The Government of Japan
1994
The purpose of this paper is to examine the concepts 'commercial', 'subsistence', and 'aboriginal people' - items on which the IWC has based its management of whales since the early 1980s - in order to show that the distinction between ASW and commercial whaling, as defined by IWC, is untenable.
If sustainable use is the aim of our management policies, it matters little whether activities are termed 'commercial' or not, but there is, on the other hand, a growing awareness that local participation from the people who traditionally have used renewable natural resources is needed in order to ensure sustainable use. This is the approach taken in the report Caring for the Earth (IUCN/UNEP/WWF/1991 ). It is felt that the IWC in recent years has moved further away from a management regime based on meaningful local participation.
COMMERCIAL VS. SUBSISTENCE WHALING
The untenability of the distinction between subsistence and commercial
whaling has been pointed out by a number of social scientists during the last
few years and will only be briefly outlined here.
The criticism is both of a semantic (e.g. Freeman 1993) and a phenomenological
(e.g. ISGSTW 1992; Moeran 1992) character.
At the semantic level it has been pointed out that the term 'subsistence' is a complex one and can be used in several ways (Freeman 1993). One interpretation of the term is self-sufficiency. According to this interpretation people are supposed to produce what they need and their products are supposed not to enter the market but to be consumed locally to meet nutritional and cultural requirements. However, anthropologists have shown that a self-sufficient society has hardly ever existed and that whalers in Alaska, Greenland and Russia as well as in Iceland, Japan and Norway are economically firmly integrated into the world economy. Secondly, 'subsistence' can mean, according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary, "a minimal level of existence." In other words, subsistence might imply poverty and many subscribe to the view that if the people are not poor, they are not engaged in subsistence activities. Being relatively affluent is repeatedly used against Icelandic, Japanese and Norwegian whalers.
At the phenomenological level, it has been pointed out that both subsistence and commercial whalers are embedded in a web of social exchanges: gift-giving, barter and exchanges through the medium of money (Moeran 1992). There are no logical differences between the three forms of exchange and whale products must be regarded as commodities produced for exchange and consumption whether the hunt has been classified as ASW or as commercial. What might be different is people's moral evaluation of these various forms of exchange. In Japanese culture money is relatively unproblematic and money has been used in gift-giving since ancient times. Today money rather than an object is the prescribed gift in Japan (Ohnuki-Tierney 1993: 72).
As 'commercial whaling' has not been defined by the IWC it must be taken as a residual category to mean 'non-ASW'. But empirical research has shown, that small-type whaling in Iceland, Japan and Norway is qualitatively different from both ASW and high-seas industrial whaling but has more in common with the former than with the latter. In a report to the IWC in 1992, for example, many similarities between minke whaling in Greenland on one side and in Iceland, Japan and Norway on the other were pointed out (ISGSTW 1992 [IWC/44/SEST6]). The vessels used in all four countries are relatively small and operate from remote communities with few land-based food resources but with a strong sense of community identity. Most of the boats are owner-operated and are operated under domestic modes of production where household viability and social reproduction are the important rationales. The small crews are recruited through kinship and friendship connections, and there is little specialization among them and they typically participate in a share system which also implies sharing the risk. The main product is whale meat which is gifted, bartered and sold outside of the communities but at the same time this meat is an important local source of nutrition and food culture. In contrast, large-type coastal and pelagic whaling was operated by large fleets and under a capitalist mode of production with a high return on investment as the primary goal. The highly specialized crews were often recruited through agents and the crew members received salaries. The main product used to be whale oil for which there used to be a great demand.
Hence, in terms of economic rationality the important dividing line between various types of whaling does not go between ASW and commercial whaling as implied by the IWC's usage of the concepts but rather between ASW and STW on the one hand and large-type coastal and pelagic whaling on the other. To bring in the concept 'aboriginal' does not clarify matters.
ABORIGINAL VS. NON-ABORIGINAL WHALING
When the IWC in 1981 decided to permit aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW),
defined as
"... whaling for purposes of local aboriginal consumption carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native peoples who share strong community, familial social and cultural ties related to a continuing traditional dependence on whaling and the use of whales" (IWC 1981),
preferential treatment was given to aboriginal people when it comes to the exploitation of renewable natural resources.
The concept 'aboriginal' is nowhere defined in IWC documents. However, aboriginal whalers in the IWC context seem to meet some criteria to qualify as 'aboriginal', 'indigenous' or 'native'- terms which seem to be used interchangeably by IWC. Webster's New World Dictionary defines 'aborigines' as the first known inhabitants of a region. Based on this definition the Icelandic, Japanese and Norwegian whalers ought to qualify but it was certainly not these nationals the decision makers at IWC had in mind when they coined the concept of ASW
Subsequent in-depth studies on the Japanese STCW clarified its characteristics in that it contained elements common with what had been termed by IWC earlier as the ASW.
WHALING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
It is today a widely held notion among bureaucrats, scientists,
conservationists and politicians that natural resources are best regulated if
local communities, which depend on those resources for their nutritional,
economic, social and cultural needs, are brought into active participation.
This principle is incorporated into the IUCN/UNEP/WWF report Caring for the
Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living and is also laid down both in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where Article 1 of Part I
reads:
"All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation based on the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of their means of subsistence."
In order to achieve this objective - which is made to apply generally and is not restricted to aboriginal peoples - we must formulate co-management regimes which allow for sustainable harvest of living natural resources1, whales included, whether the local inhabitants are classified as non-commercial aboriginals or not. Today national and international bodies are seeking ways to design new institutions which can ensure local participation in questions related to resources management.
When it comes to management of coastal marine resources, many scientists and bureaucrats have looked to Japan in their search for an alternative model to the one which has been dominant - but not very successful - in western nations for decades. The important premise for the Japanese system of coastal management is the perception of the 'closed' sea which for centuries has enabled the artisanal fishermen in Japan to take an active role in the management of their resources. At a time when the ideology of the 'freedom of the sea' spread in Europe following the publication of Hugo van Grotius' influential book Mare Liberum in 1609, the Japanese authorities 'closed' the coastal waters and allocated small, exclusive territories to settlements which were defined as fishing villages. At the beginning of this century these territories became estates for Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs) which were established in each of the fishing villages. This has been one important contributing factor to the rather stable coastal catches of about 2.5 and 3 million tonnes annually during the last 60 years2.
It is here important to stress that the relative success of the Japanese system of sea tenure - at least as seen against the experience in most other countries, and a success which has been paralleled in domestic forestry (Totman 1989) - has been achieved in a coastal sector which has been commercial for centuries. Although the Japanese system of sea tenure is not perfect, it has proved beyond doubt that commercial exploitation of renewable natural resources can be sustainable and does not inevitably lead to ecological disasters.
It is in this context that Japanese small-type coastal whaling ought to be seen. It has, like fishing, had commercial elements for centuries and JSTW must therefore be regarded as 'traditional' in the Japanese context. But having commercial elements does, as pointed out by Moeran (l992), not mean that the whalers can do with their earnings as they pleased. On the contrary, short term commercial activities are conducted with outsiders in order to partake in long term transactions with insiders, thereby facilitating social and cultural reproduction of the local community. It is this local participation which has enabled Japanese coastal fishermen to play active roles in resource management and enforcement, often imposing stricter regulations than required by the law. Such conditions are precisely what advocates of sustainable use and co-management are looking for.
Whereas many fisheries management regimes today try to move in the direction of more community participation, the management of whales - as at present pursued by the IWC - moves in the opposite direction; giving more and more attention to people far removed from the natural resources. It is high time that also whales are managed according to the principles of sustainable use and local participation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Government of Japan thanks Dr. Arne Kalland for his contribution to this
paper.
End notes
1. See for example the books edited by Evelyn Pinkerton (1989) and Fikret
Berkes (1989)
2. There exist now a large body of literature in English about the Japanese
sea tenure system and how it evolved. See for ex. Akimichi (1984); Akimichi
and Ruddle (1984); Kada (1984); Kalland (1984, 1990, 1991, 1994); Matsuda
and Kaneda (1984); Ruddle (1985, 1987, 1989); Ruddle and Akimichi (1989);
Short (1989): Wigen (1989)
REFERENCES
_