methods employed a Community import ban on the skins of both hooded seals and
harp seals [. . .] seems appropriate.”
25
Although by early 1982 particularly the Canadian government lobbied strongly
for an abandonment of the legislative process to adopt a ban, to demonstrate the
humaneness of the Canadian seal hunt and to show that the seal hunt was sustainable,
the European wheel of policy-making was already moving. One reason why the
Canadian efforts were not fruitful was the fact that Canada raised its TAC for harp
and hooded seal for the 1983/84 based on new scientific data. Given that the
Europeans were also concerned over the conservation status of seals, this proved
to be counterproductive in regard to the negotiations with Europe. While apparently
strictly science-based, this did not convince European decision-makers, who were, in
fact, in the process of trying to convince Canada and Norway to phase out all sealing
activities altogether. Not surprisingly, both countries did not agree. Instead, Canada
suggested that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (see
Chap. 4) was to be consulted in matters relating to conservation. Indeed, the
European Commission was of the opinion that ICES was a legitimate authority in
regard to the population status of seals. However, it would not move away from any
concerns concerning the killing methods of seals. The Commission noted that even
though seal killing methods were quick and would not cause unnecessary pain to the
animal, it was the mere fact that it was seals that were killed which would cause
public outrage. In other words, neither conservation nor animal welfare but principal
opposition to the killing of seals motivated the legislative process concerning the
seal trade.
Throughout the year 1982 Canada tried to argue along science-based lines and
thus to avert the adoption of some kind of ban on seal products in the European
Communities. These attempts were countered by anti-sealing organisations such as
the IFAW and Greenpeace that themselves used their influence to lobby European
institutions. While, on the one hand, they put soft pressure on Brussels by referring
to public opinion, they furthermore put hard pressure on national governments,
threatening them to publicly denounce them if they were unsupportive of a
European seal ban. In October 1982, the European Commission thus presented its
first draft for a directive that would ban the import of products stemming from harp
and hooded seal pups. Just a little over one month later, ICES published its report on
the conservation status of marine mammals which did not support any claim of
decline of harp and hooded seal populations due to overhunting. A European ban on
products from harp and hooded seal pup based on conservation concerns would
therefore not be justified. Irrespective of this finding, the European Parliament
approved the Commission’s draft proposal and it was now up to the Council of the
European Communities to adopt the directive.
In order to avert this adoption, Canada followed its science-based line of argumentation and furthermore requested that the European Commission would start the
negotiations on a Canada-initiated, strictly science-based sealing convention, which
25 European Parliament (1981), p. 21.
6.5 The Shifting Paradigm: The 1983 Seal Pups Directive
147
harp seals [. . .] seems appropriate.”
25
Although by early 1982 particularly the Canadian government lobbied strongly
for an abandonment of the legislative process to adopt a ban, to demonstrate the
humaneness of the Canadian seal hunt and to show that the seal hunt was sustainable,
the European wheel of policy-making was already moving. One reason why the
Canadian efforts were not fruitful was the fact that Canada raised its TAC for harp
and hooded seal for the 1983/84 based on new scientific data. Given that the
Europeans were also concerned over the conservation status of seals, this proved
to be counterproductive in regard to the negotiations with Europe. While apparently
strictly science-based, this did not convince European decision-makers, who were, in
fact, in the process of trying to convince Canada and Norway to phase out all sealing
activities altogether. Not surprisingly, both countries did not agree. Instead, Canada
suggested that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (see
Chap. 4) was to be consulted in matters relating to conservation. Indeed, the
European Commission was of the opinion that ICES was a legitimate authority in
regard to the population status of seals. However, it would not move away from any
concerns concerning the killing methods of seals. The Commission noted that even
though seal killing methods were quick and would not cause unnecessary pain to the
animal, it was the mere fact that it was seals that were killed which would cause
public outrage. In other words, neither conservation nor animal welfare but principal
opposition to the killing of seals motivated the legislative process concerning the
seal trade.
Throughout the year 1982 Canada tried to argue along science-based lines and
thus to avert the adoption of some kind of ban on seal products in the European
Communities. These attempts were countered by anti-sealing organisations such as
the IFAW and Greenpeace that themselves used their influence to lobby European
institutions. While, on the one hand, they put soft pressure on Brussels by referring
to public opinion, they furthermore put hard pressure on national governments,
threatening them to publicly denounce them if they were unsupportive of a
European seal ban. In October 1982, the European Commission thus presented its
first draft for a directive that would ban the import of products stemming from harp
and hooded seal pups. Just a little over one month later, ICES published its report on
the conservation status of marine mammals which did not support any claim of
decline of harp and hooded seal populations due to overhunting. A European ban on
products from harp and hooded seal pup based on conservation concerns would
therefore not be justified. Irrespective of this finding, the European Parliament
approved the Commission’s draft proposal and it was now up to the Council of the
European Communities to adopt the directive.
In order to avert this adoption, Canada followed its science-based line of argumentation and furthermore requested that the European Commission would start the
negotiations on a Canada-initiated, strictly science-based sealing convention, which
25 European Parliament (1981), p. 21.
6.5 The Shifting Paradigm: The 1983 Seal Pups Directive
147