Introduction
Goto KDIK to know more.
The European Union&#;s ban on importing seal products gave little consideration to the reliance of Arctic Indigenous peoples, particularly the Inuit, on marine mammal hunts (Hennig and Caddell ). The ban does include an exemption for hunts carried out by Indigenous peoples whose communities traditionally pursued seals, but the market collapsed after the ban became law and directly decreased the income of Canadian and Greenlandic Inuit (Fakhri ). The sustainable hunting of marine mammals, especially seals, has been an integral part of Indigenous traditions and cultural identity for millennia (Hennig and Caddell ). In modern times, demand for seal products gave Indigenous people a platform with which to participate in a global market (Depledge b). The ban eliminated this opportunity, and as a result was contested with several lawsuits before the EU and World Trade Organization (WTO) courts (Fakhri ). The ban was upheld by the courts, and the Canadian Inuit lost their access to the market when the commercial Atlantic seal fishery was discontinued (Herwig ). This paper discusses steps that may lead to a revision of the policy banning seal products from EU markets, specifically the formation of two programs: one for communicating the social and scientific reality of Indigenous seal hunts, and another for establishing clear administrative policy that would allow the Inuit to take advantage of the exemption included in the legislation. Such programs would ease the financial burden of Inuit hunters attempting to comply with EU rules while also increasing direct communication between Arctic Indigenous peoples and those making decisions with global ramifications.
Background
The European Union is composed of 28 member states and oversees the largest single market in the world with 500 million consumers and 16% of global imports and exports (Depledge a). Three of the EU member states (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) are also members of the Arctic Council (AC), and six other member states have been granted official observer status for AC affairs (Fakhri ). The ban has been a point of contention between the AC and the EU, which was denied member status until , largely due to Canada&#;s opposition to the ban. The EU ban was the result of large anti-sealing campaigns and appeals to the general public about the morality of seal hunting, which were led by environmental groups such as Greenpeace (Fakhri ). These campaigns largely used imagery from commercial hunts on harp seal pups to garner an emotional response from the public, even though such practices had previously been banned by the EU in (Fakhri ). The resulting ban included an exemption for Indigenous hunters that required them to be from a community that traditionally hunted seals (Fakhri ). Other parts of the seal must be used within communities according to their traditions, and the hunts themselves must be conducted to contribute to the subsistence of community. These extraordinarily strict guidelines and the lack of administrative structure to clarify and enforce the exemption in the ban resulted in Inuit groups pursuing lawsuits in the EU Court of Justice (Hennig and Caddell ). The Inuit groups argued that the EU market contributed 30% of global seal trade, and the ban would cause surplus seal products to flood other markets and decrease the global price (Fakhri ). Inuit hunters would also have to bear a financial burden to prove their hunt met the EU criteria. Such practices would increase the production cost of products whose prices would soon plummet (Herwig ). Additionally, environmental organizations and celebrities criticized seal hunters as barbaric and cruel, which ensured that any seal products that did make it to the EU would be subject to damaging rhetoric. There is much work to be done to reconcile the damage the ban did to Inuit communities, but this paper will outline small steps that can be taken to start a constructive dialogue that may result in the EU changing their policy regarding seal products.
Policy Recommendations
The European Union should, in conjunction with Arctic Indigenous people via facilitation by the Arctic Council, establish two projects: one to inform the general public of the social and scientific facts of seal hunting, and one that aims to create a clear administrative process that allows Arctic Indigenous people to capitalize on the ban exemption. Realistically, these projects alone cannot cause a rebound in the seal market, but it is likely they could create a precedent for including Indigenous people in decisions rather than having external bodies make decisions for them. The current form of the seal ban is deeply out of touch with the Arctic people and their way of life, and these projects would offer the first step to remedying the situation and possibly even lead to a large policy revision in the future.
The first project would employ and fund Inuit ambassadors, Arctic seal scientists, and Arctic state politicians to travel to EU meetings, as well as non-Arctic member states, in an effort to lessen the knowledge gap between Arctic people and non-Arctic countries. The Inuit representatives would disseminate information about their hunting traditions, practices, and values. The scientists could provide information on seal population assessments, and the politicians could discuss the changing priorities of Arctic states. Such a project would ensure Indigenous groups got to advocate for their right to their culture and directly create a dialogue with those who otherwise may have not known about their existence. This would coincide well with Inuit Qaujimaningit (IQ), which loosely translated to &#;the knowledge of the Inuit&#;, because this knowledge system is grounded in observational, experiential learning. It is passed on through interactions with others, and while their audience may not be able to experience being on a hunt, their stories and words could help them feel as if they were there.
The second project would consist of Inuit and other Indigenous representatives that would work with EU policymakers to draft and establish realistic administrative procedures that would allow Arctic people to capitalize on the exemption included in the ban. It is essential that Indigenous people be included in these discussions because they are the ones that must be able to understand and follow any established rules. Procedures for how to enforce which communities &#;traditionally&#; hunted seals, what methods are humane, and who the kill should be reported to must be established. The exemption of the ban has so far stirred up many lawsuits and confusion, and it would be the goal of this project to bring together Indigenous people and policymakers to draft a procedure that is attainable with limited infrastructure and communications (as is common in Arctic communities). Such administrative procedures would provide clear guidelines to Indigenous hunters and make the exemption enforceable.
Barriers to Implementation
Animal activist groups will likely continue their anti-sealing rhetoric and convenient omission of any discussion regarding Arctic Indigenous hunters. Also, the fact remains that seals are a cute, effective poster animal that are almost guaranteed to pull on the heartstrings of the public. Discussions surrounding seal hunting will always cause difficult imagery to surface, but the fact remains that it is an integral part of Inuit culture that they are entitled to. As always, money is another difficult topic. The Inuit and other Indigenous communities do not possess the funds to support their own travel, so money would have to come from willing governments, donors, and non-governmental organizations. This would require an active desire by these groups to participate, which may require offering incentives such as a permanent observer status on the Arctic Council. There is also the difficult task of choosing which members of the community would travel internationally. Unlike the Arctic Council, which does not have a permanent staff, it would be beneficial for the projects discusses in this paper to have continuous, compensated participation so that any Indigenous ambassadors are not forgoing feeding their families.
Conclusion
The first steps to implementing the projects proposed in this paper would be to consult the seal-hunting communities for their suggestions and recommendations. After a more concrete plan is established, a formal proposal could be brought before the EU and official planning could begin. Sealing has been a proud part of Indigenous Arctic culture for millennia (Hennig and Caddell ). The Arctic is also one of the poorest regions in the world, with few economic opportunities for its residents (Fakhri ). The ultimate goal of the projects discussed in this paper is to create dialogue that may eventually lead to the reestablishment of a sustainable commercial seal hunt that would allow Indigenous people to express self-determination and be connected to a global market while remaining true to their ideals. Outright bans generally lack careful consideration, and this one was enacted solely to appease the public&#;s ill-conceived notion of seal hunters. The activism of environmental groups is far louder and has much more funding than the isolated Indigenous people of the Arctic. The cost of living in the Arctic is astronomically high and culture loss has had a massive impact on Indigenous people, so every avenue should be taken to allow them to continue their traditional practices and not ban them from making a living off of it. Arctic peoples should enjoy economic opportunity and not be restricted by governments hundreds of miles away that barely consider their existence.
Works Cited
Depledge D (a) &#;The EU and the Arctic Council&#; (European Council on Foreign Affairs, 20 April )<http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_eu_and_the_arctic_council > accessed 18 March .
Depledge D (b) &#;The European Union in the Arctic&#; <http://www.worldpolicy.org/ blog//06/24/european-union-arctic> accessed 18 March .
Fakhri M () &#;Gauging US and EU seal regimes in the Arctic against Inuit sovereignty&#; In Liu N, Kirk EA, Henriksen T (eds) The European Union and the Arctic.
Hennig M, Caddell R () &#;On thin ice? Arctic Indigenous communities, the European Union and the sustainable use of marine mammals&#;. In Liu N, Kirk EA, Henriksen T (eds) The European Union and the Arctic.
Herwig A () &#;Too much Zeal on Seals? Animal Welfare, Public Morals and Consumer Ethics at the Bar of the WTO&#;. World Trade Review 15(1):109-137.
Yes. It is notable that in the 50 years Canada&#;s commercial seal hunt has been the subject of consistent veterinary scrutiny, not one report has ever suggested the seal hunt is acceptably humane. A review by Dr. Mary Richardson, a Canadian veterinary expert in humane slaughter methods, concluded that the commercial seal hunt is inherently inhumane because of the environment in which it operates and the speed at which the killing must be conducted. Also in , a report by an international team of veterinary and zoology experts who studied the hunt concluded that both clubbing and shooting of seals in Canada are inhumane and should be prohibited. The report noted a general failure to comply with regulations by sealers and a failure to enforce the regulations by authorities.
Want more information on Aee Seal? Feel free to contact us.
Similarly, in , a report by an independent team of veterinarians who studied the hunt concluded that governmental regulations regarding humane killing were neither being respected nor enforced, and that the seal hunt failed to comply with Canada's basic animal welfare standards. Shockingly, the veterinarians found that in 42 % of the cases they studied, there was not enough evidence of cranial injury to even guarantee unconsciousness at the time of skinning.
Parliamentarians, journalists and scientists who observe Canada's commercial seal hunt each year continue to report unacceptable levels of cruelty, including sealers dragging conscious seals across the ice floes with boat hooks, shooting seals and leaving them to suffer in agony, stockpiling dead and dying animals and cutting open live seals.
In recent years, hundreds of thousands of seals have been killed annually in the commercial seal hunt. More than one million seals have been slaughtered in the past five years alone. These kill levels are among the highest witnessed in Canada in half a century. The last time seals were killed at this rate&#;in the s and '60s&#;the harp seal population was reduced by as much as two-thirds.
Moreover, the actual number of seals killed is likely higher than the number reported. Many seals are shot at and injured in the course of the hunt and studies suggest that a significant number of these animals slip beneath the surface of the water, where they die slowly and are never recovered.
No. In , the Canadian government knowingly allowed sealers to exceed the quota by more than 37,000 animals. Sealers had already killed substantially more than the quota allowed by May 15 (the regulated closing date of the seal hunt) and yet the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans chose to extend the sealing season until June. In , sealers killed close to 16,000 seals more than the permitted quota. Again, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans extended the sealing season until well into June.
Seals are killed primarily for their fur, which is used to produce fashion garments and other items. There is a small market for seal oil (both for industrial purposes and for human consumption) and seal penises have been sold in Asian markets as an aphrodisiac. There is almost no market for the meat, so seal carcasses are normally left to rot on the ice. Senior Canadian government representatives define the seal slaughter as &#;primarily a fur hunt.&#;
Sealing is an off-season activity conducted by fishermen from Canada's East Coast. They make, on average, one-twentieth of their incomes from seal hunting and the rest from commercial fisheries. Even in Newfoundland, where most sealers live, income from the hunt accounts for less than one % of the province's economy and less than two % of the landed value of the fishery. According to the Newfoundland government, out of a population of half a million people, less than 6,000 fishermen participate in the seal hunt each year.
The Canadian government could easily shut down the seal hunt and replace it with economic alternatives should it choose to do so. One solution, which is supported by both animal protection groups and sealers, is a federal buyout of the commercial sealing industry. This program would involve the federal government &#;buying back&#; sealing licenses from fishermen&#;compensating them for lost revenue in the wake of the closure of the slaughter. Such a plan would be coupled with an investment in developing economic alternatives for the communities affected.
Fishing industry buyouts are nothing new to the Canadian government; over $4 billion has been spent on Canada&#;s east coast on buyouts and alternative economic development plans in recent years. When Canada ended its commercial whale hunt, it compensated whale hunters for their licenses in a similar fashion. One potential industry for the federal government to develop in place of seal hunting is marine ecotourism, including seal watching. In the Magdalen Islands, one of Canada&#;s sealing areas, seal watching now brings in more money to local communities than seal hunting does.
Yes. According to reports from the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment, more than $20 million in subsidies were provided to the sealing industry between and . Those subsidies came from entities such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Human Resources Development Council and Canada Economic Development&#;Quebec. These subsidies take a variety of forms, including funding the salaries for seal processing plant workers, market research and development trips and capital acquisitions for processing plants. In , more than $400,000 was provided by the Canadian government to companies for the development of seal products.
In recent years, millions of dollars have been spent on ice-breaking for the sealing vessels and search and rescue of sealing crews by the Canadian Coast Guard&#;all at taxpayers&#; expense. In , the Canadian government estimated that enforcement of the Marine Mammal Regulations cost between $1.8 and $3.6 million&#;for an industry that brought in less than $1.5 million that year. The Canadian government also commits considerable resources each year to lobbying foreign governments on behalf of the sealing industry, including overseas flights and accommodations for lobbyists.
Moreover, Canada's commercial seal hunt is also indirectly subsidized by the Norwegian government. A Norwegian company purchases close to 80% of the sealskins produced in Canada in any given year through its Canadian subsidiary. These skins are shipped in an unprocessed state directly to Norway, where they are tanned and re-exported. The Norwegian government provides significant financial assistance to this company each year.
There is no evidence to support this contention. Some fishing industry lobby groups try to claim that seals must be culled to protect fish stocks, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The scientific community agrees that the true cause of the depletion of fish stocks off Canada's East Coast is human over-fishing. Blaming seals for disappearing fish is a convenient way for the fishing industry to divert attention from its irresponsible and environmentally destructive practices that continue today.
In truth, seals, like all marine mammals, are a vital part of the ecosystem of the Northwest Atlantic. Harp seals, which are the primary target of the hunt, are opportunistic feeders, meaning they eat many different species. So while approximately three % of a harp seal's diet may be commercially fished cod, harp seals also eat many significant predators of cod, such as squid. That is why some scientists are concerned that culling harp seals could further inhibit recovery of commercially valuable fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic.
No. While the harp seal population in the Northwest Atlantic is the world's largest; it is a migratory population that spans the distance between Canada and Greenland and is supposed to number in the many millions.
In the s and '60s, over-hunting reduced the harp seal population by as much as two-thirds. By the early s, senior Canadian government scientists were warning that the population could be lost altogether if commercial sealing was not suspended for at least a decade.
In the early s, the European Union banned the import of whitecoat seal skins, effectively removing the principal market for the hunt at the time. For the next decade, the numbers of seals killed in the hunt dramatically declined and the harp seal population began to recover.
But in the s, the Canadian government rejuvenated the commercial seal hunt through massive subsidies. And with nearly one million seal pups killed in the past five years alone, we can only wonder what the impact will be on the harp seal population in coming years. Scientists have already sounded the alarm regarding the poor science used by the Canadian government to set quotas for the number of seals killed.
If you want to learn more, please visit our website -.