Written Assignment
An Exemption for Whaling
1. I do not agree with the Norwegian and Japanese position on permitting the hunting of non-endangered species of whales as a cultural exemption. This is due to the fact that although these species of whale are not endangered the demand for their meat is very low at 1% of its peak in the 1960s in Japan (Ramage et al., 2015). Furthermore, this practise of whaling is mainly funded by the taxpayers’ money and is ultimately working at a loss. Subsidies come to around ¥782 million (US$9.78 million) per year and despite this, the industry is still losing money as the demand for whale meat is low and stockpiles grow (Ramage et al., 2015). This is detrimental to the Japanese economy as well as the sea-life …show more content…
To conclude, the claims that Norway is making about northern coastal villages being dependent on the income from whaling for their livelihood, as well as whaling being an integral part of Japan and Norway’s cultural heritage (University of the People, 2015) should be weighed against the world opinion of the need to protect whales and the disadvantages and impacts of whaling. The world opinion which promotes the protection of whales and aims to stop whaling as a whole, is mainly based on the reasons mentioned above, that of economy and environment. Although I do not agree that a complete exemption to the whaling ban should be given to these countries, I also believe that it is important to preserve cultural heritage of countries as this is what defines countries from each other and individualises them as well as forming part of their values and education system. Hence, I believe a middle ground should be met where both countries and a committee, such as the WTO, agree on a controlled number of whales hunted each year so as to preserve cultural heritage as well as the livelihood of small fishing villages. This number should also preserve the marine ecosystems and not have too great of an impact on them. Whaling should not be allowed as a trade on a large scale as this would increase the number of whales hunted dramatically, as well as the fact that it is not commercially viable (Ramage et al., 2015; Sacks, 2015). Rather, it should be made exclusive to the small fishing villages that depend on this trade for their livelihood, while at the same time preserving their cultural heritage. This should be a mutual agreement where if it is not adhered to consequences should be put into place such as fines. If such an agreement were to be met it would satisfy both parties in that it would protect cultural heritage as well as preserve our environment, thereby portraying the positive impacts globalisation can have on the
An Exemption for Whaling
1. I do not agree with the Norwegian and Japanese position on permitting the hunting of non-endangered species of whales as a cultural exemption. This is due to the fact that although these species of whale are not endangered the demand for their meat is very low at 1% of its peak in the 1960s in Japan (Ramage et al., 2015). Furthermore, this practise of whaling is mainly funded by the taxpayers’ money and is ultimately working at a loss. Subsidies come to around ¥782 million (US$9.78 million) per year and despite this, the industry is still losing money as the demand for whale meat is low and stockpiles grow (Ramage et al., 2015). This is detrimental to the Japanese economy as well as the sea-life …show more content…
To conclude, the claims that Norway is making about northern coastal villages being dependent on the income from whaling for their livelihood, as well as whaling being an integral part of Japan and Norway’s cultural heritage (University of the People, 2015) should be weighed against the world opinion of the need to protect whales and the disadvantages and impacts of whaling. The world opinion which promotes the protection of whales and aims to stop whaling as a whole, is mainly based on the reasons mentioned above, that of economy and environment. Although I do not agree that a complete exemption to the whaling ban should be given to these countries, I also believe that it is important to preserve cultural heritage of countries as this is what defines countries from each other and individualises them as well as forming part of their values and education system. Hence, I believe a middle ground should be met where both countries and a committee, such as the WTO, agree on a controlled number of whales hunted each year so as to preserve cultural heritage as well as the livelihood of small fishing villages. This number should also preserve the marine ecosystems and not have too great of an impact on them. Whaling should not be allowed as a trade on a large scale as this would increase the number of whales hunted dramatically, as well as the fact that it is not commercially viable (Ramage et al., 2015; Sacks, 2015). Rather, it should be made exclusive to the small fishing villages that depend on this trade for their livelihood, while at the same time preserving their cultural heritage. This should be a mutual agreement where if it is not adhered to consequences should be put into place such as fines. If such an agreement were to be met it would satisfy both parties in that it would protect cultural heritage as well as preserve our environment, thereby portraying the positive impacts globalisation can have on the