The Government of Japan
1992
The purpose of this paper is to provide a full explanation of how the term subsistence is currently defined and used in recent scientific studies, and to make clear the relationship that exists between subsistence and those economic systems with which it is integrated in varying degree.
Much of the critical research on the nature of subsistence has been carried out in Arctic hunting and fishing societies, most of which are heavily dependent upon harvesting and consuming marine living resources. In view of this, particular attention will be given to those recent research understandings of subsistence that are likely to assist in resolving the continuing definitional problems encountered during IWC discussion.
INTRODUCTION
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) recognizes three forms of whaling:
those conducted for either commercial, aboriginal-subsistence, or research
purposes.
The IWC is empowered by contracting parties to set harvest quotas for stocks
of certain species of whale that are subject to either commercial or
aboriginal-subsistence whaling interest.
At the present time a zero quota (i.e. a whaling moratorium) applies to all
stocks of baleen and sperm whales subject to commercial exploitation.
Aboriginal-subsistence whale fisheries are not subject to this whaling moratorium. This exemption even applies to so-called 'protection stocks' which, under IWC management rules, are considered so seriously depleted as to require full protection. In such cases, quotas are set at low levels in order to partially satisfy the subsistence need of the whale-dependent communities and at the same time allow recovery of the depleted whale stocks to occur.
However, at the present time IWC has a problem in providing a similar selective exemption in order to accommodate the subsistence needs of whale-dependent communities when the community members are non-aboriginal people.
This paper looks at some of the reasons underlying this present difficulty. For example, it appears that some participating in IWC discussions fail to recognize that non-aboriginal people also practice subsistence. There is a failure to recognize that 'subsistence' and 'commercial' are false opposites and therefore cannot alone provide an inappropriate basis for regulating whale fisheries.
Over the past several decades definitions of 'aboriginal-subsistence' (at the IWC) and 'subsistence' (in North American legal and regulatory practice) have changed as changing circumstances and scientific understanding improved. This report is offered as a contribution to better decision-making in respect to subsistence whale fisheries, whether conducted by aboriginal or non-aboriginal people.
SEMANTIC AND CLASSIFICATORY MUDDLES
The term 'subsistence' in everyday speech commonly implies bare existence or
a livelihood that only provides in minimal degree life's necessities.
This is only one of several definitions of the term 'subsistence' provided in
dictionaries of the English language. (See Note 1.)
In the context of the IWC, 'subsistence' is generally linked to an equally ambiguous term 'aboriginal'. Ambiguity exists, not only because the term 'aboriginal' is not defined, but because it is considered as interchangeable with terms such as 'indigenous' and 'native' which in fact have quite different meanings that vary according to context.
It seems likely that making a critical distinction between the terms aboriginal, indigene and native in whaling matters could indeed be useful, for in many fishery and wildlife regimes preferred access is often provided to users who demonstrate long-term dependence upon and priority use of local resources.
It appears that for many it is difficult to accept the idea that non-aboriginal people engage in subsistence activities. Though in IWC documents the terms 'native' and 'indigenous' are used interchangeably with 'aboriginal', only some natives (e.g. Inuit/Yuit, Greenlanders and Bequians) are permitted by IWC to practice subsistence, whereas some other natives (of Iceland, Japan, Korea, Norway or Spain) cannot do so.
The main reason for this distinction appears to relate to the belief that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can be categorically distinguished by reference to a simple classification system involving such opposed characteristics as:
"primitive:advanced (in respect to technology)
simple:complex (social and political arrangements)
traditional:non-traditional ('culture'; see Note 2)
non-commercial:commercial (economic transactions)
non-monetized:monetized (economic exchanges)
local:non-local (resource acquisition)
From this it seems that aboriginal whaling, at least in idealized form, is characteristically 'primitive', 'simple', 'traditional', 'non-commercial', 'non-monetized' and 'local' in nature. In contrast to this ideal type is 'commercial whaling', also treated as a single idealized, and equally unreal, type.
However true such characterizations of aboriginal whaling might have been in the past, in the modern world they no longer apply.
CHANGING NOTIONS ABOUT ABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING
In 1931 the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW)
provided an exemption for whaling carried out by aboriginal people providing
they only used "canoes, pirogues or other exclusively native craft propelled
by oars or sails" and did not use firearms in whaling.
The 1946 revisions to the ICRW removed the earlier restriction placed on the use of modern technology, and in 1964 the requirement that only aboriginal people could engage in aboriginal whaling was also removed.
At the present time it appears that the principal regulatory requirement to be met in aboriginal whaling is that the product is to be used locally by aboriginal people. The term 'aboriginal' is not defined, though in definitions of 'aboriginal subsistence whaling' and 'local aboriginal consumption' (see below) the term is used interchangeably with the terms 'indigenous' and 'native'. According to a 1981 IWC report:
"Aboriginal subsistence whaling means whaling, for purposes of aboriginal consumption carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native people who share strong community, familial, social and cultural ties related to a continuing traditional dependence on whaling and on the use of whales."Local aboriginal consumption means the traditional uses of whale products by local aboriginal, indigenous or native communities in meeting their nutritional, subsistence or cultural requirements. The term includes trade in items which are by-products of subsistence catches."
In summary, it is evident that within the IWC a progressive broadening of the criteria under which aboriginal subsistence whaling is allowed has occurred. First, the requirement that only traditional, non-mechanized equipment could be used was changed, then processing of the product outside of the community was permitted, then aboriginal whaling could be carried out by non-aboriginal people, and finally trade in by-products of the hunt became permissible. These changes are explicitly stated in the written rules (the Schedule) of the International Whaling Commission.
In the past two br three years there have been two implicit 'rule' changes in respect to aboriginal subsistence whaling, that recognize the necessity of commercial sale and non-local consumption of whale meat in aboriginal-subsistence whaling operations in certain aboriginal whaling communities (see Dahl 1989a; Petersen 1989; Josefson 1990; Caulfield 1991a).
THE MEANING OF SUBSISTENCE
To the non-specialist the term subsistence relates in important ways to an
individual's economic and material circumstances.
However, studies by specialists consistently stress that the importance of
subsistence activities only in part relates to economic ends.
For example, the critical importance of fish and wildlife harvesting to any
group can be assessed "by the extent to which that activity is central to
reproducing its social relations of production, for example, through the
socialization of children, mutual aid and sharing, and the reinforcement of
stewardship and use arrangements with respect to land and resources" (Usher
1981: 61).
In support of the notion that subsistence involves issues outside of the economic sphere, it is frequently noted that subsistence harvesting often persists when it is very expensive in monetary terms and in some cases, questionably cost-effective (Veltre and Veltre 1983: 185-193; Dahl 1989b: 35). For example, a decade ago, the estimated capital cost of an Alaskan bowhead hunting crew's equipment was estimated at more than $10,000 (Worl 1980: 312-313; IWC 1982: 39), and annual operating costs to the captain were about $6,000 (Kruse 1986: 149).
Similar high costs have been noted for Canadian (Wenzel 1991: Table 6.13) and Greenlandic hunters (Caulfield 1991a: Table 9; 1991b: 18). In terms of realizing strictly economic goals, these costs certainly appear large when the probability of the crew successfully landing a whale may be quite small.
To explain this apparent economic irrationality requires that the true nature of the term 'subsistence' be understood. In its most general yet technically correct formulation, subsistence consists of those cultural values that socially integrate the economic relations of particular groups of people into their daily lives and environment (Wenzel 1991: 57). Thus, for subsistence to continue to operate depends primarily upon secure social relations, and only secondarily upon individual skills and special equipment.
Subsistence then "is a set of culturally established responsibilities, rights and obligations that affect every man, woman and child each day" (ibid: 60). Subsistence activities are those actions that contribute to the continued functioning of various essentially non-material aspects of the everyday life of individuals and a community.
A subsistence society is understood to be a group of people whose production, use and consumption of local resources occurs in ways that are consistent with traditional patterns maintained by kinship-based social structures. Such societies possess detailed traditional knowledge of their environment, and particularly those resources important in their food-producing and ceremonial activities. Traditional knowledge, required for harvesting and processing subsistence resources, is transmitted from generation to generation principally by oral means and requires an extended period of learning through experience. This knowledge and experience are most often obtained by the individual maintaining close association with an appropriate member of the local community, who is often related by kinship or by some other socially meaningful arrangement.
Subsistence activities, with their emphasis upon local production and consumption, enhance social relationships within a local community. However, they may also serve social and cultural ends among members of a larger, non-local, community of people who are linked through shared language, history, or culture (see Note 2).
Given the importance accorded to kinship in tradition-based societies, the ideal production unit continues to be based upon skilled individuals at a household or family level of organization. In such societies, large corporate groups and a highly capitalized technological infrastructure (the basis of the contrasting capitalist mode of production) are not appropriate means of food production (Usher 1981 : 58). Indeed, in subsistence societies it is the relations among people that wildlife harvesting generates and sustains, and not the relations between people and resources, that are of paramount importance (ibid: 61).
The importance of harvesting local food resources to the health and reproduction of subsistence societies resides, therefore, in the social values embedded in the various components of the subsistence complex. It is the result of the seasonal repetition and transfer of appropriate knowledge and behaviour to succeeding generations that important aspects, indeed core values, of the culture of the group are reproduced over time, and the cultural identity of the individual and society thereby assured:
"It is through capturing, processing, distributing, celebration, and consuming naturally occurring fish and animal populations that subsistence societies define the nutritional, physical health, economic, social, cultural, and religious components of their way of life." (Langdon 1984: 3)
TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF SUBSISTENCE
In an extensive review of the substantial literature detailing subsistence
activities occurring throughout Alaska, these well-defined food-extractive
systems are characterized as possessing:
1) a mixed economy, with mutually supportive market and subsistence sectors;
2) a domestic mode of production, where production capital, land and labour are controlled by extended kin-based production units;
3) a stable and complex seasonal round of production activities within the community, tied to the seasonal arrival, and variable yields, of fish and game resources;
4) substantial non-commercial networks for sharing, distributing and exchange of food and materials;
5) traditional systems of land/water use and occupancy;
6) complex inter-generation systems of belief, knowledge and values associated with resource uses, passed on between generations as the cultural and oral traditions and customs of the society.
(After Wolfe 1983: 272)
In respect to the nature of these 'mixed economies' referred to above, the interrelatedness of subsistence and market economies is immediately apparent if one considers the extent to which dependence upon imported and purchased goods needed to engage in subsistence activities has increased during, at least, this present century. For many Alaskan natives "participation in the market sector of the economy through the commercial sale of fish and furs and through remunerative employment enables the hunter to participate in subsistence activities" (Wolfe 1986: 109).
In view of the high degree of dependence that subsistence harvesters have upon access to cash, it has frequently been observed in Alaskan aboriginal societies, that increasing cash incomes correlates with larger, not smaller, quantities of subsistence-derived food in the householders' diet (Wolfe 1986: 113; Kruse 1991: 320; Langdon 1991a: 283).
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE DEFINITIONS OF SUBSISTENCE
In 1978 the Alaska State Legislature passed a subsistence law that
recognized "the needs, customs and traditions of Alaskan residents" and
granted subsistence use priority over other (commercial or recreational/sport)
use of renewable resources.
In 1980 the U.S. Congress passed a federal law, The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), granting rural residents' priority over urban users of subsistence resources on federal lands.
However, a series of court cases in Alaska since 1985 (see Caldwell 1991) resulted in rural residents' priority use of subsistence resources being challenged, and subsequently ruled unconstitutional. As a result of these court decisions, there is considerable uncertainty at the present time over who in Alaska may or may not engage in subsistence, though current proposals coming before the State Legislature early in 1992, will likely reaffirm the priority of subsistence use over other uses of the State's fish and wildlife resources (Campbell 1991: 10).
In Alaska, the State Boards of Fish and Game do not place trade or economic gain outside of subsistence use:
"... use patterns in which the hunting or fishing effort or the products of the effort are distributed or shared among others within a definable community of persons, including through customary trade, barter, sharing and gift-giving... [such] a community may include specific villages or towns with a historical preponderance of subsistence users, and encompasses individuals, families, or groups who in fact meet the criteria described in this subsection;"... use patterns which include reliance for subsistence purposes upon a wide diversity of the fish and game resources of an area, and in which that pattern of subsistence uses provides substantial economic, cultural, social, and nutritional elements of the subsistence users life."
(Boards of Fish and Game, December 1981, quoted in Langdon 1984: 26-27)
BROADENING THE BASIS OF SUBSISTENCE IN ALASKA
It would appear that the proposed new subsistence law in Alaska, in addition
to reaffirming that subsistence use has priority over other uses of renewable
resources, proposes moving away from the notion that subsistence is related to
long-term 'customary and traditional' use of resources.
In its place the focus is placed upon a particular way of life.
The proposed legislation will allow any resident having at least one year of residence in Alaska to sign a declaration stating that subsistence is and has been a principal characteristic of his or her way of life for three of the past five years.
In the current Alaskan proposals, subsistence is defined as the taking and use of wild fish and game as part of a way of life. Among six stated criteria to be satisfied for resource use to be considered subsistence use, one is that the use "provides substantial economic, cultural, social or nutritional elements of the subsistence user's life" (Campbell 1991: 10).
Clearly, this proposed new legal order is designed to allow all those having lived in Alaska for at least one year the choice of engaging in subsistence activities, irrespective of their cultural background, economic status or place of residence in the state. Consequently it will allow a person engaging in commercial or recreational use to qualify as a subsistence user of wildlife and fish resources. Subsistence is confirmed as having important economic and food producing value to the user at the present time, irrespective of its importance, or lack of importance, to the earlier circumstances of the current user and his or her family. According to the Governor of Alaska:
"Subsistence is not something that can be defined only by where you live, or how much money you make, or what race you are, but rather by how you live. In discussions throughout the state, there has been general agreement that subsistence is a way of life."
(Hickel 1991).
THE USE OF MONETIZED TRANSACTIONS IN SUBSISTENCE
As these United States regulations make explicit, monetary transactions are
understood to be a necessary part of everyday subsistence harvesting.
Indeed, cash is only one medium of exchange among many, thus "the introduction
of cash into this system, either from wages or the community store, does not
necessarily indicate that the exchange is commercial rather than subsistence"
(Lonner 1986: 21).
In one current court case the inland people of Tanana claim that their commercial sale of salmon roe harvested incidental to subsistence fishing constitutes customary trade, as allowed in the definition of subsistence (Caldwell 1991: 8). In other cases before the courts, the coastal Tlingit and Haida of southeast Alaska argue that their commercial sale of herring roe on kelp is culturally consistent with their subsistence use of this resource since at least the time of contact (Langdon 1991b).
In Greenland, as in Canada and Alaska, those occupationally classed as hunters usually constitute the low-income groups in society, such that financial compensation is required if a continued supply of the valued products they alone can produce is to reach others in society. The most suitable compensation occurs by way of money-based trading in the town markets or through cash purchases from the hunters by wholesale buyers (see Table 1).
It is by these rational means that the important distribution channels for traditional, indeed staple, foods are maintained in even the most rural and traditional parts of contemporary Greenlandic society (IWC 1989). Indeed, in respect to Greenland aboriginal marine hunting and fishing activities, it has been concluded that the differentiation between commercial and non-commercial activity is quite meaningless (Dahl 1989b: 40).
The Alaskan situation is similar to that existing in Greenland. In his comprehensive review of Alaskan subsistence practices, Langdon writes: "the one most important characteristic... is that subsistence is now integrated with the cash economy in the lives of all Alaskan Natives" (Langdon 1984: 5). That study points out that commercial exchange of subsistence products occurs in over half of the twelve native regions of Alaska, including, e.g. the Arctic Slope, Bristol Bay, the Bering Straits (ibid: 8; see e.g. Worl 1980: 314).
In a study of beluga whale hunting in northwest Alaska, the 1982 cash price of the whale meat and muktuk being sold locally was $4.50 per pound, and in food stores in the distant city of Anchorage was $7.00 per pound (Feldman 1986: 159). However, in Alaska as in Canada, it appears that in particular native communities some subsistence items are not considered appropriate for selling (for cash) due to their high symbolic or ritual significance (Fienup-Riordan 1986: 178).
DOES SUBSISTENCE PRODUCTION DIFFER FROM COMMODITY PRODUCTION?
Subsistence activities, as detailed above, occur within a mixed economy that
necessarily includes both market and non-market transactions, both of which
may involve cash exchange.
The use of cash or the use of the market therefore does not provide a critical
distinction between subsistence and commercial operations.
Rather, the distinction between subsistence and commercial activities are to be sought in the degree to which market forces, as opposed to essentially non-market forces, determine the purpose and extent of the economic activity. These non-market forces usually involve such social institutions and concerns as family, various alliances extending beyond the family, community identity, and social status and prestige. Market forces, involving such strictly economic factors as maximizing financial profitability and competitive economic advantage (increased market share) do not apply to subsistence activities.
The reason that subsistence persists in such non-industrialized societies, despite the interaction that occurs with powerful commercial forces that sustain the dominant society, is because subsistence satisfies particularly important non-economic needs in such societies, needs that can only be satisfied by either engaging in subsistence or being enabled to consume the products of subsistence. It is the continuing commitment of members of these (often small and/or distinct and peripheral) socio-cultural communities to their distinctive identity, that sustains subsistence production even as it diminishes in strictly economic importance. This identity it should be noted, is most often related to particular systems of local resource use.
CONCLUSIONS
One of the sustaining beliefs of much environmentalist thinking in recent
years is that industrial (i.e. capitalist) economic activity is necessarily
harmful to environmental preservation.
The basis of this belief is the Marxian notion that within 'primitive' societies there was no development of cash or commoditization, but that once these modern evils penetrated such societies their disintegration and downfall was set into motion.
However, such theoretical formulations are not sustained by empirical evidence, for it is now understood that most such 'primitive' societies have been involved with commoditization and external trade for hundreds, and in many cases thousands, of years, yet they persist today in recognizably distinct form.
It is apparent that considerations of scale or degree are relevant criteria in trying to distinguish between various types of economic organization. In a large number of different small-scale foraging societies engaged in subsistence in, e.g., tropical rain forests, the Kalahafi desert, or the Arctic, no simple distinction can be made between 'subsistence' and 'commercial' transactions based on the use or absence or cash or markets (see Note 3).
Indeed, questions such as "how much monetization?" or "what degree of market dependence?" in any given society may be impossible to answer because such relationships vary from individual to individual, from household to household, from market to market, from commodity to commodity and from day to day. This difficulty has been recognized in the scientific literature, together with the consequent conclusion that it is unhelpful and unwise to attempt to distinguish between 'subsistence' and 'commercial' activities in regard to these mixed-economy coastal whaling societies (e.g. Akimichi et al. 1988: 80-83; Dahl 1989b: 40; Caulfield 1991b: 3).
In conclusion it might be stated that the intent to sustain local social, cultural and economic activity intergenerationally in it's essential form and content (notwithstanding ongoing changes to improve it's efficiency and safety) is the primary characteristic that distinguishes subsistence and petty commodity enterprises on the one hand from industrial (i.e., wholely commercial) enterprises on the other.
In contrast, the principal goal of wholely commercial economic enterprises is to achieve increased productivity/profitability in order to maximize strictly economic goals. In pursuit of these profit-maximizing goals, commercial enterprises may become totally transformed so that, unlike subsistence and petty-commodity enterprises, there is no primary intent to ensure the enterprise's reproduction is essentially unchanged form over time.
NOTES
In regard to such hunting-fishing-gathering peoples' economic relations, another recent review states: "the appearance of cash and commoditization are usually seen as the first manifestation of modernity and as evidence of the impact of market economies among people previously untouched by them... [however]... such impacts go back five thousand years or more in some cases and certainly encompass virtually all foragers today" (Peterson 1991: lff).
REFERENCES CITED
_