NWHALE Case
Norway-IWC Dispute on Whaling (NWHALE)
CASE NUMBER: 53
CASE MNEMONIC: NWHALE
CASE NAME: Norway-IWC Dispute on Whaling
A. IDENTIFICATION
1. The Issue
Norway, noted for its ecologically correct reputation, finds itself in
an unusual position defending itself from environmental critics. Norway has
been under fire from several countries for its continued commercial whaling of
minke whales. The most recent confrontation involves Norway and the United
States and the International Whaling Commission. The U.S. Department of
Commerce has suggested to the President that trade restrictions be imposed
upon Norway, even though minkes are not in danger of extinction in that
country.
2. Description
Whaling is a centuries-old industry which began because of a "human need
for whale meat and oils." By the 1920s, many whales, especially the larger
species, had almost been hunted to extinction. This crisis led to the
formation of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1946 in an effort
to control commercial whaling and prevent their extinction. The IWC set
annual quotas in order to manage stocks and conserve commercially hunted
species but the system did not work. With the increasing growth and strength
of environmental groups, the IWC imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling in
1985/86. The moratorium banned all whaling, except a limited amount for
research purposes, until stocks recovered. Historic whaling nations including
Norway and Japan believe that the stocks of certain species of whales have
sufficiently replenished to support a limited hunt. Therefore, Japan and
Norway are attempting to lift the moratorium. They have threatened unilateral
actions to resume commercial whaling in violation of the IWC. This study
focuses on the case involving Norway (Japan's role is explained separately in
the JWHALE case).
The moratorium on commercial whaling was initially instituted with the
idea that once the whale species had recovered, hunting would be resumed under
monitoring and controlled by the IWC. However, environmental groups began
making the whale a focus of protection, not simply preservation. They argued
that whales are unique animals, deserving special treatment. Some believe
the whale possesses a rather high intelligence, calling them "the humans of
the sea." Whaling became more of a taboo than an ecological concern.
However, historical whaling nations view these restrictions as encroachments
on their livelihoods. "This unfair treatment [of individual nations] by
people from the industrialized world is only one example of cultural and
economic terrorism so often seen lately."
In May, 1993 at a convention in Kyoto, Japan, the International Whaling
Commission reaffirmed the moratorium placed on commercial whaling in 1986.
Norway, one of the nations which lobbied for lifting the ban, responded to
this proclamation with a unilateral, government-approved decision to resume
hunting minke whales. Norway argued the whale populations were capable of
supporting a harvest. One hundred sixty minkes were caught in violation of
the IWC while one hundred thirty more were caught legally for scientific and
research purposes. Norway has stated that it will only hunt a limited number
of minkes and "has promised not to export whale meat to consumer countries
such as such as Japan."
Norway views the whaling ban as a restriction placed on its natural
resources; therefore, it is simply reasserting its sovereign rights. In fact,
the government has spent $800,000 in an advertising campaign to defend and
justify its actions. One argument contends that the controversy is governed
by emotion rather than rational science. The Norwegians claim that "killing a
minke [whale] is no different from killing a deer" and do not see whales as
deserving of special treatment. Simply because one man sees the whale as
something to be admired and revered does not mean that it cannot serve the
physical needs of a human being.
A second argument states that there are sufficient minke whales to
sustain small-scale whaling. Norway claims that it is not promoting the hunt
and capture of endangered species of whales, but of a species that can support
a limited hunt. Some studies have concluded that there are 86,700 minkes in
the northeastern Atlantic and 760,000 in the Antarctic seas. Even with the
resumption, Norway is setting its own quotas and restrictions including
required up-to-date equipment, shooting accuracy tests, and inspectors on
board to make sure "the animals are killed as humanely as possible." The
Prime Minister emphasized Norway's practice of "'sustainable development,' and
accused the United States, Great Britain, and Germany of being the real
ecological threats due to their excessive pollution and energy consumption.
A third argument hinges on the fact that the northern coastal villages
of Norway depend on hunting and fishing for their livelihoods. Although "it's
not a big part of the national budget, it is a crucial source of income for
those fishermen who need it." Since there are also quotas on the capture of
certain species of fish, whaling serves as a means for supplementing incomes
in rural areas.
Finally, there are questions of kill times and population percentages of
certain animals that are commercially hunted. For the minke, 50 percent die
immediately and an even higher percentage die in under three minutes after
being harpooned. Comparatively, only 10 percent of Sweden's hunted elk die
instantaneously. Also, less than one percent of the minke population is
killed annually whereas one third of Sweden's elk population is decimated.
Further, some fishermen claim that the whales eat the cod and other fish
stocks from which the fisherman derive their livelihood. Therefore, "if they
[IWC] are to manage the whole ecosystem properly, then it is important to keep
the whale stocks in check, too." Finally, some claim that certain
environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Whale and Dolphin Society are
using the whales as symbols only to raise money and are not sincerely
interested in their preservation (see TUNA and
ECFUR cases).
Opponents of commercial whaling make very persuasive arguments against
its resumption. First, because the whales migrate thousands of miles, they
cannot be considered the property of only one country. Because Norway's
actions are in violation of European laws concerning the whale, its potential
membership in the European Union could be jeopardized. However, the major
debate concerning whaling today is not simply an ecological question but an
ethical question. Whales are seen as different from most other animals in
that they are highly intelligent, live in family groups, and have a well-
developed emotion-controlling section of the brain. Therefore, killing whales
is "inhumane and morally wrong." Sometimes, it can take up to thirty
minutes for a whale to die after being struck which not only causes the animal
to suffer unnecessarily but also causes distress to the family group.
One argument favoring the ban is that whales are more lucrative alive as
tourist attractions as opposed to slaughtered for food and other products
(similar to tenets in the BRAZIL case). Moreover, even though whaling may be
a part of a nation's tradition does not necessarily mean that it should
continue; for example, dog- and cock-fighting were banned in the United States
despite its long history. Finally, opponents to whaling claim that the number
of whales and their eating habits have no impact on the fishing industry.
Norway's actions are being met with a variety of responses from both the
international community and its own citizenry. Hundreds of letters of protest
arrive at Norway's embassy in Washington, DC and some nations are instituting
boycotts of Norway's exports. For example, a German supermarket chain is no
longer buying Norwegian prawns and salmon because of Norway's taking of whales
and "a British company has stopped importing Norwegian sleeping bags."
Protests from environmental groups including Greenpeace have called for
travelers to avoid Norway, especially during the 1994 Lillehammer Olympics.
Some travel agencies are threatening that their "travelers will shun the
fjords in the future." Whaling protests have unfortunately taken the form
of a violent response; some threaten to disrupt hunts as well as actually
sabotaging whaling vessels. These threats have prompted many whalers to
purchase some sort of "war insurance" as a means of protection.
The United States government is under great pressure by environmental
groups to bar Norwegian seafood from American markets. Under the Pelly
Amendment to the 1967 Fishermen's Protective Act, Norway could be subject to
import restrictions imposed by the United States on its "more than $1 billion
of products exported to the U.S. every year." In February, 1993, the House
of Representatives passed a resolution (347 to 0) condemning Norway for its
resumption of whaling. Commerce Secretary Ronald Brown has certified that
Norway "diminished the effectiveness of an international program for the
conservation of endangered or threatened species," thus giving President Bill
Clinton 60 days to decide on sanctions against Norway.
The response to this policy within Norway has varied. Although 28
percent of Norwegians polled support the government's policy, "52% percent ...
worried about international boycotts" and wanted to delay the decision until
international opinion was more favorable. Many salmon fishermen are feeling
the brunt of the protest because they are the object of the boycotts; but it
is too early to calculate the financial impact. Norwegian firms including
Royal Viking and Norwegian Cruise Lines "have issued anti-whaling protests
because they would be greatly affected by a boycott." However, "7 out of 10
Norwegians surveyed favored commercial hunts in principle," and Norway
declares that it will continue its policy, especially with the support of
Japan and Iceland. The arguments for halting and continuing hunting are
summarized below (see Tables II-53-1 and II-53-2).
Table II-53-1
Arguments for Resuming Commercial Whaling
1. Norway is reasserting its rights to its natural resources.
2. Emotion instead of rationality is governing the debate.
3. Whales are no different from any other hunted species and deserve no
special treatment.
4. There are enough minke whales to support a limited harvest.
5. Whaling provides the livelihood for some coastal villages of Norway.
6. Whaling is a part of Norway's cultural heritage.
7. The IWC must manage the entire ecosystem and not only one part.
Table II-53-2
Arguments against Resuming Commercial Whaling
1. Because whales migrate thousands of miles, they cannot be said to be
the property of only one nation.
2. Whaling is unethical because of the whale's uncanny intelligence.
3. The mount of time for a whale to die after being harpooned can take
up to thirty minutes or longer which causes the whale as well as his
family group to suffer unnecessarily.
4. Whales are more lucrative alive as tourist attractions.
5. Not all cultural traditions should be passed down to the next
generation (e.g. cock-fighting).
6. The number of whales do not deplete fish stocks thus causing problems
for fishermen.
3. Related Cases
Keyword Clusters
(1): Trade Product = WHALE
(2): Bio-geography = OCEAN
(3): Environmental Problem = Species Loss Sea [SPLS]
The Norwegian case has some direct relevance to Japan's and Iceland's
attempts to reject the IWC moratorium. Although Japan is not officially
violating the ban, it is accused of using the research allowance as a
justification for commercial whaling. The meat from whales caught for
research purposes usually ends up on Japanese plates. In protest to the
continued ban, Iceland withdrew its membership from the IWC. However, it has
not resumed whaling for fear of the ramifications of international sanctions
and boycotts. Another country involved is Russia. Japan has promised foreign
assistance to many countries in exchange for a vote to reject the moratorium.
In the case of the former Russia, Japan would serve as its market for whale
meat, thus producing desperately needed hard currency.
4. Draft Authors: Nicole Lewis and Allene Kim
B. LEGAL Filters
5. Discourse and Status: DISagreement and INPROGress
During a conference in Kyoto, Japan in May 1993, the majority of the
International Whaling Commission voted to continue the moratorium on
commercial whaling (18 for, 6 against, and 6 abstaining). However, the case
is far from over. If Norway continues to violate the ban, the entire IWC
could be in jeopardy of losing its effectiveness.
The controversy between Norway and the United States constitutes a part
of a much larger debate between environmentalists and the so-called "whaling
veto coalition" led by Japan. The IWC in the past has prohibited killing
certain species of whales close to extinction, set quotas and minimum sizes
for whales caught for commercial purposes, and regulated whaling seasons. The
veto coalition within the IWC consists of Japan, Norway, Peru, and Russia.
This does not include non-IWC members who also carry on whaling activities.
After passage of a moratorium on all commercial whaling in 1986, the
veto coalition formally ended commercial whaling 1987-88. Norway, Iceland,
and Japan, however, have begun conducting "scientific" whaling. The stated
purposes of these scientific experiments included studying the feeding habits,
aging processes, and pregnancy rates of the minke whales. Other IWC members,
including the United States, have said that scientific whaling is disguised
commercial whaling and that there is insufficient justification for the
hunt.
The whaling countries hinted that efforts to forbid whaling would result
in their withdrawal from the IWC. Iceland, in fact, did withdraw in 1992.
According to a U.S. Department of Commerce official, although 21 countries
have qualified for the imposition of sanctions under the Pelly Amendment
(including Norway four times), sanctions have never been imposed (see also TUNA, SHRIMP,
and TURTLE cases).
6. Forum and Scope: IWC and MULTIlateral
"The first international treaty on whaling, the Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling, was not concluded until 1931." A second
international agreement, the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling, was signed in 1946, just as the United Nations was beginning, which
established the International Whaling Commission.
7. Decision Breadth: 39 [IWC members]
The are 39 members of the International Whaling Commission.
8. Legal Standing: TREATY
To activate the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling,
the U.S. passed the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (64 Stat. 421, 16 U.S.C.
916-9161). Two domestic laws apply to the commercial whaling issue: the Pelly
Amendment to the 1967 Fishermen's Protective Act (Public Law 92-219, 22 U.S.C.
1978) and the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the 1976 Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Public Law 96-61, 16 U.S.C. 1821). Both of these serve to aid
the IWC by informing the U.S. government of any action which may "diminish the
effectiveness of any international fisheries program" and to "reduce
commercial fishing by foreign nationals" in the U.S.'s EEZs engaging in such
activities.
C. GEOGRAPHIC Filters
9. Geographic Locations
a. Geographic Domain : ATLANTIC
b. Geographic Site : Northeast Atlantic Ocean [NATL]
c. Geographic Impact : NORWAY
10. Sub-National Factors: NO
Although certain villages in Norway are the hardest hit by the whaling
moratorium, this is not a factor in the case.
11. Type of Habitat: OCEAN
D. TRADE Filters
12. Type of Measure: Regulatory Ban [REGBAN]
The IWC does not institute measures of its own. However, many countries
are unilaterally placing import bans on certain products, as well as calling
for boycotts of Norway's tourist attractions and other economic sanctions.
Norway is also subject to a tremendous amount of psychological pressure from
environmental groups claiming that Norway engages in inhumane practices.
13. Direct vs. Indirect Impacts: DIRect
The measure is a ban on products from Norway in retaliation for its
whaling practices. None of the harvested whale is to be exported. However,
nothing would prevent Japanese tourists in Norway from eating whale.
14. Relation of Trade Measure to Resource Impact
a. Directly Related : YES WHALE
b. Indirectly Related : YES WHALE products
c. Not Related : YES RETALiation
d. Process Related : YES Species Loss Sea [SPLS]
The IWC banned the hunting of all species of whales for commercial
purposes. Therefore, since whales cannot be hunted, they cannot be traded as
food or other products, such as jewelry and oil. The ban not only covers
minke whales (specific to this case) but all whale species. In this case,
some nations, such as Japan, have replaced whale meat consumption with dolphin
and porpoise substitutes. Although the IWC does not regulate these mammals
yet, it is attempting to place them under its jurisdiction. Also, other
marine species are affected by the trade measures, such as shrimp and salmon
in Germany.
15. Trade Product Identification: WHALE
Commercial whaling is not a particularly big export business. However,
with the IWC moratorium, smuggling whale meat into countries such as Taiwan
has become a common practice.
16. Economic Data
Although whaling does not constitute a major part of any nation's
income, it does have an impact on the revenues of particular villages. In
Reine, Norway, fishing serves as this village's livelihood. Before the
moratorium, there was a total of eighty fishing and whaling boats. Presently,
there are only forty, a number that will probably shrink in the future to only
six or seven.
For one Norwegian family, sixty percent of its income comes from
whaling, the rest is supplemented by cod fishing. However, there are also
quotas on the amount of cod which can be caught and this percentage could drop
below 50 percent in some years (see CANCOD and
UKCOD cases). Whaling at one time was a very
lucrative business. Market prices for whale meat are high, selling for $2.50
per pound with each whale weighing an average of 4000 pounds. However,
because the number of whales which can be caught is limited, families can no
longer upgrade and repair their equipment. Some families have lost their
boats and homes and been forced to move and build find a new life. The
economic impacts of the international boycotts have yet to be determined. It
is known that the Norwegian salmon fishermen serve as one target for these
boycotts (see SALMON case).
17. Impact of Measure on Trade Competitiveness: BAN
A ban would theoretically eliminate competition from question, since the
IWC's provision is a moratorium on the commercial hunting of all species of
whales. However, a certain number can be captured for scientific research
purposes. Norway set a quota of 301 minke whales: 189 for commercial purposes
and 112 for research.
18. Industry Sector: FOOD
19. Exporter and Importer: ATLANTIC and NORWay
The boycotts related to the resumption of commercial whaling "cost many
Norwegian companies about $30 million in lost sales." However, the import
and export of whale products themselves do not have a great influence on the
economy.
E. ENVIRONMENT Filters
20. Environmental Problem Type: Species Loss, Sea [SPLS]
21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species
Name: Minke Whale
Type: Animal/Vertibrate/Mammal/Cetacea
Diversity: Sustainable yields of 11,200,000 metric
tons/year (Northeast Atlantic)
Minke whales are one of the small baleen species with an average
length of 28 feet. Although smaller than its larger cousins, the minke became
sought after when the larger species began to face extinction. Although the
minke yields very little oil (hardly more than two barrels), its tasty meat
attracts several whaling countries, particularly Norway and Japan. Minke
whales are usually divided into two groups: the balaenoptera acutorostrata
found in the north, and the southern subspecies, the balaenoptera
acutorostrata bonaerensis. In 1984 an additional subspecies of minke whale
was found off the coast of Brazil.
22. Resource Impact and Effect: MEDium and SCALE
A limited resumption of hunting the minke will probably have a
relatively low impact on the resource. Historically, the IWC has not been
able to control and monitor effectively a limited hunt. Thus, the resource
impact could become much greater.
23. Urgency and Lifespan: MEDium and about 50 years
Norway, along with the other whaling countries, contend that since
minkes are presently not in danger of extinction, they should be allowed to
hunt them. They insist that a "careful harvest of relatively plentiful
species like the minke is harmless." Even Norway's Prime Minister Gro
Harlem Brundtland stated that one "cannot allow uninformed sentiment to decide
on the controlled use of our natural resources."
24. Substitutes: LIKE products
Studies have shown that whale meat can be replaced by cheaper and more
protein-rich substitutes. Many nations are turning to much cheaper sources of
protein. In 1960 Japan consumed 154,000 tons of whale meat but this fell to
only 2,000 by 1991 (for comparison, Japan consumed million tons of pork and
1.3 million tons of chicken in that year). Japan is also turning to other
forms of marine life -- squid, porpoise, dolphin and yellowtail -- to replace
whale supplies.
VI. OTHER Factors
25. Culture: YES
Culture is important to the people whose lifestyles and diets are
supported by catching whales. Although stringent limits to whaling exist, its
meat could possibly be substituted by other forms of red meat (such as beef or
pork) or fish. Substitutes, however, cannot replace the traditional value of
whaling claimed by many Norwegians. Norway proclaims that whaling is a part
of its cultural heritage, and it should be allowed to pass along this
tradition to future generations. Small villagers in the Lofoten Islands (60
miles north of the Arctic Circle) insist that they have a right to do what
their fathers did -- hunt minke whales.
26. Trans-Border: YES
Whales migrate through many jurisdictions during a single year. They
may actually spend parts of the year in territorial waters of other countries.
This has not yet been an issue.
27. Rights: NO
This is not a classic rights case, although some argue that the animal's
high intelligence should be considered as part of the hunting question.
28. Relevant Literature
"Arguments to the Death." The Guardian (May 10, 1993).
"Brazil Plan May Benefit Dolphins." Chicago Tribune (April 18,
1993).
Brown, Amanda. "Britain Bids to Curb Pilot Whale Slaughter."
Press Association Newsfile (July 3, 1992).
Bugge, Stella. "Norway Harpoons its First Minke Whale of 1993."
Reuters (May 6, 1993).
Buck Eugene. Marine Mammal Issues. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, September 21, 1993.
Buck, Eugene. Whale Conservation. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, August 30, 1990.
"Buying Sanctuary." The Economist (June 1, 1991).
Darnton, John. "Norwegians Claim their Whaling Rights." The New
York Times (August 7, 1993).
Dolan, Maura. "Japan Expected to Dwarf U.S. Environment Aid."
Los Angeles Times (June 7, 1992).
"Ecology Groups Ask Japan to Stop Netting Rare Porpoises."
Reuters (June 13, 1990).
Ellis, Richard. "A Sea Change for Leviathan." Audubon (November
1985).
"Environmentalists File Suit Seeking Sanctions against Japan in
'Scientific' Whaling Dispute." International Environment Reporter
Current Report 11/2 (February 10, 1988).
"House Says Whaling Ban Should Stay." Reuters (February 16,
1993).
"Japan Fights to Keep Tuna on Sushi Tables." Reuters (September
9, 1991).
"Japan Town Sells Whalemeat in Protest at IWC Ban." Reuters
(July 2, 1992).
"Japanese Arrested for Smuggling Whalemeat." Reuters (November
9, 1992).
"Japan's Money-Tactics Flopped against Whaling Ban." Agence
France Presse (May 15, 1993).
Jones, Tamara. "Rough Seas for Defiant Whalers." Los Angeles
Times (July 6, 1993).
Lemonick, Michael D. "The Hunt; the Furor." Time (August 2,
1993).
Linden, Eugene. "Sharpening the Harpoons." Time (May 24, 1993).
MacKenzie, Deborah. "Norway Declares War on Minke Whale." New
Scientist (February 13, 1993).
McCarthy, Gerard. "Store Boycott Urged in Whale Campaign."
Press Association Newsfile (March 24, 1993).
McGill, Douglas C. "Japan's Choice - Scour Technology's Stain
with Technology." The New York Times (October 4, 1992).
"Minke on Menu." New Scientist (May 19, 1990).
"A Misguided Policy on Whaling." Chicago Tribune (May 24, 1993).
"Norwegians, Defying Ban, Kill 50 Whales." New York Times
June 29, 1994: A11.
"Norwegians in Whale of Ecological Dispute." Chicago Tribune
(August 8, 1993).
"Official Says Japan to Stay in Whaling Commission." Japan
Economic Newswire (July 6, 1992).
"President Reagan Denies Japan Fishing Access to U.S. Waters
because of Whaling Violation." International Environment Reporter
11/4 (April 13, 1988).
Tonnessen, J.N. and A.O. Johnsen (translated by R.I.
Christophersen). The History of Modern Whaling. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1982.
Ueno, Teruaki. "Dying Whaling Village Looks to Tourism." Press
Association Newsfile (May 7, 1993).
Ueno, Teruaki. "Japan Whaling Village in Last Battle for
Survival." Reuters (April 30, 1993).
Vanderknyff, Rick. "A Whale of a Time: Finally There's Big
Reason to Celebrate at Dana Point's Annual Homage to Marine
Mammals." Los Angeles Times (February 20, 1992).
Wallace, Bruce. "Deadly Experiments." Maclean's (September 7,
1987).
Watanabe, Teresa. "Environment: Japan Is Set for a Whale of a
Fight," Los Angeles Times (April 20, 1993).
"Whale Sanctuary, Harvesting Formula on IWC Meet Agenda." Japan
Economic Newswire (May 10, 1993).
"Whales: Bitter Harvest in the Balance." The Guardian (May 10,
1993).
Wilgoren, Jodi. "Rocky's Legacy: Increasing Knowledge of Rare
Whale." The Los Angeles Times (August 2, 1993).
Young, David. "Commercial Whaling Ban to Remain Another Year."
The Times (July 4, 1992).
References
Go to Super Page