explains Ice-
land’s polar bear policy and discusses
the viability of alternatives.
Iceland killed another polar bear
last month. Can you explain the
rationale behind killing the bears
that wind up swimming ashore to
Iceland?
The law says that polar bears are pro-
tected unless they pose a threat to hu-
mans or livestock. That threat has been
cited in cases of polar bears that have
been shot. Polar bear landings in Ice-
land have been rare in recent decades;
when a bear was spotted in Skagi in
2008 there had not been a sighting on
land for over 20 years. It is therefore
not a common occurrence, and always
causes a stir and calls for quick action
by local authorities.
Who has the final say when it comes
down to it? Who says, okay we have
to kill this polar bear’?
It is in the hands of local authorities
responsible for people's safety. Three
of the four bears killed in Iceland this
century have been shot by local police,
which have the authority to do that if
they judge it to be a threat. One was
shot by a local farmer, which spotted
an animal near a small town, before au-
thorities arrived on the scene.
What about international pressure
to stop killing polar bears? For in-
stance, the US has put the polar
bear on an endangered species list.
How do you feel about that?
Polar bears are endangered, mainly be-
cause of the long-term threat to their
sea-ice habitat due to climate change.
The conservation of polar bears is gov-
erned by the International Agreement
on the Conservation of Polar Bears,
which is administered by the five na-
tions whose territory is inhabited by
polar bears: Canada, Denmark/Green-
land, Norway, Russia and the USA.
There are some estimated 22.000 wild
polar bears in the world; yet, hundreds
are killed every year in a legal way un-
der the confines of that agreement. In
that context it is clear that the fate of
stray polar bears in Iceland has no ef-
fect on the survival of the species, al-
though we can and should have con-
cern over the individual animals that
come ashore here.
Some argue that they should be
tranquillised and shipped off to
Greenland. Is that an option? Have
Iceland and Greenland communi-
cated on this?
The Ministry for the Environment has
contacted authorities in Greenland re-
garding this option and commissioned
an expert group to study that option,
as well as others. Greenlandic authori-
ties allow the hunting of about 50 po-
lar bears in East Greenland each year,
which they deem to be a safe limit for
the stock. They have told us that they
fail to see the rationale behind ship-
ping stray polar bears alive from Ice-
land to Greenland, given that this is a
rare occurrence and has no effect on
the species and its survival. Less than
1% of the bears of the East Greenland
stock that have been shot in the last
decade have been killed in Iceland. If
stray bears are shipped back alive, we
would have to ensure that they would
be transported away from a threat of
being legally shot in Greenland.
The expert group concluded that
the chances of catching a polar bear
alive were highly uncertain due to a
number of circumstances. It requires
that the bear can be quickly contained
so it poses no threat, that a trained
crew with a tranquiliser gun arrives
quickly on the scene in a helicopter,
that the bear does not enter the sea af-
ter being hit with a tranquiliser, and that
it can be quickly put in a robust cage.
Then it needs to be checked if the bear
is healthy enough for a long transport
(two of the three bears did not fit that
bill) and then it needs to be transported
quickly over a long distance.
What’s the plan for the next polar
bear landing then?
The local authorities will make the first
call. People’s safety must come first. An
action team of relevant authorities will
be called together in the event of a bear
sighting to coordinate efforts. If local
authorities deem the bear not to be a
threat and the animal is contained alive
within a safe parameter, attempts can
be made to catch it alive and ship it to
Greenland. It must be noted, of course,
that the expert team concluded that the
chances of a successful rescue opera-
tion are highly uncertain.
What do you think of ‘The Reykja-
vík Polar Bear Project’, which is
against killing the bears and claims
to target yourself and Prime Minis-
ter Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir?
I welcome grassroots movements that
show concern for the environment and
wild animals. We need more of them
and we need stronger environmental
NGOs in Iceland. Of course, I would
like them to study the context and chal-
lenges that a successful polar bear res-
cue operation faces.
So do you think Jón Gnarr can suc-
cessfully bring a polar bear to the
zoo?
He can if he wants to. The logical way
to go about this is to ask one of the five
countries that have polar bear popula-
tions, or foreign zoos, about the animal
and then prepare a spacious and safe
den for it. It seems like an odd way to
get an animal for a zoo to wait for a
stray bear that could come next month
but perhaps not for another decade or
two. And then hope that a mission to
catch it alive succeeds. And then start
preparing a decent den—nobody wants
to see a majestic animal like a polar
bear confined in a small cage.
But of course the Mayor of Reyk-
javík also promised to break his cam-
paign promises. He will be a man of his
word in one way or another.
Words
Anna Andersen
Photo
Hörður Sveinsson
The Reykjavík Polar Bear Project
The Reykjavík Polar Bear Project is a non-
profit headed by Best Party Mayor Jón
Gnarr, Best Party Manager Heiða Kristín
Helgadóttir and arctic law expert Húni
Hallsson. While Jón Gnarr campaigned on
the promise to bring a polar bear to the zoo,
the group officially launched the project,
www.reykjavikpolarbearproject.org/ after
the latest polar bear was shot and killed
in Iceland’s remote Westfjord region two
weeks ago.
The goal is raise 300 million ISK to
build a polar bear sanctuary at The Reykja-
vík Zoo & Family Park and arctic research
centre to study the impact that global
warming is having on the area. “As polar
ice melts, the polar bear’s habitat shrinks
and older bears are ousted”, Best Party
Manager Heiða Kristín Helgadóttir said.
“The bear that came this May, however,
was far younger than usual, which speaks
to the gravity of the situation. This one
could definitely have been rehabilitated”.
More Asylum
Seeker Woes
We need to get this
mess under control
ASAP
Last issue we reported that Iranian
asylum seeker Mehdi Kavyanpoor had
walked into the Red Cross building and
threatened to set himself on fire if his
case—in limbo for seven years—was not
resolved. Unfortunately, there are now
more asylum seeker woes to report.
After the Directorate of Immigration
refused to grant him political asylum
in Iceland, Palestinian asylum seeker
Mousa Sharif Al Jaradat went on a five-
day hunger strike, and then slit his wrist
in a suicide to attempt.
When Mousa called the Grapevine
office on May 24, he told us that he fled
Norway four months ago, after receiv-
ing death threats from the Mossad. He
began a hunger strike that day, after
learning that authorities were going to
send him back to Norway. Days later he
tried to take his life.
In an interview with local newspaper
DV, Mousa said he lost his right eye in a
bombing by the Israeli Defense Forces
when he was fourteen years old. Back-
ing his claims, Mousa had documenta-
tion from the Saint John Eye Hospital in
Jerusalem.
“A signed letter by ophthalmologist
Humam Rishmawl stated that Mousa
was repeatedly prevented from getting
hospital treatment due to being listed
as an army rebel”, DV also reported. “In
the doctor’s letter it was requested that
Mousa be allowed to leave so that he
could receive proper treatment”.
Political asylum—the kind that
Mousa and Mehdi are after—has been
granted sparingly in Iceland. Until 2008,
only one such case can be found on
record. Furthermore, as Paul Nikolov
reported on www.grapevine.is: “Ac-
cording to the latest statistics from
the Red Cross, most asylum seekers
in Iceland come from Muslim coun-
tries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Pakistan. However, between 2006
and 2009, 57.1% of asylum seekers who
were granted refugee status were self-
identified Christians—only 20% were
Muslim”.
Mousa, much like Medhi who was
put into a mental institute after his sui-
cide attempt, is now in custody.
ANNA ANDERSEN
JULIA STAPLES