Sealing and the Conservation of the Seal Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic.
17 We
must remember that Norway and Canada have not had the easiest relationship as
regards to sealing. Canadians, and particularly Newfoundlanders, in the past often
complained about the Norwegian presence in Canadian waters, operating large
vessels and essentially dominating sealing activities. A key provision in the 1971
agreement is therefore that Norwegian sealing is not allowed in the Gulf of St
Lawrence and subject to strict geographical limitations in other regions in Atlantic
Canada.
First and foremost, however, the agreement had a threefold objective: the conservation of seal stocks; coordination of scientific studies; and the development of
humane sealing methods. Particularly the latter marks a significant difference to
Norway’s 1957 agreement with the Soviet Union and can be clearly ascribed to the
changing discourse on sealing, which placed great emphasis on the (in)humaneness
of commercial sealing. While the main seal species under the agreement’s purview
was the harp seal, it was also possible to extend it to include hooded and bearded
seals as well as the walrus. To oversee the implementation of the agreement, a
commission was established, providing the governments with advice concerning
catch limits and other managerial issues as well as concerning humane hunting
methods. Compared with the 1957 agreement, the weight of the commission is
slightly heavier: on the one hand, the commission was also entitled to submit
proposals to the governments concerning inspection and other control measures,
enabling a direct influence on enforcement activities. On the other, the commission
was to be informed when the national governments issue permits for scientific
research, the local population or for expeditions that involve the hunting of seals.
While the commission did not have a veto right, the obligation to inform it notwithstanding indicates that its role and opinion are taken into account when permits are
issued.
Despite the fact that the agreement was concluded in 1971, it de facto did not last
very long. After all, in 1977 Canada established its EEZ, which made the work of the
commission obsolete. All sealing activities within the 200 nm limit became subject
to Canadian regulation. At the same time, Norwegian sealing shifted gradually to Jan
Mayen Island while also the increasing role of the International Commission for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) in the setting of catch limits for seals in
waters beyond national jurisdiction further diminished the commission’s importance
until it finally ceased to exist.
6.4.3 Antarctic Seals and Sealing
Governance of the Antarctic is taken care of by the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS),
consisting of the Antarctic Treaty from 1959, the Convention for the Conservation of
17 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Norway on Sealing and
the Conservation of the Seal Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic, 15 July 1971 (870 UNTS 85).
6.4 The Second Half of the Twentieth Century
141
17 We
must remember that Norway and Canada have not had the easiest relationship as
regards to sealing. Canadians, and particularly Newfoundlanders, in the past often
complained about the Norwegian presence in Canadian waters, operating large
vessels and essentially dominating sealing activities. A key provision in the 1971
agreement is therefore that Norwegian sealing is not allowed in the Gulf of St
Lawrence and subject to strict geographical limitations in other regions in Atlantic
Canada.
First and foremost, however, the agreement had a threefold objective: the conservation of seal stocks; coordination of scientific studies; and the development of
humane sealing methods. Particularly the latter marks a significant difference to
Norway’s 1957 agreement with the Soviet Union and can be clearly ascribed to the
changing discourse on sealing, which placed great emphasis on the (in)humaneness
of commercial sealing. While the main seal species under the agreement’s purview
was the harp seal, it was also possible to extend it to include hooded and bearded
seals as well as the walrus. To oversee the implementation of the agreement, a
commission was established, providing the governments with advice concerning
catch limits and other managerial issues as well as concerning humane hunting
methods. Compared with the 1957 agreement, the weight of the commission is
slightly heavier: on the one hand, the commission was also entitled to submit
proposals to the governments concerning inspection and other control measures,
enabling a direct influence on enforcement activities. On the other, the commission
was to be informed when the national governments issue permits for scientific
research, the local population or for expeditions that involve the hunting of seals.
While the commission did not have a veto right, the obligation to inform it notwithstanding indicates that its role and opinion are taken into account when permits are
issued.
Despite the fact that the agreement was concluded in 1971, it de facto did not last
very long. After all, in 1977 Canada established its EEZ, which made the work of the
commission obsolete. All sealing activities within the 200 nm limit became subject
to Canadian regulation. At the same time, Norwegian sealing shifted gradually to Jan
Mayen Island while also the increasing role of the International Commission for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) in the setting of catch limits for seals in
waters beyond national jurisdiction further diminished the commission’s importance
until it finally ceased to exist.
6.4.3 Antarctic Seals and Sealing
Governance of the Antarctic is taken care of by the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS),
consisting of the Antarctic Treaty from 1959, the Convention for the Conservation of
17 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Norway on Sealing and
the Conservation of the Seal Stocks in the Northwest Atlantic, 15 July 1971 (870 UNTS 85).
6.4 The Second Half of the Twentieth Century
141