Continued from page 2

POLICY ISSUES

ECOLOGICAL ISSUES

Although some whale populations already may have been hunted nearly to extinction, the Norwegians maintain that they strongly believe in sustainable whaling in general and the conservation of northeast Atlantic minke whales in particular. As noted earlier, the latest abundance estimate, based on 1995 Norwegian survey data, indicates there are about 118,000 animals in the northeast and central Atlantic accessible to Norwegian whalers, and the Norwegians argue that these minke whales can be sustainably harvested. (See Endnote 18.) Others, however, question whether the IWC had sufficient time to adequately review and test the Norwegian Computer Center's program used to calculate the abundance estimate from the 1995 survey data, and whether additional analysis using alternative computer programs might yield a significantly lower estimate of abundance.

Norway has established its commercial quota using the RMP recommended by the IWC's Scientific Committee, abut has used abundance estimates provided by its own scientists when there was no consensus within the IWC's Scientific Committee. The RMP is to be used to calculate the number of whales that may be harvested without endangering populations of the species killed. The RMS has not been adopted due to continuing disagreement, principally by Norway and Japan, on international development of an international, non-flag state, system of observation and inspection to ensure compliance with quotas and other measures adopted by the IWC. (See Endnote 19.) In this regard, it is important to note that scientists in the former Soviet Union have made known large-scale illegal whaling under the previous system of flag-state enforcement.

While some insist that Norway's licensing of commercial whaling is a premature action that undermines the collective decision making authority of the IWC, the inability to resolve these questions concerning the RMS may reflect the desire by some IWC parties that any resumption of commercial whaling be prevented. (See Endnote 20.)

ETHICAL ISSUES

For some, the whaling issue raises ethical as well as ecological and political questions. Animal protection advocates protest that whales aren't simply "food animals," but are intelligent creatures with a right to life, and maintain that it is immoral to subject them to cruel, unnecessary slaughter. On the other hand, supporters of whaling point out that pigs also are deemed to be intelligent, and yet pork is widely consumed in many developed countries. Norwegians have argued that the anti-whaling countries are guilty of a form of cultural imperialism, and are seeking to impose their moral and ethical values on Norway and other countries that have whaled for centuries. Norwegian Foreign Minister Bjorn Tore Godal drew a parallel: "[i]magine India being in the position of threatening the U.S. with trade sanctions if it didn't accept the sanctity of the cow. The principle is the same." (See Endnote 21.) Animal protection groups counter that this is an apples-and-oranges comparison, as whales are wildlife, not livestock. They also argue that the continuation of whaling encourages poaching and illegal trade of wildlife.

Norwegians also note that their government requires that veterinarian-inspectors be aboard all whaling vessels toensure that whales are killed quickly and humanely; 60% of whales die instantaneously, they assert, and most others within minutes. However, whaling opponents claim that after a whale is struck by an exploding harpoon, it may take as long as 10 minutes to an hour for it to die.

Finally, Norwegians contrast their conservation-based whaling with the sports of fox hunting and bullfighting, still customary in several countries. Animal protection advocates counter that this comparison, however valid, still does not legitimatize the practice of commercial whaling; they suggest that, instead of whaling, Norwegian fishermen should cooperate with the tourism industry and sponsor whale-watching cruises. This activity, they argue, could prove to be at least as profitable as whaling.

POLITICAL ISSUES

Many policymakers wonder why, in the face of harsh and continued international criticism, Norway insists upon exercising its right to continue whaling. Norwegians respond that their whaling tradition traces back to the Ice Age, and is therefore an important part of their cultural -- if not economic -- heritage. Norwegian leaders have likened this centuries-long tradition to those of aboriginal peoples: "[Prime Minister] Brundtland said her country. . . conducts only coastal whaling by small boats -- akin to whale hunting by Alaska natives." (See Endnote 22.)

Norwegians distinguish their coastal whaling from pelagic factory ship whaling, which they halted decades ago. Their current whaling "fleet" consists of about three dozen family-owned fishing vessels. Most of the hunting is conducted above the Arctic Circle, where whaling is still an important income supplement for some villages. Norway's whaling situation is arguably analogous to the support shown by other countries for programs to ensure the continuation of family farming in their societies.

Whaling is not generally regarded as one of the make-or-break issues in Norwegian politics; nevertheless, from a political standpoint, it would be fairly unrepresentative for Norwegian office-holders to oppose whaling. A 1992 survey found that 75% of Norwegians supported regulated whaling; (See Endnote 23.) in addition, sustainable whaling is backed by all the major political parties. (See Endnote 24.) Because many Norwegians believe there is reasonably clear scientific evidence that some minke whales may be harvested without harming stock levels, it would be difficult for the government to forbid whaling without resorting to moralistic or ethical arguments. Former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland strongly supported science-based conservation. Norwegians maintain that, as a matter of principle, all of a country's natural resources may be used, so long as such use is done sustainably.

Some have argued that domestic politics may have influenced Norway's decision to resume whaling in 1993. (See Endnote 25.) There is strong support for whaling in the towns and villages of the far north. The northerners, who account for about 11% of the country's population, tend to be somewhat insular in their outlook, and immune to international pressures. For example, in the November 1994 national referendum, they voted in large numbers against Norwegian entry into the European Union (EU). (See Endnote 26.) Despite concessions which their government had wrung for them during initial negotiations with the EU, Norwegian farmers and fishermen in the north feared a further erosion of their subsidies and transfer of control over their resources from Oslo to Brussels. Because there is strong voter turnout in the northern regions, it was politically advantageous for former Prime Minister Brundtland -- and her ruling Labor Party -- to speak out in defense of whaling. Norway is scheduled to hold its next national elections in the fall of 1997.

Finally, it is quite possible that Norway's national pride and sense of independence play a role in its refusal to budge on the whaling issue. (See Endnote 27.) By choosing not to join the European Union in 1994, Norwegians demonstrated that they are not averse to standing alone.

On the economic side, Norwegian officials claim that their country's yearly expenditures for educational and research programs associated with whaling exceed the value of the entire annual whale catch. However, some analysts suggest that, over the long term, Norway's insistence on preserving its right to whale may in fact have an economic basis. Even though Norway currently kills a limited number of whales and consumes most of the whalemeat, a certain amount of the whalemeat and most of the blubber (which Norway does not consume) has been placed in storage. In Japan, whalemeat and blubber are a traditional part of the diet in some regions; given the sharp reduction in worldwide supplies, the Japanese would pay a premium for Norwegian whale products, if trade were permitted. The media have reported illegal attempts to ship Norwegian whalemeat to Japan. (See Endnote 28.) Observers have suggested that some Norwegians may be storing blubber and whalemeat in the hope that this potentially lucrative market will eventually reopen.

ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES

As the debate over commercial whaling continues, there are several options the Administration and Congress may consider vis-a-vis Norway. However, any U.S. decision on Norwegian whaling will not be made in a vacuum, but must acknowledge possible implications for U.S. policy toward Japan, Russia, and other nations that also may be considering whaling. The three most prominent and likely options are:

INVOKE PELLY AMENDMENT SANCTIONS

The most drastic measure the United States might take to apply pressure on Norway would be for the President to impose Pelly Amendment trade sanctions, a step which has yet to be taken in response to whaling concerns. To date, the U.S. government has shied away from this policy tool for several possible reasons. First, imposing sanctions would almost certainly cause a serious rift in political relations with Norway, which has long been a close ally of the United States. Secondly, the Pelly Amendment must be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and many analysts believe that Norway would challenge the United States before the World Trade Organization if sanctions were imposed. Thirdly, while the economic impact may be small for the United States, it could be significant and serious for Norway. (See Endnote 29.) Fourthly, U.S. sanctions might lead other countries to restrict their trade with Norwegians, intensifying their economic pain. Finally, given Norway's demonstrated penchant for independent action, there is little guarantee Oslo would bow to trade restrictions.

ACCEPT A SCIENCE-BASED SOLUTION

Another approach would be for the United States to accept the practice of sustainable whaling. However, other policy goals would be met if the compromise included other provisions, such as the enlistment of non-flag state international observers, new enforcement powers for the IWC, and perhaps, measures to guard against export of whalemeat and other whale products. Such a solution might have a steep domestic political price, both in the United States and other countries, as it would likely be staunchly opposed by environmental and animal protection groups, as well as by many Members of Congress.

CONTINUE THE "GOOD FAITH DIALOGUE"

This option, which has been followed under the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, would continue to buy time for all parties involved in the debate, but would likely also frustrate both whaling proponents and members of the environmental community, many of whom believe the discussion has gone on long enough.

NetPets® Main Page

contact information Legislation Archives

The Fish Center