 |
Congressional
Research Service |
Carl Ek CONTENTS:
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
97-55 F
December 31, 1996
BACKGROUND
POLICY ISSUES
-- ECOLOGICAL ISSUES
-- ETHICAL ISSUES
-- POLITICAL ISSUES
ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES
-- INVOKE PELLY AMENDMENT SANCTIONS
-- ACCEPT A SCIENCE-BASED SOLUTION
-- CONTINUE THE "GOOD FAITH DIALOGUE"SUMMARY
On May 16, 1996, 23 Members of Congress sent a letter to President Clinton expressing their concern over Norway's announcement that it intended to permit its whalers to kill as many as 425 minke whales that year. The co-signers urged the President "to take decisive action to prevent Norway from resuming its illicit whale harvesting," including the possible use of economic sanctions. For its 1997 hunt, Norway has increased its quota to 580 animals.
The Norwegian government strongly argues that their whaling activities are neither irresponsible from an ecological standpoint nor illicit from a legal one. According to a 1996 abundance estimate, as yet unreviewed by the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Scientific Committee, there are about 118,000 minke whales in the northeast and central Atlantic Ocean that are accessible to Norwegian whalers; if the abundance estimate is accurate, Norway's self-imposed 1996 hunt quota of 425 is unlikely to significantly reduce the minke whale population. Because the Norwegian government lodged an official objection when the IWC established a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986 by adopting zero quotas for such whaling, Norway is not bound by the moratorium. Norway complied with the moratorium until 1993, when it resumed commercial whaling.
For more than two decades, the United States government has supported a moratorium on commercial whaling. After working to ensure that any resumption of commercial whaling would be sustainable, the U.S. government began in the early 1990s to oppose more forcefully all commercial whaling. Most opponents of commercial whaling object on ethical or ecological grounds; however, important political considerations also arise in the debate. The current dispute with Norway over whaling is affected by a number of such factors, not least among them being that Norway has long been one of America's closest allies. U.S. policymakers may consider a number of options vis-a-vis Norway, ranging from pressuring Norway with trade sanctions, as urged by several environmental groups, to supporting a quota for northeastern Atlantic minke whales, calculated using the catch-limit formula developed by the IWC's Scientific Committee, as urged by the Norwegians.
Some analysts view the Norwegian whaling issue as one chapter of a continuing international debate over the interconnections between trade and environment, in which the United States has considered the use of economic sanctions as one method of reaching beyond its traditional jurisdiction, compelling other nations to adopt similar environmental goals.
BACKGROUND
It is estimated that more than 2.5 million large whales have been killed by commercial whalers during the past 4 centuries. (See Endnote 1.) Today, most stocks of large whales are far less abundant than when commercial whaling began. (See Endnote 2.) Although Norwegians have been hunting whales for more than a thousand years, historians maintain that commercial whaling is a relatively modern enterprise, beginning for the Norwegians in the 19th Century, and that Norwegian small-type (small vessel) coastal whaling was established only early in this century. In the early decades of this century, when the industry faced increasing competition caused by the substitution of petroleum products for whale oil, some of the world's major whaling nations began to fear that low prices could harm their pelagic (i.e., high seas, as opposed to coastal) whaling industries. Consequently, these nations negotiated an agreement to limit the number of whales killed. Other nations, concerned over the decline of certain whale stocks, attempted to establish international control under the auspices of the League of Nations.
In 1946, several nations, including Norway, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, negotiated the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). The ICRW, administered by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), states that "increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the numbers of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources." Toward that end, the ICRW provides for "the proper conservation of whales stocks" to "make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry." The ICRW notes that member states shared a broad interest "in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by whale stocks," and that the IWC would take action to provide for the "optimum utilization of the whale resources."
In the 1950s and 1960s, Norway and other nations were eager for the IWC to establish quotas because whale stocks were continuing to dwindle. Norway withdrew its pelagic whaling fleet from Antarctic waters in 1968 and confined itself to small-type coastal whaling. They supported making the IWC regime effective for achieving realistic whale catch levels and argued for improved scientific methods and urged the IWC to give greater weight to the recommendations of its Scientific Committee when agreeing to whale catch levels.
By the 1970s, support for a total prohibition of commercial whaling began to build. In Stockholm in 1972, delegates to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment called for a moratorium on commercial whaling, and the United States (which ceased commercial whaling in 1971) supported this resolution. Throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s, the character of the IWC began to change as additional non-whaling nations became party to the ICRW and sought to increase the protection afforded whales. In 1982, a three-quarters majority (See Endnote 3.) of IWC members accepted a proposal for a moratorium on (a zero-quota period for) (See Endnote 4.) commercial whaling, fully effective in 1986; the motion also called for a comprehensive assessment of the moratorium's effects on whale stocks to be undertaken by 1990. (See Endnote 5.) In addition to permitting whale stocks to recover, the moratorium was intended to provide an opportunity to deal with issues of scientific uncertainty and lack of data through the development of a Revised Management Procedure (RMP) that would assure that any quotas set would be sustainable, as well as to develop adequate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
The moratorium decision was not accepted unanimously, however. The ICRW permits member nations voting in the minority to "object" to an IWC Schedule decision, and thereby not be bound by a ruling. Norway lodged an objection to the moratorium decision. (See Endnote 6.) Thus, Norway's current whaling activities are in compliance with the ICRW. (See Endnote 7.)
The Norwegians contend that the complete ban on commercial whaling is contrary to the ICRW's mandate. They argue, moreover, that the comprehensive assessment of the moratorium's effect on whale stocks has not been undertaken as Norway had contemplated during the debate on the moratorium. However, the IWC's Scientific Committee noted that, from a biological standpoint, four years was too short a period in which to determine whether the moratorium had helped over-exploited stocks begin to recover. The Norwegians emphasize that the IWC was established as a whaling management organization, not as a whale protection or preservation body (which could preclude killing whales), and was aimed at promoting sustainable whaling. Norwegians assert that, in accordance with contemporary international law, IWC members should adhere to the ICRW.
Some governments as well as many environmental and animal protection advocates disagree with the Norwegian viewpoint, holding the whale preservation efforts of the IWC to be a legitimate expression of evolving IWC authority as voted by the ICRW parties. They contend that whales are not the property of any single nation and that unilateral action, such as that taken by Norway, is unjustified and potentially harmful. The 1992 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro identified cetaceans (whales and dolphins) as a special group of animals, distinct from fish.
| Top | Next |
 NetPets® Main Page |  The Fish Center |