Halvard P. Johansen - Deputy Director General - Department of Marine Resources and Environment

2nd Symposium on Whaling and History
September 8th - 10th, 2005
The Whaling Museum
Sandefjord

Introduction

Whaling is an industry that many now believe belongs to the past. The fact is that whaling is not only history; it is going on in more countries inside and outside the International Whaling Commission (IWC) than is generally recognized. In the public debate, however, we get the impression that it is only in Japan, Iceland and Norway that we find this activity. However, whaling is increasing, and the role of the whales in the ecosystem is getting a lot of attention.

I have followed the whaling debate since 1992, and it is interesting to note that there is more support for whaling and less criticism than a decade ago. The latest few years the anti-whaling camp has feared to lose its majority in the IWC. This has the effect on the debate on whaling that some NGOs who have been against whaling now can accept small scale whaling provided it properly controlled.

The opposition to the Norwegian whaling policy has been particularly pro­minent in connection with the work of the IWC and also often implicated in proceedings related to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). We have over the years received a lot of letters with protests. But that was mainly in the 1990s. The latest few years the numbers of individual protesters have diminished considerably, although it is easier now to protest because we can send e-mails in stead of letters.

The opposition to the Norwegian whaling was for a long time based on the fact that scientific documentation on the sustainability of the minke whale stocks in the North Atlantic was lacking. Arguments were presented also to the effect that hunting methods were insufficient to prevent unnecessary suffering, and whaling was therefore not acceptable. Finally, it has for some time been claimed that Norway is such a rich country that it does not need the income from whaling any more.

The issue concerning a lack of scientific documentation of stock estimates in Norwegian waters had, however, already by 1990 been resolved beyond any reasonable doubt through solid work by scientists and scrutinized by the Scientific Committee of the IWC. This widely recognized scientific work readily refutes any argument that Norwegian whalers are hunting endangered stocks. At the same time, considerable study and improvements in killing methods have been achieved. These improvements are also widely recognized and frequently praised.

When the scientific and animal welfare arguments cannot be used with the same effect as before, people switch to use arguments that they believe go beyond science to support their point of view. Thus, new arguments are opportunistically infused into the debate on whaling, as old and well-worn arguments are refuted. Now it is suggested that ethical reasons call for the abandonment of whaling. These new arguments cause logical inconsistencies and are ethically problematic.

It is interesting to note that some versions of whaling are accepted by the international community regardless of the general opposition to whaling. The IWC sets quotas for the aboriginal hunt in several countries, including the United States. Like Norway the U.S. is a very rich country. But in the U.S. the whaling is needed in certain areas according to the U.S. authorities, and this is accepted by the anti-whaling camp. The main reason why aboriginal hunt is accepted is that it is not regarded as commercial although there are considerable commercial aspects attached to the current aboriginal hunt. For instance, money is needed to provide the modern equipment that is coming into use also in the aboriginal hunt. Millions of dollars are also put into research programs to study the status of the stocks.

The traditional small type coastal whaling in Norway is conducted by a coastal population, who could easily be regarded as aboriginal, considering the several centuries, or millennia, they have been living along the coast of Norway and hunting whales. The late Norwegian biologist Åge Jonsgård described in his book on minke whaling[i] how the small scale whaling at the Norwegian coast developed from historical and prehistorical harvest of coastal mammals as important part of the barter economy. We have a thousand year history with legislation of how caught whales (but also whales that where struck and lost but retrieved later as dead whales) should be shared within the community. Jonsgård pointed out that there are few links between the commercial whaling and the current small scale harvest of minke whales in Norway, which developed directly from the historical subsistence harvest by coastal communities. One important aspect of the modern harvest is that the product is still for human consumption, locally, as well as in cities and at stage of the art restaurants. The men and families involved in the current harvest of minke whales in Norway are also dependent on these resources for their income and wellbeing. Furthermore, traditional dietary habits have very good health effects and should not be abandoned in modern societies. A diet based on marine fatty acids from marine mammals is very healthy.

Thus, the IWC’s practice of distinguishing between the two categories of ”commercial” and ”aboriginal subsistence” whaling is artificial, illogical, and morally wrong. It is a dangerous practice which discriminates between human beings on the grounds of ethnicity, and which purports to give a stamp of disapproval on ”commercialism”, i.e. on the normal way that human beings strive to make a living in a market economy.

The question to consider is not whether a whaling operation is a ”commercial” or an ”aboriginal subsistence” operation. The crucial question is whether it is conducted in accordance with the objectives of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, whether it is sustainable .

As the whaling debate at the moment is not primarily about sustainability, it is important to discuss if the modern man should be allowed to hunt whales, or more general, man’s rights versus animals’ rights. Here we find the fundamental ethical problems of the debate.

Man’s rights versus animals’ rights

Man has an exceptional position on the earth. We are the only species that have the possibility to engage ourselves and the nature in civilization building. This position is due to the characteristics that are the hallmark of the community of humans. Therefore, man cannot deny his role to build societies and disregard his role as manager of the earth’s fauna and flora without giving up being man, and he cannot afford ethics that ban the management role.

The idea of equality between man and animals is not consistent. Man is not just another animal species. As our ability to make moral choices and build societies are the main differences between us and the animals, sustainable management of nature’s resources is a part of our responsibility to nature. It is founded both on Christian ethics and on other, humanistic non-religious sets of values. This ethical dimension imposes both the need to protect the environment against pollution and to avoid excessive use of nature’s resources, while at the same time allowing us to harvest the surplus. Achieving this harmony between the use of the earth and the use of its resources are the two sides of the same coin that cannot be dismissed in a serious discussion about the management of whales.

If we accept this point of departure, it has certain consequences for the debate on the management of wildlife, which is not reflected in the anti-whaling argumentation.

Our western civilization is fundamentally influenced by Walt Disney’s way of portraying animals as better than humans, and even as ideals for how humans should behave. We also have the “Moby Dick syndrome” where the whale is the symbol of the mighty, uncorrupted and innocent nature as compared to greedy, revengeful and morally depraved man. These are conceptions that are engraved in the anti-whaling camp.

In our western societies the myth of animals as humanlike species has good growing conditions. Most people now meet animals only in their homes; they meet mainly pets and not cattle meant for food. This is a change of character of the contact between man and animals, a change from the use of animals to a feeling of community with them. Of course this has an effect on how people look upon animals. Nowadays the relation with pets seems to set the standard for the relation with animals in general. It creates a climate for accepting the arguments of the animal liberation. The human need for using animals is at least to a certain extent disregarded.

The animal right advocates explain to us that their project is about extending the community to embrace also animals. Animal liberation is therefore more morally respectable than earlier versions of humanism. Parallels are drawn to women’s liberation or the fight against apartheid. I think the situation is the opposite. Animal liberation is an anti humanistic project, which could have very bad consequences for human civilization if it were to be accepted as a guiding principle.

When man ate of the tree of knowledge, lost his innocence and left paradise there was no way back. Everywhere where man went to live he formed the vegetation and the landscape as a consequence of his use of nature. Man found his place in competition with and at the sacrifice of other species. He crowded out wild animals when they were competitors for food and tamed others as working force or used them as producers of food. This was, and still is, a prerequisite for population growth, increased productivity and cultural development. Taming of animals, use of animals, and killing of animals for food are indispensable and necessary prerequisites for man to be man; that is to build civilizations.

“Rights” is a moral and legal term, and it has to be used with the clear understanding of what is meant by it. The basis for having rights is to be able to make moral choices and assume moral obligations. Animals cannot assume moral obligations; consequently, they do not have the same moral and legal rights as man. But that does not mean that they are without legal rights. As an example, decent treatment of animals is secured by animal welfare legislation in most countries.

If the extreme animal rights’ argumentation is to be accepted we have to ask a series of questions, for instance: What are the animals’ responsibilities? How many people could live on the earth if animals should have the same rights as man? How many cities have to be eradicated to give room for the liberated animals? I need not develop these arguments.

Notwithstanding the extreme animal welfare organizations, products from so-called "non-charismatic" animals are widely accepted by most societies as food and clothing. Therefore, I think that we so far can conclude that there is a broad agreement between states that man can use animal resources. The logical questions will then be: Should all available animal resources be ready for sustainable use by man, or is there a universal commandment to exclude – on a general basis – the use of certain species? Thus, the questions which are relevant to us are:

Are the whale resources acceptable as food for people, or should we only accept non consumptive use of whales?

As we elaborate on these questions it is as a start interesting to note that the countries leading the anti-whaling campaign are all meat exporting countries. We can therefore quite legitimately ask them why it is more morally acceptable to kill cows and sheep for food than whales.

Norwegian whaling policy is based on the principle of sustainable use of nature’s resources. It is the founding principle of Norwegian environment and resource management policy as well as the basis for international co-operation in these areas. It is good environmentalism - and also good animal protection - to base parts of a nation’s food production processes on the harvesting of nature’s surplus, rather than on a one-sided model of industrial production of food products used in some modern societies. Thus, we think that it is reasonable to continue to use the marine mammal resources that are part of the reason why people are living at this latitude of the globe. These are the resources that are available to us, while other countries more easily can raise livestock for animal protein.

Preservation advocates have developed terminology and creative expressions that make it impossible for the average person to think rationally about whaling, or for that matter, about wildlife management in general. They often resort to anthropomorphic, inflammatory terms when describing the so-called charismatic mega fauna. Whale killing is described as "massacre" and the term is used with the intention of giving whales human attributes and to create revulsion, although whales killed in commercial based hunting probably are treated more gently than livestock. For a long period of time it has also been claimed that the "whale" is more intelligent and sentient than other animals, so that many people now are convinced that this is the truth. Scientific research that draws other conclusions is rejected as improper and political incorrect.

The criticism of the whaling countries has degenerated into equating whaling and the consumption of whale products with being uncivilized and immoral. A former official of the US Marine Mammal Commission once argued that “caring for whales is a sign of personal and social maturity”[ii]. An article in the American Journal of International Law contained the contention that the state of mind that condones the killing of whales “overlaps with the mindset that accepts genocide of inferior human beings”[iii]. This criticism reflects the unwillingness of the anti-whaling camp to accept that there is no universal attitude to the use of wildlife, or rather which part of the wildlife is acceptable to touch.

It is ethically problematic when "the whale" is given such a symbolic value, at least if one is not willing to consider this attitude as a culturally based phenomenon. In the same way as "New Speak" in George Orwell’s 1984, the anti-whaling side is seeking to establish a way of looking at the world and imposing linguistic rules to create a way of thinking that makes it impossible to think differently. This creates a problem for the debate, and such a line of argumentation does not help us decide whether meat from one mammal species is more acceptable than from another. It is a scary development, but it is a fact that has found fertile soil in urban societies where knowledge of resource management is not particularly extensive.

I maintain that the current argumentation against whaling must be regarded as a form of cultural imperialism, sometimes racism, and also as contempt for other human beings.

It is probably neither ethically sound nor environmentally prudent to base the management of living marine resources on the commandment in George Orwell’s "Animal Farm": "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

My answer to the question raised above is therefore that there is no ethical, logical or universal reason why whales should not be used as food for people. This position does not deny any society for some cultural reason to prefer non consumptive use or no use at all of these resources. We only want people to accept that cultural pluralism exists. We now see some development in that direction. Both in Australia and the U.S., which are both anti-whaling nations, we can see reflections in newspapers on the aspects of cultural imperialism in the whaling debate[iv].

While talking about Australia I will at this stage mention an episode at the annual meeting of IWC in South Korea in June this year. The Australian delegation regularly submits that there are no killing methods for whales that are acceptable. It states that it is impossible to shoot a moving animal from a moving platform while at the same time assuring a clean and painless kill. During the meeting it was made public on BBC and Internet that the Australian Government was planning to shoot 60.000 camels from helicopters in the near future. Camels, I believe, are as sentient animals as whales. At least Arab delegates at the meeting expressed themselves to that effect. Therefore, we are now looking forward to evaluating the results of the camel killing method used in Australia at next year’s IWC workshop on whale killing methods where the intention is to compare the effectiveness of the killing of large terrestrial animals with the killing of whales. The meeting encouraged all member countries to provide such information.

Killing of marine mammals is not prohibited by international law, but some nations have decided to prohibit it within their jurisdiction. The U.S. see no need for whaling and has prohibited this activity within its jurisdiction, except that it defends the aboriginal whale hunt in Alaska and in the state of Washington. At the same time the U.S. regards the killing of whales in other countries as disrespect for its internal laws and consequently has established possibilities for applying sanctions against those who do not have the same legal protection of marine mammals as the U.S. Norway has been certified under the Pelly Amendment four times for its whaling policy.

India has for many years been among those who condemn whaling. To my knowledge it has not condemned those countries that accept to eat beef, although the cow has a special position in Indian religion and politics.

New developments in the whaling debate

Intellectuals and intergovernmental organizations have started to study the problem of giving some species preferential treatment. The Dutch lawyer Eric Jaap Molenaar has written an article on “The Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations”. He anticipates that “ it will not take a long time before the question arises whether, in the face of increased abundance, preferential treatment (ban on hunting) of marine mammals is still warranted”.[v]

In another article[vi] he promotes the idea that it may be obligatory or necessary to kill marine mammals in order to save the bio diversity or to make possible the recovery of depleted fish stocks in certain ecosystems. Thus, it can be questioned why whales should have preferential treatment as there are no exact criteria for deciding that one animal species should be treated different from another, only subjective criteria exist. I would like to add that in this context it should also be noted that the UN Convention on Biological Diversity provides no guidance in this respect.

The reasons given by Australian authorities for embarking upon the killing of the camels mentioned above were that the camels ate so much of the grass and drank so much of the water that it reduced the number of sheep that could be bred in the country. It is easy to see consequences like these on land. Under water some more complicated studies have to be done to establish to what extent such relations exist between species.

The Committee on Fisheries (COFI) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) discussed during its meeting in March 2005 to include on its agenda for its next session in 2007 an item on Ecosystem Approach to Management. Many members reconfirmed their strong support for an earlier request to FAO to conduct research on the interaction between marine mammals and fisheries, and they desired further activities in this area. Many other members noted the importance and urgency of the application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries. They also referred to the primacy of the IWC with respect to the conservation and management of whales in the marine environment and expressed their concern that discussion on whaling in COFI might detract form other important fisheries issues. This statement confirms that it is very difficult to have a rational discussion on the management of marine living resources if the marine mammals are to be included.

However, in order to apply the ecosystem approach to fisheries it is necessary to identify and describe the structure, components and functioning of relevant marine ecosystems, diet composition at different trophic levels and food webs, species interaction and predator-prey relationships. This is a huge task, and it cannot be done without killing predators and study the stomach content.

Thus, if we are going to establish the content of the interaction between whales and fish we have to kill whales for scientific purposes. The alternative is to exclude the top predators in studies of the ecosystems, which will be problematic for science. The majority of IWC members most strongly condemn research involving the killing of whales. The litany is that lethal research on whales should be abolished as it not needed.

Some of us find it difficult to embark upon ecosystem based management without taking all elements into consideration – to the extent possible. At least we want to know what expenses are involved in non consumptive use of the whale resources.

Concluding remarks

I find it difficult to accept that the IWC can decide if whaling is ethically acceptable or the opposite, depending on who is conducting the whaling. Either the whale resources are for consumptive use for all of us in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), or they are not.

In my mind the aboriginal peoples are fully entitled to continue their traditional use of the whale resources. Norway also supports the setting of quotas for aboriginal hunt if the targeted stocks can sustain the harvest.

The problem arises when people who are not regarded as aboriginals are deprived of their traditional rights. If a fisherman in Norway is not allowed to hunt whales like his predecessors did because his society has reached a level that is regarded as more elevated and the economy as more developed than that of the aboriginals in other countries, it can be deducted that whaling can only be tolerated in a society that is regarded as inferior to our western society. This is a kind of cultural imperialism, or even racism, which I don’t find ethically acceptable.

The fact that the meat is distributed for nothing within a limited area does not – at least in my mind – justify the killing of whales if the killing is not acceptable per se. On the other hand, the marketing of whale products cannot be the main argument against whaling in a society where most things are commercialized.

This summer I read with great interest “The Basques History of the World” by Kurlansky, and particularly what he wrote about whaling. According to Kurlansky the French historian Jules Michelet wrote the following on whaling about 150 years ago:

“Many say that the first to take on this harrowing adventure must have been fanatic-eccentrics and dare-devils. It would not have begun, they say, with reasonable Nordics, but only with the Basques, those giddy adventurers.”[vii]

Well, we know that whaling has taken place in Norway as long as we have a written history, and possibly long before that. The first legal regulation of the whaling in Norway was in an act which dates back to 950. But we probably did not export any of the products at that time.

The Basques, however, found an eager market for their whale products already in the seventh and eighth century in Europe, where whale meat became a staple of the diet. The reason was that the Church forbade its adherents to eat “red-blooded” meat on holy days, and about half of the calendar was holy days, including every Friday. But meat from animals living in water, including whales, was permitted, and whale meat was the allowable red meat available.

As we know the large whales were over exploited in the North Atlantic and the supplies could not be sustained. Part of the reason why there is no demand for whale meat in central Europe now-a-days, may be that the diet is not dictated by the Church to the same extent as in earlier centuries. This may also have an indirect influence on the debate on whaling.

Like the Basque people we Norwegians have so far not abandoned our rural roots, and our country is also less urbanized that most of the OECD countries. We have not to the same extent as the rest of the Western society entered “ the post domestic period” that the historian Richard W. Bulliet[viii] calls the period following the epoch when most people had close contact with domestic animals. But unlike the Basque people, we are a sovereign country, and consequently, nobody has so far been able to stop the sustainable Norwegian whaling. We continue to believe that we have the right to go on whaling, and we have very solid arguments to defend this position, arguments that can stand to be ethically scrutinized.

We are now, in accordance with international obligations, striving to establish the foundation for ecosystem based management of our marine living resources. We want to manage the whale resources as part of the ecosystems.

[1] Åge Jonsgård (1992), Den norske vågehvalfangsten. Publikasjon nr 27. Kommandør Chr. Christensens Hvalfangstmuseum. Sandefjord. Pp 75.

[1] Kalland, Arne (1994) 11 Essays on Whale and Man: “Super Whale”. High North Alliance

[1] D’Amato, A. and Chopra, S.K. American Journal of International Law 1991:27

[1] - Christof, Nicolas D. Harvest the Whales, Op-Ed, New York Times, 20 august 2002, and

- Editorial, Canberra Times, 25 May 2005

[1] Molenaar, Erik Jaap, Marine Mammals:Tthe Role of Ethics and Ecosystem Considerations, Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 6: 31-51, 2003

[1] Molenaar, Erik Jaap, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management, Commercial Fisheries, Marine Mammals and the 2001 Reykjavik Declaration in the Context of International Law, The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 17 No 4

[1] Michelet, Jules, La Mer, 1856

[1] Bulliet, Richard W., Interview with Fathom, Internet publication (http://www.fathom.com)

Some elements in this paper are based on an unpublished study by Jan Arve Gjøvik (2004), Fangst av hval og sel.