by indigenous peoples. A common notion that goes hand in hand with this exemption is that of ‘subsistence’. Therefore, it is not merely to be a small-scale hunt
(which could also be driven by economic considerations), but it is to be motivated by
immediate consumption without a market orientation.
In the case of whaling, this approach is somewhat comprehensible as, for
instance, Alaskan or Makah whaling takes a small number of whales in the region,
makes immediate use of the whale, provides meat and other produce for the entire
region and does not have an international—that is to say global—dimension. This
stands in stark contrast to the commercial whale hunt, which takes place either in the
EEZs or in the high seas, which is conducted by large factory ships, which requires
immense technological and financial efforts, which takes larger numbers of whales,
and which also holds a global dimension. Irrespective of the question of whether the
whaling moratorium is scientifically justifiable or not, from a conservation perspective, aboriginal whaling has a significantly lesser environmental impact than commercial whaling. The same accounted, of course, also to the Bering Sea Fur Seal
Regime, the exemption in which was inserted with the same concerns in mind.
Although my own interviews with aboriginal representatives at IWC meetings also
showed some dissatisfaction with the ASW-principle (the argument being that there
should not be a quota for aboriginal whaling in the first place), in general, ASW
representatives were rather happy with the fact that despite the global opposition to
whaling they are still able to continue with it.
When we turn to the trade in seal products and the EU Seal Regime, however, the
picture changes. While meant to spare indigenous populations from any negative
effects of a trade barrier, the interlinked market chains have also contributed to
negative effects of this ban. I argue that this stems from a rather outdated idea of
subsistence sealing. First of all, if sealing in the Arctic or elsewhere were purely
subsistence-based, which would mean a purely community-based sphere of
exchange, the insertion of any aboriginal exemption into an international trade
regime would not be necessary. By inserting it, policy-makers must have been
aware of the fact that there is a clear international dimension to subsistence sealing.
Problematic in the context of the EU Seal Regime is that the Inuit did not feel
adequately consulted by EU policy-makers. Although Inuit organisations
vehemently opposed the idea of a seal trade ban, it was put in place anyway. As a
consequence, the European Union has been consistently considered as an adversary
to Inuit wellbeing since the effects of the 1983 as well as 2009 bans were directly
linked to increased suicide rates, loss of culture and identity and associated declining
wellbeing. Not surprisingly, counter-campaigns and slogans were developed, such
as ‘Phoque [the French term for seal] the EU’ or ‘Save the Veal.’ Also the ‘#sealfie’
campaign—a display of seal products in both Inuit and other seal-using cultures—is
a direct result of the EU’s Seal Regime.
In the case of polar bears, the polar bear regime has from the outset been designed
to take into account the interests of polar bear hunters. Both the Polar Bear Agreement as well as the individual management agreements conceptually make extensive
use of the concept of aboriginal exemptions. Contrary to other regimes, however, it
is not ‘exemptions’ per se, but rather the incorporation of aboriginal, user interests.
182
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law
(which could also be driven by economic considerations), but it is to be motivated by
immediate consumption without a market orientation.
In the case of whaling, this approach is somewhat comprehensible as, for
instance, Alaskan or Makah whaling takes a small number of whales in the region,
makes immediate use of the whale, provides meat and other produce for the entire
region and does not have an international—that is to say global—dimension. This
stands in stark contrast to the commercial whale hunt, which takes place either in the
EEZs or in the high seas, which is conducted by large factory ships, which requires
immense technological and financial efforts, which takes larger numbers of whales,
and which also holds a global dimension. Irrespective of the question of whether the
whaling moratorium is scientifically justifiable or not, from a conservation perspective, aboriginal whaling has a significantly lesser environmental impact than commercial whaling. The same accounted, of course, also to the Bering Sea Fur Seal
Regime, the exemption in which was inserted with the same concerns in mind.
Although my own interviews with aboriginal representatives at IWC meetings also
showed some dissatisfaction with the ASW-principle (the argument being that there
should not be a quota for aboriginal whaling in the first place), in general, ASW
representatives were rather happy with the fact that despite the global opposition to
whaling they are still able to continue with it.
When we turn to the trade in seal products and the EU Seal Regime, however, the
picture changes. While meant to spare indigenous populations from any negative
effects of a trade barrier, the interlinked market chains have also contributed to
negative effects of this ban. I argue that this stems from a rather outdated idea of
subsistence sealing. First of all, if sealing in the Arctic or elsewhere were purely
subsistence-based, which would mean a purely community-based sphere of
exchange, the insertion of any aboriginal exemption into an international trade
regime would not be necessary. By inserting it, policy-makers must have been
aware of the fact that there is a clear international dimension to subsistence sealing.
Problematic in the context of the EU Seal Regime is that the Inuit did not feel
adequately consulted by EU policy-makers. Although Inuit organisations
vehemently opposed the idea of a seal trade ban, it was put in place anyway. As a
consequence, the European Union has been consistently considered as an adversary
to Inuit wellbeing since the effects of the 1983 as well as 2009 bans were directly
linked to increased suicide rates, loss of culture and identity and associated declining
wellbeing. Not surprisingly, counter-campaigns and slogans were developed, such
as ‘Phoque [the French term for seal] the EU’ or ‘Save the Veal.’ Also the ‘#sealfie’
campaign—a display of seal products in both Inuit and other seal-using cultures—is
a direct result of the EU’s Seal Regime.
In the case of polar bears, the polar bear regime has from the outset been designed
to take into account the interests of polar bear hunters. Both the Polar Bear Agreement as well as the individual management agreements conceptually make extensive
use of the concept of aboriginal exemptions. Contrary to other regimes, however, it
is not ‘exemptions’ per se, but rather the incorporation of aboriginal, user interests.
182
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law