Of Whales, Levies and Anarchy

Humpback Whale (click to go to the original site)

Last week Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Associate Professor Clevo Wilson gained considerable attention in the National and International media outlets for his proposal to end whaling by placing a levy on whale watching tourism, at about $A5 per person, and paying the proceeds as compensation for Japan to cease its whaling activities  in the Southern Ocean. This story was also widely carried in Japan itself. Now killing whales is one thing that Sapidblog is passionately opposed to and we started thinking about sending Professor Wilson a sharply worded email missive about the craziness of this idea of rewarding the culprits. This seems to be a common response, for example, to the article in the Courier Mail ["Cash plan to end Japanese whaling"] Bazza of Brisbane commented that:

This Whale killing by Japan is an illegal act. Why should we pay a criminals to [sic] stop illegal acts. Next you will want us to pay burglers [sic] to stop robbing houses, or pay bad guys to stop robbing banks!

Though we regard killing whales in the Southern Ocean as being immoral, it’s harder to demonstrate that whaling is actually illegal or criminal. This is an important point that we’ll return to, but for the moment, let’s agree that proving whaling is illegal is difficult, then what hope is there for a passionate whale conservationist? There are 4 possible avenues to pursue whale conservation, as described in turn below:  

Avenue 1: We could wait and see what happens in Australia’s dispute against Japan in the International Court of Justice (ICJ – sometimes called the “World Court”). But for this you’ll need the patience of Job since the published schedule of pleadings indicate that Australia has until May 2011 to make its petition and that Japan has until March 2012 to make a counter-petition. Even after that there is time reserved for further processing! Evidently, the wheels of Justice grind very slowly.

Avenue 2: We could try to appeal through the International Whaling Commission (IWC) which is charged with regulating Whaling.  In 1986 the IWC  successfully brought about the international moratorium on commercial whaling which, in the intervening period, has seen whale populations replenished and has saved some whale species from the verge of extinction. However, since 1986 the IWC has become deadlocked and ineffective. Further, since the ICW is not backed by Treaty it has no effective way of enforcing its regulations. For instance, consider the ways in which the 3 pro-whaling nations of Norway, Japan and Iceland have continued whaling in spite of the 1986 moratorium:

• Norway recommenced commercial whaling  in 1993 on the grounds that it had objected to the 1986 moratorium and was therefore exempt. For the 3-year period 2006-8, Norway have reported commercial catches of 545, 597 and 536 whales each year. Despite this, Norway still remains a member nation of the IWC. 
• Although Japan have observed the zero-catch limit for commercial whaling, they have used the research provisions of the 1986 whaling moratorium, to continue whaling under scientific catch permits. Permits which have, for the 3 years 2006-8, allowed Japan to catch 511, 551 and 681 whales each year in the Southern Ocean alone (this doesn’t include whales caught in the North Pacific and in coastal waters off Japan).
• Iceland withdrew from the IWC in 1992 but appealed for readmission in 2002 despite indicating that they held a reservation to the 1986 moratorium and would recommence commercial whaling in 2006 (which they have since carried out). The decision to re-admit Iceland under these circumstances proved controversial but was upheld (18 in favour and 18  against) after Iceland was given the right to participate in the vote in favour of its own re-admission. 

Additionally, at the 1994 meeting of the IWC the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was established to reduce the pressure of whaling on whale populations. Under the research provisions, Japan is permitted to whale in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (which is only a sanctuary from commercial whaling – not whaling under the guise of research). Finally, at the most recent meeting of the IWC in 2010 Greenland (Denmark) was granted permission to revise its whaling catch for 2010/11 under the provision for indigenous catch limits, including a new limit of 9  Humpback whales, which are still considered to be endangered. 

In summary, the 3 pro-commercial whaling nations (Norway, Japan and Iceland) have succeeded in rendering the majority of other non-whaling and indigenous-whaling member nations of the IWC (currently standing at 88 total member nations)  ineffective in altering the status quo since 1986.

Avenue 3: Then there is the anarchist Direct Action program against Japanese Whaling by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, led by Paul Watson. The efforts of the Sea Shepherds against Japanese Whaling have been popularised  in the Discovery Channel-based series Whale Wars, which is now into its 3rd year. The Sea Shepherds use some of the following tactics against the Japanese Whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean: throwing butyric acid ”stink bombs” onto the decks, placing long-mooring lines called “prop foulers” into the course of vessels to disable propellers, boarding of Japanese vessels by Sea Shepherd crew members (more detail shown in the YouTube video below). This certainly makes for riveting TV but is it effective in stopping Whaling?

The Whale Wars between the Japanese Whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean and the Sea Shepherds has been going on for 6 years but each year seems to signal a further escalation in the conflict. Earlier this year the Sea Shepherd vessel the Ady Gil was sunk after a collision with the Shōnan Maru No. 2 and loss of life was only narrowly avoided.  One can only assume that further escalation in the whaling season 2010/11 could lead to actual loss of life.

Ironically, Jun Morikawa (1) argues that, the Sea Shepherd’s confrontational tactics have only strengthened  the Japanese resolve to use whaling  “as a talismanic symbol of Japanese identity and a touchstone of nationalism“ and to assert that: “anti-whaling activists are guilty of cultural imperialism” (quoted from the Japan Times).

Avenue 4: This brings us back to considering the whale tourism levy proposal of Professor Clevo Wilson that we started with. After setting this proposal in the context of the international whale conservation and management issues, as discussed above, this is looking like a much more attractive option. The core of this proposal is that whales can be considered to be a “Common Property” resource where the total net benefit is lower when the appropriators (in this case the whale tourists vs the Japanese whalers) act independently than when they coordinate their activities. Currently, whale tourist operators don’t see the connection between their business and that of the Japanese whalers (nor vice versa). Which is why the proposal so far has generated mainly negative reactions.

However, if the whalers were able to realise that they could derive benefit from the increased income generated from eco-tourism in whales (more than US$2 billion dollars in expenditure annually – according to the QUT media release) then they would be more inclined to change their way of life and traditions. Likewise, if the whale tourist operators were able to see the benefit to their businesses of having more plentiful whales, and whales coming closer to the shoreline, then they would be more willing to compensate the whalers for taking fewer whales and thus ensuring that their livelihood is maintained (along with longevity of life for the whales).

From some of the media releases reporting Professor Wilson, I assume that the whale levy would be voluntarily paid by beneficiaries of whale tourism, i.e., the eco-tourism operators through a minor increase in charges to the paying public. From what I have read, I get no sense that the whale levy would be mandated by the power of the State; it would be purely voluntary out of rational self-interest. It was this realisation that prompted me to write this article. I finally tweaked to what was really going on here: he’s proposing an anarchic solution! An anarcho-capitalist solution sure – but anarchy nonetheless. We overcome the stagnant-mire that nation-state power has got us into – be it through the International Court or the International Whaling Commission – by taking collective-individal action and bypassing the State altogether.

Conclusions: International whaling is one example of an array of complex global sustainability problems that we face: a complex global problem for which the conventional Nation-State power has been demonstrably unable to resolve. Interestingly, looking at the avenues above proposed for solution to the global whaling dilemma, two avenues both involve anarchy (in the philosophical sense) through either the direct action of the Sea Shepherds or the anarcho-capitalism proposed by Clevo Wilson.  If whaling is any guide, I guess there are somethings that national governments don’t do well, such as balancing global needs with national desires.

Reference:

(1) WHALING IN JAPAN: Power, Politics and Diplomacy, by Jun Morikawa. Hurst and Company, 2009.

Advertisement