Whaling, or whale hunting, is one of the most hotly debated topics among the environmentalists and conservation activists. It is dealt with officially for at least three decades since the implementation of the ban on commercial whaling by the International Whaling Commission. Still, the problem persists, mainly because of the unlicensed whaling and the legal and procedural loopholes in the ban that allow major actors to continue the practice. Moreover, the decision to forbid whaling is constantly challenged on a legal and ethical basis. The main arguments of the pro-whaling activists are its economic significance, the relative harmlessness to the environment, the scientific importance, and cultural and national tradition. The anti-whaling activists challenge the former three arguments and point to the cruelty of the process and the adverse environmental effects resulting from it. Despite being widely publicized, constantly brought to public attention, updated and revised, and well supplied with solid data on both sides of the argument, the case of whaling is far from conclusive, with many operations that deny even the current restrictions continuing despite the efforts to cease them.
Whaling is an old practice, with some evidence pointing as far as 3000 BC as the first examples. Of course, these instances were never something more than harvesting whales that were stranded ashore, or, in some cases, hunting in the coastal waters. The first major commercial whaling practices were conducted in the seventeenth century, with the emergence of powerful fleets in several naval countries. At this point, some countries, like Norway, Iceland, Japan, and Greenland exhibit strong economic interest in whaling as countries that are historically dependent on fishing and hunting. After the industrial revolution, the mechanization of vessels and the availability of equipment further boosts the process, and several new actors emerge on the scene, including the USA, Britain, France, and Russia.
Another notable milestone of the industry occurs during the beginning of the twentieth century, with the introduction of the factory ships. Such ships were capable of processing the products of whaling, initially limited to oil, on board in the open sea. Subsequently, their capabilities broadened to utilize other parts of killed whales, greatly increasing efficiency. Of course, one should not forget that such an increase in productivity meant more whales could be hunted during a single run. The population of whales continued to decrease at an alarming rate, which has led to the formation of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1946. The goal of the commission was to control and regulate whaling practices. The most significant of these is a moratorium on commercial whaling, issued in 1982. The moratorium contains some notable exceptions, including whaling quotas for certain indigenous communities and permits for whaling for scientific research.
Both of these regulations were themselves subject to criticism as they have since proven to be loopholes allowing to maintain the practice in harmful proportions. This is perhaps best illustrated by Japan’s notorious “research program” which is universally deemed as masked commercial whaling but persists to this day. Another hallmark achieved by the IWC is the establishment of the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 1979 and Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 1994. These are the zones that grant absolute immunity to whaling. However, the debate of the legal side of the sanctuary persists, with the strong support of not only pro-whaling countries but also independent specialists. As of today, the whaling is officially illegal, but some major actors, like Japan, Norway, and Iceland arguably exploit the ban’s weaknesses, and some smaller, non-state actors whale illegally, violating it directly.
Various specialists point to the adverse effects of uncontrollable whaling. The initial concern lay within the conservational domain. The International Whaling Commission’s decision on regulation and the subsequent ban was prompted by the endangered status of certain species. In fact, by the seventeenth century the extinction of at least one species, the gray whale, was confirmed and documented. Since then, thirteen other whale species were given the endangered status.
The ecological concern is another reason for debate. The effect of whale hunting on the environment can be traced as far as eight hundred years back: the ecology of the freshwater ponds near the settlement of prehistoric Inuit whalers display the changes relevant to the whale hunting practices even after their abandonment four hundred years ago (Douglas et al. 1613). The industrial-scale professional whaling of the nineteenth and twentieth century in this regard presents an even bigger impact. Whale species comprise an important part of the oceans’ ecosystem, largely as ”consumers of fish and invertebrates; as prey to other large-bodied predators; as reservoirs of and vertical and horizontal vectors for nutrients; and as detrital sources of energy and habitat in the deep sea.” (Roman et al. 377).
The recent details from independent research also suggest that the Soviet Union has contributed to the matter on the impressive scale while maintaining the low profile and reporting the numbers that were sufficiently lower than the actual volumes of the hunted animals. The isolation of the state and the heavy governmental involvement in all the branches of activity, including industry, allowed to maintain the whaling and even make it profitable for employees despite being not worth the effort according to the scientists involved in the process. As a result, at 180,000 whales are attributed to harvesting by the Soviets. Even more impressive is the fact that it was primarily driven by the ideological machine, not by the revenue or the other benefit for society (Homans par. 5).
Since the introduction of the control, the situation has improved greatly but is still far from reaching the point where it is no longer deemed as troubling. The pro-whaling countries, like Japan, target the endangered status of some species, in particular, the sei whale, which has supposedly recreated far beyond the threateningly low numbers. Still, the published data shows the benefit from the conservation efforts, thus demonstrating that at least one aspect of the ban is not fruitless.
The economic side of the question is far more tangled, however. As already mentioned above, several countries, primarily Norway, Iceland, and Japan, are strongly dependent on fishing and whaling as one of the major sources of income. According to authorities, the countries suffer from the ban. Besides, Iceland and Norway state that whaling is a cultural phenomenon characteristic of their nation, and demand special treatment in this regard, specifically, the same permission that is granted by the ICW to other indigenous peoples dependent on the practice. This notion is also subject to controversy. Such permission is mostly issued to less developed countries, like Indonesia, for whom the whaling is crucial. For Norway, Iceland, and Japan, on the other hand, this is a complementary source of revenue. Some experts even bypass this fact and say that despite local communities may increase the income by whaling, the overall picture suggests net economic loss, with products of whaling resting mostly in the category of by-products and the limited demand for luxury foods for restaurants and hotels. Nevertheless, Norway and Iceland go as far as to issue their quotas for whaling.
But the most heated and publicly recognizable side of the debate is within the ethical domain. Various claims have been made regarding the cruelty and inhumanity which pertain to the process of killing a whale. The opponents of whaling appeal to the relatively high intelligence of the species, the advantages gained by their inability to breathe underwater, which adds to suffering, and the time of agony during the hunt. Some of the indigenous practices, including festivals and ceremonies built around seasonal hunting, are also controversial and are frequently targeted by animal rights groups. A large portion of criticism is triggered by the inhumane nature of the research conducted by various institutes, primarily by the Institute of Cetacean Research in Japan. Again, pro-whaling activists counter these allegations by the relative improvements in the hunting methods (a claim that does not stand up to the scrutiny, as the research shows the whales do not die quickly in as many as 60% of occasions) and the relative humanity of hunting to lifelong undertreatment of the animals in captivity and in factory farming (the claim that equally exposes the weakness of certain animal rights groups’ claims).
As it was mentioned above, the problem is not left unaddressed. The largest and most effective measure to date is the moratorium issued by the International Whaling Commission in 1982. However, the moratorium has several weak points that have since been exploited by several major state actors. First, it is only applicable to the members of the IWC, which results in several countries exiting and rejoining the commission when unable to comply with its requirements. Second, the ban itself is non-binding, which allows Norway and Iceland to issue their quotas on whaling and essentially make themselves the exception from the rule. While this is done under close supervision and is grounded in research, which defines the extent to which the official quotas can be exceeded, this is still subject to controversy, as such approach allows for biased judgment.
Third, and, probably, the most ill-famed, is the permit to whale for scientific purposes. At a glance, this is an understandable exception, as the research may require specimens for study. However, this allows us to cover up commercial whaling as harvesting material for research and is performed by Japan since the implementation of the ban in 1986. Critics of the practice point to the fact that the research can be conducted without killing whales, by examining tissue samples or feces. Japan counters these claims with the alleged necessity to obtain several probes unavailable without killing a whale, such as an earplug for determining the specimen’s age. The quantity of whales killed by Japan each year also exceeds the number sufficient for research, serving as an indirect proof of the fact that science is not the priority.
Another example of the successful protection policy is the creation of two protected zones, known as sanctuaries. Currently, two such sanctuaries exist, The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary around Antarctica, and the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Unfortunately, despite the official ban, several non-state actors, primarily the whale poachers from the Philippines and Indonesia, still practice hunting there. Besides, the legality of such restrictions has been questioned several times, as the ethical reasons may be overruled by economic and scientific concerns. The latest court hearing on the matter was ruled out in favor of the anti-whaling community but has shown another blind spot that will no doubt be targeted again. Other actions toward limiting the whaling practices consist of public protests and activist groups. Such grassroots movements usually take some time to achieve any noticeable effect, so right now they mostly have minimal impact on the political scene.
There are, however, several strategies either already devised or theoretically valuable for amending the situation. First, whale-related tourism can be the needed amendment for countries that are strongly dependent on whaling. Such an approach is already underway in the Philippines, and while the results are still inconclusive, the prospects look promising and may over time substitute for the net profit loss. Alexander Gillespie, the advocate of whale sanctuaries, in his book Whaling Diplomacy, actually suggests whale-watching as one of the non-lethal ways of utilization of whales (182). Furthermore, the lack of experts in the field of Whale research has lead to an awkward situation where Japan was able to be represented by a sole expert witness in the case of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary legality. This means no one was able to counter its claim of the necessity to kill whales for the sake of research. Further research might be necessary that will contribute both to the understanding of the problem and to the ability to counter groundless claims that allow needless killing.
A lot has been achieved in the field of whale preservation since the inception of the moratorium by the IWC in 1986. However, this is not all that can be done on the matter, and certain directions for further progress can already be conceived. Counting in the already impressive results in whale population restoration, one can expect even better progress once these directions are followed and the current loopholes in the regulations are sealed, securing another living creature’s right to coexist with humans.
Works Cited
Douglas, Marianne, John Smol, James Savelle, and Jules Blais. “Prehistoric Inuit Whalers Affected Arctic Freshwater Ecosystems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101.6 (2004): 1613-1617. Print.
Gillespie, Alexander. Whaling Diplomacy: Defining Issues In International Environmental Law, Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005. Print.
Homans, Charles. The Most Senseless Environmental Crime of the 20th Century. 2013. Web.
Roman, Joe, James Estes, Lyne Morissette, Craig Smith, Daniel Costa, James McCarthy, Stephen Nicol, Andrew Pershing, and Victor Smetacek. “Whales As Marine Ecosystem Engineers.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12.7 (2014): 377-385. Print.