time of my own fieldwork during the hunting season in the fall of 2017, merely three
campaigners were present. The momentum of the film has passed, it seems. Still, the
hunt continues unabated.
Whale Wars, on the other hand, had a more international impact. Telling the story
of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Ocean, opposing
Japanese scientific whaling, it is inherently biased since it presents merely SSCS’
view on the matter. The series stretched over seven seasons from 2008 to 2015 and
was aired on Animal Planet, advancing the claim of illegality of Japanese whaling in
the Southern Ocean. Both The Cove and Whale Wars are highly influential televised
elements in the anti-whaling outside-advocacy-strategy. While I have yet to come
across strategic assessments on their influence, it remains without a doubt that they
have left their mark on the public, particularly in Western societies. Thereby, the
pressure on both Western governments as well as on the Japanese government to
stop all whaling inevitably increased.
The case of the polar bear is somewhat different. NGOs, at least to my knowledge, have not influenced the polar bear regime in the same degree as they have done
in the case of whaling and sealing. This may be due to the fact that most NGOs that
are opposed to marine mammal hunting primarily do so when the hunt is conducted
for commercial reasons. Since polar bears are inherently linked to aboriginal
cultures, opposition thereto is rather marginal. This being said, organisations such
as IFAW or the Humane Society International oppose trophy hunting of polar bears.
In a joint report, the organisations put forward proof for the lack of tradition and lack
of economic importance of polar bear trophy hunting in Canada. In the report it is
argued that trophy hunting of polar bears does not alleviate larger problems of Inuit
communities and that it is not a mainstay of the Inuit economy.
6 In other words, the
underlying narrative appears to support the claim that polar bear trophy hunting is
not justifiable from a socio-economic perspective. Without the need to delve deeper
into this topic, it suffices to say that the polar bear regime has remained rather
unaffected by these efforts.
Given the significant influence of non-governmental organisations on the legal
landscape of marine mammal law, it is not surprising that alternative measures have
arisen. One of these is the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
(NAMMCO) (see Sect. 4.4.2). In our joint article, Marzia Scopelliti and I argue
that the mere existence of NAMMCO may point to the fact that some Arctic
governments have taken the reigns into their own hands and have formed their
own organisation. This happened especially in light of the dysfunction of the IWC
and the strong NGO influence in it. As we have shown, although NAMMCO does
allow for observers (both governmental and non-governmental) to participate in
most meetings, currently no anti-use NGO has officially applied for observer status.
7
Why this is the case, however, I cannot determine. One reason might be that
NAMMCO members must uniformly agree on the observer status. It is highly
6 Waters et al. (2009).
7 Scopelliti and Sellheim (2019), p. 101.
8.5 Non-governmental Influence
185
campaigners were present. The momentum of the film has passed, it seems. Still, the
hunt continues unabated.
Whale Wars, on the other hand, had a more international impact. Telling the story
of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Ocean, opposing
Japanese scientific whaling, it is inherently biased since it presents merely SSCS’
view on the matter. The series stretched over seven seasons from 2008 to 2015 and
was aired on Animal Planet, advancing the claim of illegality of Japanese whaling in
the Southern Ocean. Both The Cove and Whale Wars are highly influential televised
elements in the anti-whaling outside-advocacy-strategy. While I have yet to come
across strategic assessments on their influence, it remains without a doubt that they
have left their mark on the public, particularly in Western societies. Thereby, the
pressure on both Western governments as well as on the Japanese government to
stop all whaling inevitably increased.
The case of the polar bear is somewhat different. NGOs, at least to my knowledge, have not influenced the polar bear regime in the same degree as they have done
in the case of whaling and sealing. This may be due to the fact that most NGOs that
are opposed to marine mammal hunting primarily do so when the hunt is conducted
for commercial reasons. Since polar bears are inherently linked to aboriginal
cultures, opposition thereto is rather marginal. This being said, organisations such
as IFAW or the Humane Society International oppose trophy hunting of polar bears.
In a joint report, the organisations put forward proof for the lack of tradition and lack
of economic importance of polar bear trophy hunting in Canada. In the report it is
argued that trophy hunting of polar bears does not alleviate larger problems of Inuit
communities and that it is not a mainstay of the Inuit economy.
6 In other words, the
underlying narrative appears to support the claim that polar bear trophy hunting is
not justifiable from a socio-economic perspective. Without the need to delve deeper
into this topic, it suffices to say that the polar bear regime has remained rather
unaffected by these efforts.
Given the significant influence of non-governmental organisations on the legal
landscape of marine mammal law, it is not surprising that alternative measures have
arisen. One of these is the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
(NAMMCO) (see Sect. 4.4.2). In our joint article, Marzia Scopelliti and I argue
that the mere existence of NAMMCO may point to the fact that some Arctic
governments have taken the reigns into their own hands and have formed their
own organisation. This happened especially in light of the dysfunction of the IWC
and the strong NGO influence in it. As we have shown, although NAMMCO does
allow for observers (both governmental and non-governmental) to participate in
most meetings, currently no anti-use NGO has officially applied for observer status.
7
Why this is the case, however, I cannot determine. One reason might be that
NAMMCO members must uniformly agree on the observer status. It is highly
6 Waters et al. (2009).
7 Scopelliti and Sellheim (2019), p. 101.
8.5 Non-governmental Influence
185