To assist in examining the issue of sustainable and equitable resource use and
management, two quite different marine mammal management regimes will be
briefly described and their performance analyzed. These two management bodies
are the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the International Agreement
on the Conservation of Polar Bears.
One very important distinction between these two management regimes is the
different understanding each holds of the role of people in wildlife and fisheries
management. In these two perspectives, the reactionary position characterizing the
whaling regime is strongly contrasted with a quite progressive view represented
by the polar bear regime.
Ethical Concerns
Hunters, as well as various non-local but politically-active groups, may also have
ethical concerns about the animals that are hunted. In the case of whalers and
sealers for example, these concerns range from the purely pragmatic (e.g., that the
kill be clean and the meat handled properly) to deeper concerns about respect tor
animal life and maintenance of traditional relationships between hunters and the
animals they hunt. Such concerns are noted, e.g. among Inuit hunters (Freeman et
a/. 1992, Lynge 1992), or among whalers in Japan today (Akimichi et a/.
1988:53-65, Higuchi 1992).
Ethical issues certainly have a place in wildlife management (e.g. Causey 1989,
Jonsson 1992), but it is important to stress that those killing and eating the
animals, as well as those opposing the hunts, are aware of, and seek to address,
these concerns in culturally appropriate ways.
The Issue of Equity
In the past it was common for wildlife users to be largely excluded from any
meaningful role in management, but this situation is changing. These changes are
particularly apparent in the northern regions (as well as appearing elsewhere).
Today, recognition and use of resource users' traditional knowledge and
management institutions are being linked to orthodox state management systems
(Freeman and Carbyn 1988, IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991, Inglis 1993, Keith and
Saunders 1989, Williams and Baines 1993).
New Partnerships
Primary Environmental Care
The International Whaling Regime
Introduction of a Whaling Ban
By 1990 newly available population data indicated that the minke whale (a
non-endangered whale occurring in all the world oceans and of interest to some
whaling nations) was at considerably higher stock levels than was thought to be
the case at the time the pause in whaling was adopted. Furthermore, in 1992, and
again in 1993, the IWC Scientific Committee unanimously recommended adoption
of its very safe and conservative Revised Management Procedure (RMP). The
newly completed and rigorously tested RMP satisfies stringent scientific criteria
and management goals set by the IWC; in addition, it is in accord with the World
Conservation Union's guidelines for the sustainable use of wildlife (IUCN
1993).Thus quotas established under the RMP are not only conservative and
sustainable (as demanded by IWC), but will also strengthen social and economic
incentives that are encouraged as a helpful aid in conservation (as recommended
by IUCN).
The Commercial Exploitation of Wildlife
The errors and dangers of ignoring these advances in understanding of common
property have been addressed elsewhere (Freeman 1993); here it is sufficient to
note that the whale fisheries operating today, whether 'subsistence' or 'commercial'
in nature, are family-owned and community-based enterprises which generate
important social, as well as narrowly economic, benefits to the local population.
As many have observed in the modern context, it makes little sense to try to draw
artificial distinctions between 'commercial ' and 'non-commercial ' or to believe
that subsistence societies do not engage in commercial exchanges, because all
subsistence societies today are monetized and engage in both commercial and
non-commercial economic transactions (e.g., Peterson 1991, Caulfield 1994).
Nevertheless, the belief continues to exist in the IWC that when community-based
whaling operations involve the sale of whale products, such economic behaviour
necessarily represents an unacceptable threat to viability of the stock.
The Polar Bear Regime
As a consequence of these estimates, many U.S. and Russian scientists and
conservationists believed that bear sanctuaries or a total ban on hunting should be
imposed if bears were to avoid extinction. However, countries such as Canada
and Greenland, with apparently healthy bear populations and large annual kills,
did not share the view that all hunting should be banned, arguing that such a
prohibition would create hardship for people responsibly utilizing the resource.
In order to satisfy the concerns of the parties to the agreement believing that bears
required total protection, the treaty sets out a general prohibition on the hunting,
capture, and killing of the animals. However, to accommodate the needs of other
parties to the treaty who favour continued hunting, specific exemptions are made
to this general prohibition against killing.
This approach is important, for it allows parties to the agreement wishing to
prohibit hunting for conservation, political or cultural reasons to do so, whilst not
restricting the sovereign right of other parties to the treaty to legislate different
conservation regimes that may be equally appropriate in their own national and
cultural contexts.
In the Canadian Arctic, where selling polar bear hides and guiding trophy hunters
are economically significant activities, community quotas limit the number of
bears that can be taken. This limitation inevitably results in some hunters each
year being unable to take even one bear. However, despite the negative cultural
and economic impacts resulting from these restrictions, respect shown to local
hunters by the management authorities ensures that the high traditional value
Inuit place on wildlife conservation is not severely compromised by this outside
imposition. Thus, even where, from time to time, it may be necessary to reduce
polar bear quotas, local hunters fully cooperate with the authorities (Freeman
1986).
Contrasting the Polar Bear and Whale Management Regimes
In contrast, the international whaling regime has moved progressively away from
these prudent management principles, and as a consequence its annual meetings
promote conflict and result in a continuing failure to discharge management
responsibilities required of the commission.
The contrasts between these two management regimes are marked. Thus despite
continuing hunting of polar bears (between 700-800 bears are taken annually), the
estimated world population has steadily increased to between 25,000 - 40,000 since
the treaty came into effect about 20 years ago. Importantly, under this
international treaty, no non-hunting nation, no non-range state and no
non-government animal rights organization can claim that its own opposition to
the consumptive use of wildlife endows it with the right to interfere with others'
lawful use of this international and highly migratory resource.
This pragmatic, effective and co-operative approach to managing a global
population of only several thousand polar bears stands in marked contrast to the
approach being taken by the international whaling regime to manage an
expanding global population of about one million minke whales (to take a single
example). The attempts to regulate whaling (which remains the purpose of this
whaling regime) consumes considerable time, effort, and resources of a large
number of nations, and leaves the potential users of these important resources
wholly dissatisfied by the non-productive outcome of these efforts.
In contrast, the international whaling regime acts in ways that continually
question the legitimacy of some members' cultural and sovereign rights, and seeks
to impose by threats of trade sanctions and other coercive means, an extremely
narrow ideological position that opposes the killing, trade and consumption of
whales.
Whilst the international polar bear management agreement provides an
informative window on to an effective wildlife management regime, the
international whaling regime, being highly conflictual and preventing any
realization of the goals of the international whaling convention, provides an
explicit demonstration of what to avoid when seeking international living resource
management arrangements.
Introduction
This paper examines the management and use of certain marine mammals in the
nearshore areas in northern regions, where for many years the traditional use and
commercial trade of marine mammals has sustained the health and vitality of both
aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities and their distinctive cultures.
New Directions in Wildlife Management
The Role of People
It appears to be increasingly well understood that people are indeed part of
natural ecosystems. One result of the increasing support for a 'man in the
biosphere' orientation to the environment is the growing recognition that among
the various stakeholders with concern and useful knowledge about wildlife,
people using, the wildlife are an indispensable part of rational conservation
strategies (e.g. McNeely and Pitt 1985, Gadgil et al. 1993, Freeman and Kreuter
1994). The term conservation implies wise [i.e. sustainable and equitable] use, and
within many traditional societies the means to ensure this wise use is encoded
within the cultural norms and social institutions that have evolved over time.
A more humanistic dimension has begun to be introduced into living resources'
management decisions as a result of both the general public and local resource
users insistence on being involved in management discussions.
The importance of equity has been recognized in recent discussions about rational
wildlife management. For example, the World Conservation Union (IUCN),
recognizing that social and economic benefits derived from sustainable wildlife
use may provide powerful incentives to conserve wildlife, urge that those using
the resources derive economic benefit from such use (IUCN 1993).
One means that facilitates linkages between indigenous and science-based
knowledge involves co-management arrangements in which the state and the
user-groups jointly assume responsibility for research and monitoring, and for
developing and implementing management plans. There are now many successful
examples of co-management in northern North America (e.g., Osherenko 1988,
Pinkerton 1989, Binder and Hanbige 1993, Usher 1987, 1993).
A recent human-centred view on environmental management is captured in the
term 'Primary Environmental Care' (PEC) proposed in the IUCN/WWF/UNEP
World Conservation Strategy. For PEC to occur, three basic goal-oriented
principles require to be satisfied:
Arrangements satisfying these three principles tend to be community-based, small
in nature and impact, and respecting and then utilizing local communities'
knowledge and dependence upon local environmental resources. Such
arrangements may provide the best assurance that resource use will be sustainable
(Young et al. 1994).
Thirty-eight countries have signed the 1946 International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) which gives them membership in the International
Whaling Commission (IWC). The purpose of the IWC is to conserve whales in
order to allow the orderly development of the whaling industry (ICRW,
Preamble). Decisions taken to accomplish this goal are to be informed by the best
scientific advice (ICRW, Article V, para. 2) and are to take into account the needs
and concerns of the users and producers of whale products (ICRW, Article V, para
2(b)).
In 1982 a pause in commercial whaling was adopted by the IWC. This decision
prohibited all whaling by non-aboriginal people until 1990, by which time a
comprehensive assessment of whale stocks and a rigorous management plan (the
so-called Revised Management Procedure) was to be completed by the IWC
Scientific Committee.
However, there exists a widespread belief that wildlife cannot be used sustainably
when it is commercially exploited. Evidence for this statement is part of
'conventional wisdom', and is confirmed in the publics' mind by what is generally
known about the poor record of commercial fisheries (including whale fisheries)
worldwide. However, there exists a large body of scholarship (unknown to the
general public and ignored by most IWC delegates) that supports the view that
common property can be used sustainably when appropriate management
institutions are in place (e.g., Berkes et al. 1989, Ostrom 1990). This literature
rarely draws a distinction between commercial and non-commercial resource users
(e.g., Conrad and Bjomdal 1993).
Polar bears are one of many subsistence resources having had commercial
importance since Arctic residents first encountered visitors wishing to engage in
trade. In the 1960's there was concern in some countries that the 1,300 - 1,500
polar bears killed each year was unsustainable given a world population variously
estimated at the time to range between 5,000 to 19,000 animals (Fikkan et al. 1993).
The polar bear agreement contrasts in several ways with the international whaling
convention, most notably perhaps by restricting membership in the treaty to only
those five states where polar bears are found (Canada, Denmark/Greenland,
Norway, Russia and the U.S.). In strong contrast, any nation can become a party
to discussions and decisions affecting whaling societies by signing the
international whaling convention. What appears to allow the polar bear treaty to
operate effectively (and cost efficiently) is ( I ) a high degree of resource user
involvement in research and management activities, (2) management decisions
based upon the best research-based information, (3) a willingness among treaty
members to respect each others' cultural differences and (4) negotiations carried
out in good faith.
Conclusions
Polar bears appeared to be conserved through the actions of a highly effective and
minimalist international management regime, under whose authority polar bears
continue to be hunted sustainably for a variety of commercial and non-commercial
reasons. The regime functions in ways that do not result in challenges to the
authority or legitimacy of the management regime, nor to the sovereignty of any
party to the treaty. This desirable state of affairs doubtless owes much to the
recognition of, and the accommodation made to, the variable cultural and political
realities existing among the five treaty nations.
References