BACKGROUND
Professor Ignacio Agudo, a Venezuelan Biologist, researcher and environmentalist, was criminally harassed and persecuted in his country due to his campaign (together with Prof. Aldemaro Romero) against the intentional killing of dolphins for bait. With the help of human rights activists and environmentalists from Venezuela, the USA, Aruba and Brazil,
Prof. Agudo, his two small daughters and their nanny were able to escape from Venezuela and reach Brazil, where he sought refugee status.
Prof. Agudo was officially recognized as a refugee by the United Nations High Comission for Refugees. HOWEVER, the Brazilian government, under pressure from Venezuelan bureaucrats, is about to refuse its agreement to such recognition (thereby selling out on the rights and safety of the human beings involved due to trade interests), even AFTER the UNHCR decision upon reviewing the case.
It is clear from the UN decision that Prof Agudo is a victim of undue abuse and persecution for political reasons. |  |
ACTION ALERTFAXES ARE URGENTLY NEEDED to tell the Brazilian Minister of Justice, the final decision-making authority on the matter, that Prof. Agudo's plea for safe haven in Brazil, already supported by many Brazilian scientists and institutions, is also supported worldwide. The UNHCR received hundreds of letters from concerned friends in many countries in support of Prof. Agudo.
We URGENTLY need to let the Brazilian government know that the world is still watching.
Sample Protest Letter
If you cannot send a fax, please write to the Minister at:
Ministerio da Justica,
Esplanada dos Ministerios Bloco T,
4o. andar, 70054-906 Brasilia/DF,
Brazil.
|
| Brazillian Alert |
Statement from Aldemaro Romero
The issue is four-fold:
- 1. Ecological: In 1942 a mission from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service reported a depletion in the dolphin populations for Venezuela (Fiedler, R.H.; M.J. Lobell & C.R. Lucas. 1947. The Fisheries and Fishery Resources of the Caribbean Area. US Fish & Wildlife Serv. Leaflet # 259, 210 pp.). Althought there are not recent estimates, there is cause for concern.
- 2. Economical: Venezuelan fishermen rarely eat dolphin meat (except for the liver that is considered a delicacy). Their protein intake does not depend upon direct consumption of dolphins. They use dolphin meat as a shark bait. There is no empirical evidence that sharks, particularly the small-size species captured by those fishermen, prefer dolphin flesh as bait; these fishermen can use other types of baits for their activities. Thus, there is no need from the economic standpoint to continue killing dolphins off the coasts of Venezuela.
- 3. Legal: Killing of dolphins is prohibited by both Venezuelan and international laws. despite numerous cases reported in the press about these killings, only two people, environmentalists including myself, who have dennounced these facts have been prosecuted by the Venezuelan authorities.
- 4. Political: There is ample evidence that Venezuelan authorities have carried out a cover-up of this problem for a long time. The villification campaign against Prof. Agudo and myself, calls to be tried as "traitor to the motherland" as well as attempts to extradite me from the U.S., lead me to believe that there is big money being paid by someone in order to silence both of us.
Aldemaro Romero
Adjunct Associate Professor of Biology
University of Miami
Email: AROMERO@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Exploitation of Cetaceans in Venezuela
Dr. K Van Waerebeek
Peruvian Centre for Cetacean Research
Ignacio Agudo and colleagues have submitted their findings on directed takes of small cetaceans in Venezuela to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission in 1996 (Romero et al. 1996). This means that they were ready to have their data and methods scrutinized at one of the most critical fora in cetacean management and conservation in the world.
Asked by the IWC to peer-review a revised version of these authors' document, I found the paper solid and recommended it for publication with minor changes. Romero et al. (1996) concluded that " Cetacean exploitation in Venezuela associated with intentional captures is more widespread than commonly believed".
From the information Romero et al. (1996) discuss it seems that fishery related dolphin mortality (species combined) in Venezuela could amount to several thousand animals. In itself and in comparison with small cetacean mortality rates in coastal waters of other Latin American countries this is nothing exceptional (typical rates are between 5,000 and 20,000 specimens per annum), especially if a directed harpoon fishery is active, as has been shown. Some government source in 1991 claimed only 200-300 dolphins pa are killed nation-wide (Romero et al. 1996) which is ludicrous considering a fleet of between 6,200 and 12,000 fishing boats. Quite obviously a deepening of present study is needed with extensive monitoring of coastal fisheries in order to obtain mortality rates with reasonable error estimates. Romero et al. (1996) stated fairly enough that " The records we examined do not permit determining if the extent of use by fisheries has any effect on local cetacean populations".
During a visit to French Guiana in 1989 I personally interviewed Venezuelan fishermen who operated out of Cayenne (Van Waerebeek, 1990). They reported to occasionally harpoon dolphins for bait in the long-line fishery. The fishermen accurately described the typical characteristics of cetacean meat supporting their claims. Far from being surprising, this is a common practice in many developing countries.
Through some flawed reasoning, at least some influential persons in the Venezuelan government seem to think that by persecuting the scientists who documented uncontrolled cetacean exploitation in their country, the problem will disappear. It can, of course, only become worse by adding a PR problem. No factual problem has ever been solved by negating its existence. It usually comes back with a vengeance.
Crushing free speech and accusing scientists of high treason because their supported revelations of a potential environmental problem compromise lucrative business interests (tuna industry) for the Venezuelan oligarchy is a very serious infringement of basic human rights and a matter of the highest concern.
I recommend that as many people as possible ask Brazilian authorities (see suggested action box in Agudo's earlier e-mail message) to fully honour the spirit of the political refugee status as certified by the UN High Commission for Refugees and thereby grant Mr. Ignacio Agudo a stable immigration status in Brazil as political refugee.
Dr. K Van Waerebeek
Director, Peruvian Centre for Cetacean Research
Email: kvwaere@mail.cosapidata.com.pe
