than 50 cm as per a decree of the Ministry of Commerce. The reasons for Italy’s
move are somewhat unclear. After all, the country was not a major importer of seal
skins, nor was it subject to significant pressure while the Christian Democratic
government of Giulio Andreotti did not stand out as being overly concerned with
environmental issues. But it set an important precedent for other countries to follow
suit and paved the way for a European trade ban on seal products. We must
remember that the Italian ban did not address conservation issues nor did it aim to
halt the import of seal products stemming from endangered seals. Instead, the ban
constituted a blanket ban on all products stemming from seals smaller than 50 cm. In
two respects the Italian move opened the door for a new era in seal legislation: first, it
established the narrative of the seal not being an exploitable resource anymore by
putting a blanket ban into place. Second, it followed the notion of species protection
through trade measures, which was established by the coming into force of CITES
on 1 July 1975.
Although Italy had instigated a first national ban, it was not the first country to
take action. Already since 1970 the Netherlands had a voluntary import ban in
place, which, however, left it to fur traders themselves to decide whether or not to
import seal furs. In how far this voluntary ban was followed cannot be ascertained.
But with Italy’s nation-wide ban in place, it did not take long for the Netherlands to
adopt a similar piece of legislation in September 1980, using conservation concerns
as the primary argument. By then, the European discourse on banning the trade in
seal products had already reached the level of decision-makers: in April 1980 the
first Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the UK tabled a motion for a
resolution calling for a Europe-wide import ban on seal products. While conservation still played a role in the Italian and Dutch bans, the motion referred to the
killing of young seals arousing public outrage. Only as a secondary reason conservation concerns were mentioned.
24 Interestingly, however, despite reference to
public outrage, the motion mentioned animal welfare aspects of the seal hunt
only in passing. The 1970s and early 1980s were the time when it was not
conservation, but animal cruelty that drove the discourse on sealing. But while
that may have been so, the committee of the European Parliament responsible for
the drafting of a resolution on the seal trade referenced concerns over animal
welfare and conservation. In other words, European policy-makers identified animal welfare shortcomings and conservation concerns as the prime motivators
behind a European legal instrument. In other words, this legal instrument was
supposed to improve animal welfare in the seal hunts and it was supposed to
have positive effects on the conservation status of seals. Therefore, detailed information on hunting methods and population statuses of seals in Canada and
Norway—where also major seal hunts were taking place—were provided and it
was concluded that “[i]n view of the threat to the species and the barbaric hunting
24 European Parliament (1981), p. 5.
146
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals
move are somewhat unclear. After all, the country was not a major importer of seal
skins, nor was it subject to significant pressure while the Christian Democratic
government of Giulio Andreotti did not stand out as being overly concerned with
environmental issues. But it set an important precedent for other countries to follow
suit and paved the way for a European trade ban on seal products. We must
remember that the Italian ban did not address conservation issues nor did it aim to
halt the import of seal products stemming from endangered seals. Instead, the ban
constituted a blanket ban on all products stemming from seals smaller than 50 cm. In
two respects the Italian move opened the door for a new era in seal legislation: first, it
established the narrative of the seal not being an exploitable resource anymore by
putting a blanket ban into place. Second, it followed the notion of species protection
through trade measures, which was established by the coming into force of CITES
on 1 July 1975.
Although Italy had instigated a first national ban, it was not the first country to
take action. Already since 1970 the Netherlands had a voluntary import ban in
place, which, however, left it to fur traders themselves to decide whether or not to
import seal furs. In how far this voluntary ban was followed cannot be ascertained.
But with Italy’s nation-wide ban in place, it did not take long for the Netherlands to
adopt a similar piece of legislation in September 1980, using conservation concerns
as the primary argument. By then, the European discourse on banning the trade in
seal products had already reached the level of decision-makers: in April 1980 the
first Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the UK tabled a motion for a
resolution calling for a Europe-wide import ban on seal products. While conservation still played a role in the Italian and Dutch bans, the motion referred to the
killing of young seals arousing public outrage. Only as a secondary reason conservation concerns were mentioned.
24 Interestingly, however, despite reference to
public outrage, the motion mentioned animal welfare aspects of the seal hunt
only in passing. The 1970s and early 1980s were the time when it was not
conservation, but animal cruelty that drove the discourse on sealing. But while
that may have been so, the committee of the European Parliament responsible for
the drafting of a resolution on the seal trade referenced concerns over animal
welfare and conservation. In other words, European policy-makers identified animal welfare shortcomings and conservation concerns as the prime motivators
behind a European legal instrument. In other words, this legal instrument was
supposed to improve animal welfare in the seal hunts and it was supposed to
have positive effects on the conservation status of seals. Therefore, detailed information on hunting methods and population statuses of seals in Canada and
Norway—where also major seal hunts were taking place—were provided and it
was concluded that “[i]n view of the threat to the species and the barbaric hunting
24 European Parliament (1981), p. 5.
146
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals