out the objectives and purposes of the Conven- tion and to provide for the conservation, devel-
opment and optimum utilisation of the whale resource be based on scientific findings, and take
into consideration the interests of the consumer regarding products and the whaling industry’’
Birnie, 1989, emphasis added. A re-definition of the notion of consumersusers within IWC is
a necessary pre-condition for the future estab- lishment of a new convention Vogel, 1995.
This article suggests that the history of the IWC, the first environmental organisation to be
global in scope, points to the weaknesses in con- temporary environmental treaty regimes. Like
the whaling convention, many environmental treaties are not well enforced and monitored
Barbier et al., 1990; Blackhurst and Subrama- nian, 1992; Barrett, 1998.
2. The ‘whale’ global issue
Whaling is an ancient industry. Whaling has been evolving and changing, mostly during the
last century. The problem was once one of open access leading to over fishing, exacerbated by
the intrinsic slow growth of many species.
5
This, in addition to decreasing costs of harvest and
high price for whale-made products, determined a standard case of exploitation Walsh, 1999,
leading possibly to extinction Small, 1971; Clark, 1973, 1989; Clark and Lamberson, 1982.
Whaling provided the extreme case of over-ex- ploitation of a marine living resource. When
IWC was set up in 1946 as a consequence of the ICRW, it was organised to enable whaling
countries to conserve the great whales and the associated industry. The only economic interest
in whales was concerned with oil and meat. Things could have been worse without the IWC,
although it could not prevent whaling countries from depleting stocks of most species toward
extinction. The year 1972 might be regarded as a turning
point. Following decades of declining stocks, many species were endangered toward extinc-
tion. In that year, at the United Nations Con- ference
on the
Human Environment
in Stockholm, and in the Marine Mammal Act in
the US, Baleen and toothed whales were, for the first time, dealt explicitly with as the species
worth conserving because of non-consumptive values. It was the beginning of an institutional
deadlock, whales being explicitly valued not only for harvesting benefits, but still managed
by a ‘whaling’ convention. An ongoing struggle between whalers, who were interested in the
rents associated with ‘fishery’ harvest, and the conservationistanimal
welfare lobby
began, which saw an end in 1982 with the total ban
moratorium on whaling. The ban, which took effect from the 1986 and 19851986 whaling sea-
son, was indicative of the strong support for the ‘non
consumptive use’
of whales
and air
breathing marine mammals in general. There developed
a powerful
anti-whaling majority
within IWC Barstow, 1986. The free access of non-whaling countries into IWC has to be con-
sidered the most important point at the root of the current deadlock within the institution.
These states joined with the predominant aim of stopping whaling altogether. The convention be-
came polarised into the whalers, who wanted in principle to conserve the stock but exploit the
resource, and non-whalers who believe killing is wrong either because of the danger of extinction
or regardless how many whales there are in a stock.
The fact that at that time not all species of whale were endangered shows how formally the
vote was only aimed at ensuring sustainable stocks, but it was determined implicitly by ani-
mal welfare preferences. Nonetheless, on eco- nomic grounds, the moratorium is inefficient, at
least with some stocks, unless significant non- market values exist Horan and Shortle, 1999.
Economics’ role is also to measure and make explicit within the bargaining arena such values.
5
Whales are usually considered the slow-growth species Small, 1971; Swanson, 1991, nonetheless, some authors find
a rate of increase in depleted whale stocks to range from 0.031 to 0.144, quite high for mammals personal communication.
Table 1 Total economic value of whales and marine mammals
Total economic value Use value
Non-use value Non
Consumptive use Indirect use values
Optional and quasi option Existence value
value consumptive use
Whale watching; Ecological functions Mere conservation;
Future uses; new Harvesting
‘functional values’ research value
information on ecological ‘symbolic’ value and animal
welfare motivations values
Whales present two important features as an economic good. On the one hand, whales are
characterised by having attached both private consumptive values and non-consumptive values
privately appropriable or non-use public values; they are mixed good, or impure public good.
Whaling is an example of consumptive value, whale watching of non-consumptive use value,
existence value attached to conservation, that is species non-use value.
At the very least, the values of all agents who declare a stake in a decision should, in principle,
be taken into account in the making that final decision. Stakeholder participation in environ-
mental decisions is accepted widely Lockwood, 1999a. Seligman et al. 1994 point out, ‘‘How
can decision makers arrive at allocative decision making procedures and outcomes that are seen to
be just or legitimate by all stakeholders? Pre- sumably, one approach is to ensure that society’s
values and ethical considerations are reflected both in the decision-making process and outcome.
The interest is in the institutional processes by which including values into management and de-
cision making procedures’’.
Secondly, whales are shared oceanic resources. This makes it necessary to analyse how interna-
tional institutions have dealt with whales, what international laws apply to whales, and how those
laws are interpreted and implemented. A theory of socio-economic bargaining arises as a neces-
sary framework for global management.
Both the mixed good and the shared nature of whales have arisen over the past 30 years, dramat-
ically changing the nature of whale management, which had always been characterised by open
access exploitation motivated by private con- sumptive values.
I argue that the problem is that the IWC, which is aimed at managing whales sustainably, has not
fully e6ol6ed, failing to keep up with the complex and conflictual set of values attached intrinsically
to marine mammals. The cultural, symbolic back- ground has changed. Institutions have not.
3. Whale as a mixed good
