would include scientific approaches to seal killing methods. The European Commission, however, refused to do so. Not surprisingly, therefore, on 23 March 1983 the
Council adopted the first piece of legislation that would specifically remove seals
pups from the list of exploitable resources. Although this ‘Seal Pups Directive’
26 did
indeed consider the exploitation of seals as a ‘legitimate’ occupation and livelihood
and while it was to be in place for merely 2 years as a means for seal populations to
recover—even though ICES did not ascribe them worrisome conservation statuses—
these provisions appeared to be only half-hearted. On the one hand, the negative
effects of the Seal Pups Directive were not reason enough to make changes to
it. Both commercial sealers and indigenous subsistence sealers were struck hard by
the implications the ban had on the markets. Although the Directive included an
exemption for Inuit sealers, Arctic communities were hit by the collapsing markets
and Inuit sealers had no longer the opportunity to place their products on the
European markets.
27 At the same time, the loss of labour and security for commercial
sealers and those working in the processing industry were not considered. On the
other hand, these aspects did not prevent the Seal Pups Directive to outlive its set
expiry date: in 1985 it was extended for another 4 years until 1989. Then it was
extended indefinitely. Legally speaking it is still in force today.
6.6
The 2000s: Banning the Seal Trade
The adoption of the Seal Pups Directive marked an important shift in the way seals
and seal hunting were treated legally. The 1980s and well into the 1990s also legally
established the seal as a non-exploitable resource, meaning that the lethal taking and
utilisation of seals was no longer considered legitimate in international discourse.
Since there was, and still is, no international body overseeing the seal hunt, it was up
to states themselves to decide whether sealing was still a legitimate occupation or
not. For sealing states such as Canada or Norway the position was rather clear: both
countries are to this day pursuing sealing, resisting international pressure to end
it. The situation in other states such as in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, South
America or Southern Africa is different. In Europe, which would become the now
28-state encompassing European Union in 1993, seal hunts are still ongoing, albeit
for non-commercial purposes. Also in the 1980s and 1990s seals were hunted,
particularly in the Baltic Sea or in Scottish waters, aiming to protect the local
fisheries. The Seal Pups Directive did indeed ban the trade in products stemming
from harp and hooded seal pups, but it did not ban the hunt for seals per se. Sealing
for marine management purposes was consequently considered to be a necessity
while sealing to fulfil market demands was not. This difference in perception on the
justification of the seal hunt can still be found today. The same can be said about
26 Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States
of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom (OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, pp. 30–31).
27 Wenzel (1991).
148
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals
Council adopted the first piece of legislation that would specifically remove seals
pups from the list of exploitable resources. Although this ‘Seal Pups Directive’
26 did
indeed consider the exploitation of seals as a ‘legitimate’ occupation and livelihood
and while it was to be in place for merely 2 years as a means for seal populations to
recover—even though ICES did not ascribe them worrisome conservation statuses—
these provisions appeared to be only half-hearted. On the one hand, the negative
effects of the Seal Pups Directive were not reason enough to make changes to
it. Both commercial sealers and indigenous subsistence sealers were struck hard by
the implications the ban had on the markets. Although the Directive included an
exemption for Inuit sealers, Arctic communities were hit by the collapsing markets
and Inuit sealers had no longer the opportunity to place their products on the
European markets.
27 At the same time, the loss of labour and security for commercial
sealers and those working in the processing industry were not considered. On the
other hand, these aspects did not prevent the Seal Pups Directive to outlive its set
expiry date: in 1985 it was extended for another 4 years until 1989. Then it was
extended indefinitely. Legally speaking it is still in force today.
6.6
The 2000s: Banning the Seal Trade
The adoption of the Seal Pups Directive marked an important shift in the way seals
and seal hunting were treated legally. The 1980s and well into the 1990s also legally
established the seal as a non-exploitable resource, meaning that the lethal taking and
utilisation of seals was no longer considered legitimate in international discourse.
Since there was, and still is, no international body overseeing the seal hunt, it was up
to states themselves to decide whether sealing was still a legitimate occupation or
not. For sealing states such as Canada or Norway the position was rather clear: both
countries are to this day pursuing sealing, resisting international pressure to end
it. The situation in other states such as in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, South
America or Southern Africa is different. In Europe, which would become the now
28-state encompassing European Union in 1993, seal hunts are still ongoing, albeit
for non-commercial purposes. Also in the 1980s and 1990s seals were hunted,
particularly in the Baltic Sea or in Scottish waters, aiming to protect the local
fisheries. The Seal Pups Directive did indeed ban the trade in products stemming
from harp and hooded seal pups, but it did not ban the hunt for seals per se. Sealing
for marine management purposes was consequently considered to be a necessity
while sealing to fulfil market demands was not. This difference in perception on the
justification of the seal hunt can still be found today. The same can be said about
26 Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States
of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom (OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, pp. 30–31).
27 Wenzel (1991).
148
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals