THE CHANGING FACE OF NGOs: A Case Study of Greenpeace on Whaling Policies of Japan

As a consequence of integration of trade and industry and globalization, a significant theoretical alteration in our way of thinking about the environment has taken place. States now perceive environmental problems as a global concern and not just one state’s interest. Environmental problems are gradually more the subject of international efforts because its effects transcend national borders and the unfeasibility that just one or a few nations can get to the bottom of these problems on their own. However, despite the fact that there is global recognition, states could not be in agreement on one particular solution to address these environmental issues. This condition of global environmental issue recognition and conflicting resolutions refer to the concept of International Environmental Politics.

International Environmental Politics can be seen in the case of Japan and its Whaling Policies. States now consider it a global responsibility to protect the whales for the next generations. Whales are the responsibility of all countries, whether or not they have coasts. For that reason, all countries should recognize their responsibility to defend whales. However, not all countries recognize this responsibility. Japan is one of the few states in the world that unwaveringly supports whaling and has pursued whaling policies without the involvement of NGOs in agenda setting, policy formation, and policy assessment in international environmental protection. This was the world order; State being the Unitary and Principal Actor, but this has changed with the Internationalization of Environmental Politics and emergence of Non State Actors.

Japan as a Unitary and Principal Actor in State’s Affairs can be explained by the term developmental state model which refers to a development-oriented state that concentrates its entire energy on the country’s industrialization and rapid economic development, while making non-economic, political, or civic issues almost irrelevant. To maintain state control to promote economic growth, the developmental state regulated civil society activities by imposing strict legal restrictions on citizens’ associations (Hirata 2002, 22). Japan being a developmental state that time paid only little attention to non-economic affairs in the realm of civil society which include environmental issues. Moreover, Japan exerted strong control over citizens’ activities through the Uniform Civil Code promulgated in 1896.

The orientation of Japan towards developments has brought spectacular economic success to the country. The Developmental State Model can no longer be applied now in the case of Japan since powerful new external forces entered the scene and made bearing on Japan’s political economy, society, and culture in the process of globalization (Hirata 2002, 27). With the entry of new external forces, it resulted to Japan’s acquisition of international norms and values. Participation in International Politics necessitates a certain extent of compliance to international norms and rules of behavior. Fundamentally, the norm for advanced industrialized states is the presence of a strong NGO community. As a consequence, Japanese Non-Government Organizations has finally emerged on the scene, continuously growing and playing a more important responsibility in International Environmental Politics. One of these NGOs is the Greenpeace International which established its local branch in Japan in 1989.

Japan has a long history of whaling. During the difficult period after World War, about 47% of the total animal protein consumption was whale meat, according to statistics of 1947. In 1962, the production recorded 226,000 tons which was the highest record throughout the history of the Japanese whaling industry (Jiunhan 2010: 6).

As the whale catch by Japan and other Whaling Countries kept increasing, international community endeavored to control it. The central institution of the regime of whale conservation and welfare is the International Whaling Commission (Hirata 2005: 130). Before, the sustainable use of whales has been the focus of the organization but it has now shifted to the conservation of whales and further to the protection of the welfare of whales (Hirata 2005: 131). Along with this change of focus also is the dominance of anti-whaling states within the IWC. Thus, Whaling states like including Japan have since faced increasing demands from these anti-whaling members to stop their whaling activities completely. In 1982, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling after an intensive anti-whaling campaign by the United States and other like-minded countries (Morishita 2006: 802). Nevertheless, Japan has consistently maintained its right to whale, taking advantage of the ‘scientific whaling exception’ under Article VIII of the ICRW. Japan and a few other nations continued whale hunting under scientific research permits.(Economics for the Environment Consultancy 2009: 4).

Greenpeace International is one of main critics of the Japanese Government for adhering to a pro-whaling policy that has brought worldwide condemnation. Japan’s defiant pro-whaling position is a paradox for it is not consistent with its globally supportive position on other environmental matters. The organization campaigns the stop of commercial whaling which has wiped out several whale species, encourages multinational companies to bring trading in whale meat to an end, promotes viable alternatives such as whale watching, works with whale research organizations in Australia and internationally, protects whales from other threats to our oceans, including climate change, pollution and overfishing and creates regional whale sanctuaries which in the long run forming a global whale sanctuary (Greenpeace Australia Pacific Ltd 2005: 1).

Greenpeace International engages in activities that would grab hold of international attention and persuade other States to put pressure on Japan to end its Whaling Activities. One of the activities of Greenpeace that has caught global attention is its expose on large scale theft of whale meat which was said to be conducted by employees of Japanese Whaling Vessels for decades. In May 2008 Greenpeace uncovered a scandal after discovering that a box from a Whaling Vessel contained ten large pieces of whale meat opposing the delivery sheet that claims it only contained cardboards (Sato and Holden 2008: 19). From the evidence and testimony of this investigation of Greenpeace International, they were able to disclose to the Public that this kind of theft of whale meat financed by tax payers’ money has been taking place over many years as an open secret.

Another is the case between Human Society International of Australia and Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, which commenced in October 19, 2004. Greenpeace International has played a major role in the success of this case against the Japanese Whaling Company. A first-hand account of the whaling inside the Australian Whale Sanctuary on 16 December 2001 was provided by Kieran Mulvaney, the expedition leader of a Greenpeace anti-whaling expedition in 2001/2002. With the aid of such evidences from Greenpeace Whaling Activists, The Court orders that the respondent be restrained from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with any whale in the Australian Whale Sanctuary unless permitted or authorized under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd 2008). In this particular case we could see anti-whaling NGOs seeking authoritative legal verdict in their favor. As non-government actors do not usually have standing in international law, they are putting strong pressure on anti-whaling states such as Australia to force an altercation with the pro-whaling states.

Lastly, Greenpeace International was victorious in getting the Oriental Bluebird, re-supply and transport ship of Japan’s whaling fleet, de-flagged and fined since it was found committing a breach on a number of domestic and international regulations by Panamanian authorities. This ruling by the Panamanian Authority has been the result of action taken by Greenpeace against Oriental Bluebird in the high seas, preventing it from refueling the Nisshin Maru in Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and divulging to the public that the ship was transporting whale meat even if it was only allowed to refuel (Greenpeace International 2010: 1).

By exposing these events to the public such as the attempt of refueling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary which is prohibited by law, Greenpeace International has influenced other States to act against Japan. Australia, being located near the Southern Oceans where the event happened, filed its court case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague after years of unsuccessful diplomatic efforts with Japan to end its whaling hunt. Australia claims that Japan’s Whaling hunt is for all intents and purposes commercial and it fails to meet the requirements for the scientific exemption, partially because of a lack of any established relevance for the conservation and management of whale stocks (Yuasa 2010: 1). This action of Australia has made a domino effect on other countries such as New Zealand which also now considers backing Australia’s international court action against Japanese whaling after negotiations on the future of commercial hunting of whales collapsed. (Brisbane Times 2010: 1).

Greenpeace International has also recognized US conservation leadership as significant to the results of IWC meeting in Agadir, Morocco last June 2010. Thus, Greenpeace along with the WhalesNeedUS Coalition delivered thousands of petition signatures, origami whales, personalized whale cards and other items to the White House (Greenpeace USA 2010: 1). This movement by the Greenpeace was done with the aid of the civil society. This was one of their ways of showing Obama that Americans are serious about holding him to his promise to save the whales. The United States of America continued to support the commercial whaling moratorium in the said meeting and this is a direct result of all of the great advocacy work done by Greenpeace and other NGOs before the June IWC meeting.

Greenpeace International is not only triumphant in influencing Other State such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America to pressure Japan’s Whaling Activities. It was also able to move and work in partnership with other NGOs in different places around the world to take the plunge on the Whaling issue by lobbying to their own governments to coerce Japan as well to end its Whaling Activities.

Greenpeace International along with Sea Shepherd Conservation Society uses direct action to hinder whaling ships in the Antarctic Waters like in December 2005 and January 2006. In these dates, both the Greenpeace International and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society confronted the Japanese whaling fleet in the Antarctic Waters which sought to kill 935 minke whales and 10 fin whales within the sanctuary limits.

Greenpeace International also provides an opportunity where people could gather together and voice out their interests to the government. One example is the event in the middle Of Santiago, capital city of Chile wherein more than 1,000 people formed a human heart round a 35 meter large inflatable whale. This is a way of the Chilean people to call on the government to create a whale sanctuary in Chilean waters (Greenpeace International 2010: 1). In addition, another NGO in Chile, Centro de Conservación Cetácean of Chile, sent a letter with over 100 signatures was sent to President Bachelet of Chile suggesting that she make a Presidential Declaration that establishes a Whale Sanctuary within the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Chile with the objective of prohibiting commercial and scientific whaling within Chile’s jurisdictional waters (Instituto de Conservación de Ballenas 2008, 16). With all these pressure from NGOs and the Civil Society, President Bachelet signed the Chilean whale sanctuary bill in the former whaling town of Quintay, joined by 20 young Greenpeace Ocean Defenders project members, and government ministers from Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Costa Rica (Greenpeace International 2008: 1). The new sanctuary will be home to half the world’s cetacean species, including critically endangered blue whales, the largest animal ever to live on earth (Oceana 2008: 2).

Greenpeace and other NGOs in New Zealand have also been active in acting immediately vis-à-vis Government’s support for a proposal that could lead to a new age of commercial whaling and would undo decades of conservation efforts to defend whales. Greenpeace and other NGOs in New Zealand collaborated under the banner of ‘Save the whales, not whaling.’ They have announced petitions to the Government to disallow any agreement that would legitimize commercial whaling and permit hunting to go on in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The groups which joined the movement are the following: Greenpeace, Project Jonah, Forest and Bird, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS). This resulted to New Zealand Government now consider joining Australia’s legal action against Japanese whaling in Antarctic waters, which was launched in the International Court of Justice (Needham 2010: 1).

Greenpeace International, through its influence on Other State Actors such as Australia, New Zealand and United States of America and Other Non State Actors, had made Japan fruitless in pursuing its interests on recommencing commercial whaling. Japan lost the most important votes it was pursuing in 2006. It failed to eradicate protection for dolphins, porpoises, and small whales, initiate a secret voting ballot, close down the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, and get an exemption on the moratorium against commercial whaling (Greenpeace International 2010: 1).

What is more, because of the establishment of Whale Sanctuaries by different countries, now there is lesser Area for Japan’s Whaling Activities. In conjunction with the lesser area where Japan could perform its whaling activities, there was also lesser number of whales killed in the course of action. A proof would be in the case of JARPA II which commenced in the 2007/8 season. In the beginning, estimated catches were 850±10% Antarctic minke whales, 50 fin whales, and 50 humpback whales yet the actual number of whales caught were much lower; 551 minke whales and no fin and humpback whales were taken. (Canberra Panel 2009: 7).The reduced catch of whales was because of the disruption of the chase of whales by vessels from Greenpeace International and other NGOs such as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

There have also been additional security costs to the Japan’s Whaling Program, close to US$6 million for 2007/8 and 2008/9, associated with Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace activity in Antarctica (Economics for the Environment Consultancy 2009: 17). These would have disadvantageous effects on the Whaling Program of Japan. The money to cover up the cost of the Whaling Program is partially subsidized by the taxpayers’ money and covered by the 6billion amount of loan by the government which is being compensated through the sale of research by-products. With lesser earnings and higher additional costs, the research program would be incapable to maintain its operations and recover the costs for whaling vessel construction.

We have seen the crucial functions played by Greenpeace International on the Whaling Policies of Japan. It served as a counterweight to the Japanese Government.With its activities scrutinizing Government’s Activities, it has pressured the state to be accountable to the public, endorse institutional modification, and maintain democracy. This checking and limiting role of NGOs is essential for consolidating and maintaining democracy in Japan.

Another important function of NGOs such as Greenpeace International in the society is creating channels other than political parties for the articulation and aggregation of interests for political reform. Civil society organizations do not replace or substitute for political parties.Rather, they supplement political parties and uphold democracy by invigorating political participation, increasing the political usefulness and skillfulness of democratic citizens, and promoting and positive reception of the obligations as well as the rights of democratic citizenship.

The internationalization of environmental politics has pushed the Japanese state to make vital institutional changes that in could lessen its power in policy formation vis-a-vis internationally-linked NGOs in due course. By now in, Japanese NGOs are playing an important role in international negotiations as they evaluate environmental policies of the government. Their rising importance of Non State Actors such as NGOs in worldwide arena gives them supplementary political authority since their viewpoints are regularly picked up by different political entities from other states and the foreign media.