Contestation and norm change in whale and elephant conservation: Non-use or sustainable use?
| Author | Lisbeth Zimmermann,Anton Peez |
| DOI | 10.1177/00108367211047138 |
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367211047138
Cooperation and Conflict
2022, Vol. 57(2) 226 –245
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00108367211047138
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Contestation and norm
change in whale and elephant
conservation: Non-use or
sustainable use?
Anton Peez and Lisbeth Zimmermann
Abstract
Elephants and whales took center stage in the environmental movements of the 1980s. As
flagship species, they were the poster children of global initiatives: international ivory trading
and commercial whaling were banned in the 1980s in the context of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International
Whaling Commission (IWC), respectively. While the conservation of both species is contested,
we observe a change of existing norms in one case but not in the other: A moratorium on
commercial whaling remains in place. Meanwhile, a limited shift to sustainable use regarding ivory
was passed in 1997/2000. We ask why norm change occurred in one case but not the other,
given their similarities. We argue that the difference can be explained by the perceived legitimacy
of the claims of norm challengers using arguments of “affectedness” and the breadth of issues
covered by CITES. In contrast, other factors commonly discussed in norms research do not
explain this puzzle: the relative power and strategies of norm advocates and challengers, and the
degree of legalization. This shows the interplay of discursive aspects and concrete institutional
opportunities for norm change, even in the face of otherwise inopportune conditions.
Keywords
CITES, contestation, elephants, IWC, ivory trade, norm change, whales, wildlife conservation,
wildlife preservation
Introduction: norm change in flagship species conservation
Whales and elephants took center stage in the environmental and conservation move-
ments of the 1980s and 1990s. As “flagship species,” they were and are the poster children
of global initiatives for endangered species and biodiversity: the campaigns to ban the
ivory trade and to save the whales. Both mammals are commonly depicted as particularly
Corresponding author:
Lisbeth Zimmermann, Zeppelin University, Am Seemooser Horn 20, 88045 Friedrichshafen, Germany.
Email: lisbeth.zimmermann@zu.de
1047138CAC0010.1177/00108367211047138Cooperation and ConflictPeez and Zimmermann
research-article2021
Article
Peez and Zimmermann 227
intelligent and self-aware, often living in family-like contexts (D’Amato and Chopra,
1991). Their sheer size has impressed humans for millennia: The blue whale and the
African bush elephant are the largest and heaviest animals on earth and on land, respec-
tively. Moreover, elephants and whales hold special significance in many cultures around
the world, appearing in religion, mythology, literature, and popular culture.
Both mammals were heavily endangered in the 1970s and 1980s by decades of indus-
trial-scale hunting, with many local populations hunted to extinction. Environmental
campaigns were successful in promoting international prohibition norms, establishing
“non-use” by banning whaling and international ivory trading (Andreas and Nadelmann,
2008: 46–50; Nadelmann, 1990). Both prohibitions are guided by broader prescriptive
norms of environmental conservation, protection, stewardship, and sustainable develop-
ment (see Couzens, 2013: 21; Thompson, 2004: 64), and deal with restoring species
stocks.
In 1986, a moratorium by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) took effect,
effectively banning all commercial whaling through a “zero quota.” This moratorium
remains in place—although the scientific commission of the IWC has declared some
whale stocks large enough for limited whaling. Today, many anti-whaling states take a
preservationist view—objecting to the “sustainable use” of whales of any kind (Epstein,
2008). A similar prohibition norm was passed by the member states of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) with regard
to the African elephant. In 1989, the species was listed in Appendix I of CITES, banning
the international trade in ivory and other elephant products for all signatories. African
elephant populations have since taken divergent paths, further decreasing in some regions
and recovering in others. After negotiations at Conference of the Parties (CoP) to CITES,
populations in several Southern African countries were downlisted to Appendix II in
1997 and 2000. Appendix II bans trade unless it demonstrably does not endanger the
species’ survival, requiring permits and close regulation (Gehring and Ruffing, 2008:
129). The downlisting enabled a series of tightly controlled “one-off” sales of ivory
stocks to the Japanese and Chinese markets in subsequent years (approved in 1997 and
2002/2004 and conducted in 1999 and 2008; US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS),
2013). Although limited, the principle of “non-use” was replaced by sustainable use in
this timeframe.
Both prohibitions were and continue to be strongly contested and emotionally charged:
Norway, Iceland, and Japan have questioned the commercial whaling moratorium and
resumed limited commercial whaling in 1994, 2008, and 2019, respectively. Meanwhile,
Southern African states such as Zimbabwe, Botswana, and South Africa contested the
prohibition of the ivory trade. While an adaptation of the commercial whaling morato-
rium has, time and again, failed in the IWC, the complete ban on the ivory trade was
changed in a limited fashion. This article focuses not on the compliance with and enforce-
ment of the two prohibitions (in both cases, we observe ongoing instances of the banned
practices), but on why the formalized international norms on these practices changed in
one case but not the other.
We argue that this puzzle can be explained by the combination of two factors which
typically receive less attention in recent International Relations (IR) research on interna-
tional norm change: the perceived legitimacy of the claims based on a discourse of
To continue reading
Request your trial