Canada can be considered a champion of sustainable use of marine resources,
including marine mammals. The country is an official observer of NAMMCO,
which equally links conservation and sustainable use. Despite Canada leaving the
IWC, it has also retained observership in the Commission. It seems, therefore, that
Canada follows its own agenda, yet stays involved in the international discourse (and
science) on marine mammal utilisation. Opposing the US-led proposal to uplist the
polar bear under CITES is but one additional step to substantiate its sustainable use
agenda. At the same time, it follows its obligations towards its indigenous population, enshrined in Canadian law. The possibility for Inuit to co-manage polar bear
populations as well as to continue their seal and whale hunts substantiates this
approach.
The above paragraphs have mostly referred to efforts of states to either allow or
restrict hunting operations. However, what all states have in common, be it within
the International Whaling Commission, as parties to any sealing agreement, or as
parties to the polar bear regime, is the interest in the conservation of marine
mammals. This is, after all, the common denominator that all pro- or anti-use states
and organisations can agree on. The way by which this happens is, as a result, the
subject of disagreement. But as Chap. 4 has demonstrated, species-specific regimes
are not the only way in which cooperation (or disagreement) is possible. The OSPAR
Convention with its concrete measures to protect the marine environment which I
discussed above, or the Convention on Biological Diversity, which I omitted from
the discussion, serve as important avenues through which the larger ecosystembased approach can be taken. Since these regimes are mostly consensus-driven and
therefore in the end acceptable to all parties involved, they are significantly less
controversial and significantly less infused by questions regarding marine mammal
utilisation. Instead, they are regimes which consider the protection of nature as a
whole rather than the protection of certain species. Countries like Japan, for instance
in the context of the CBD, does not present itself as a pro-whaling nation, but rather
as a nation concerned with the conservation of the environment.
8.4
Aboriginal Exemptions
While the way international marine mammal law is shaped, implemented and
adjudicated is to a large degree dependent on normative approaches to marine
mammal utilisation and associated state behaviour, a rather widely accepted notion
is that of aboriginal exemptions. This is to say that many regimes—the ICRW, the
EU Seal Regime, the CMS, to name a few—that are still in force include provisions
that pay regard to the rights and livelihoods of indigenous (and local) populations.
This means that protective measures, predominantly in the form of hunting
restrictions, do not, or to a limited degree, apply to indigenous populations.
As I explained in Sect. 1.4, this logic corresponds to the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities. This means that the hunt of aboriginal populations of
marine mammals is not considered to be detrimental to the conservation status of a
species. Whales, seals and polar bears, in other words, can be hunted on a small scale
8.4 Aboriginal Exemptions
181
including marine mammals. The country is an official observer of NAMMCO,
which equally links conservation and sustainable use. Despite Canada leaving the
IWC, it has also retained observership in the Commission. It seems, therefore, that
Canada follows its own agenda, yet stays involved in the international discourse (and
science) on marine mammal utilisation. Opposing the US-led proposal to uplist the
polar bear under CITES is but one additional step to substantiate its sustainable use
agenda. At the same time, it follows its obligations towards its indigenous population, enshrined in Canadian law. The possibility for Inuit to co-manage polar bear
populations as well as to continue their seal and whale hunts substantiates this
approach.
The above paragraphs have mostly referred to efforts of states to either allow or
restrict hunting operations. However, what all states have in common, be it within
the International Whaling Commission, as parties to any sealing agreement, or as
parties to the polar bear regime, is the interest in the conservation of marine
mammals. This is, after all, the common denominator that all pro- or anti-use states
and organisations can agree on. The way by which this happens is, as a result, the
subject of disagreement. But as Chap. 4 has demonstrated, species-specific regimes
are not the only way in which cooperation (or disagreement) is possible. The OSPAR
Convention with its concrete measures to protect the marine environment which I
discussed above, or the Convention on Biological Diversity, which I omitted from
the discussion, serve as important avenues through which the larger ecosystembased approach can be taken. Since these regimes are mostly consensus-driven and
therefore in the end acceptable to all parties involved, they are significantly less
controversial and significantly less infused by questions regarding marine mammal
utilisation. Instead, they are regimes which consider the protection of nature as a
whole rather than the protection of certain species. Countries like Japan, for instance
in the context of the CBD, does not present itself as a pro-whaling nation, but rather
as a nation concerned with the conservation of the environment.
8.4
Aboriginal Exemptions
While the way international marine mammal law is shaped, implemented and
adjudicated is to a large degree dependent on normative approaches to marine
mammal utilisation and associated state behaviour, a rather widely accepted notion
is that of aboriginal exemptions. This is to say that many regimes—the ICRW, the
EU Seal Regime, the CMS, to name a few—that are still in force include provisions
that pay regard to the rights and livelihoods of indigenous (and local) populations.
This means that protective measures, predominantly in the form of hunting
restrictions, do not, or to a limited degree, apply to indigenous populations.
As I explained in Sect. 1.4, this logic corresponds to the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities. This means that the hunt of aboriginal populations of
marine mammals is not considered to be detrimental to the conservation status of a
species. Whales, seals and polar bears, in other words, can be hunted on a small scale
8.4 Aboriginal Exemptions
181