Competing Interests: Canada and Inuit Oppose EU Ban on Seal Products

Canada is waging an all-out battle against recent European Union legislation banning the sale of seal products in the European Community.
The EU had justified its ban by claiming consideration of “the pain, distress and other forms of suffering which the killing and skinning of seals … cause to these animals.”
The regulation includes exemptions for seal products hunted for the purpose of fisheries conservation and sustainable management, and those procured from traditional hunts carried out by Inuit peoples.
Last September, the EU finally gave in to lobbying efforts by animal rights groups, which have been actively opposing the sealing industry since the 1970s. By passing the new regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009), the EU aims to prevent the sale of products that come from seals – everything from seal pelts to Omega-3 capsules made from seal oil.
The regulation serves to harmonize various regulations already in place in Europe. At the end of 2007, Belgium, Croatia, Slovenia and the Netherlands had all-out bans on seal products.
Additionally, France, Germany, Italy and Austria had been pursuing national initiatives to outlaw the seal product industry. The new regulation does not negate existing national laws; rather, it extends the seal product ban to all 27 member countries in the European Community.
The response to the EU’s assault on the seal industry was multi-faceted. The first reaction came from the Canadian government.
On November 2nd last year, the federal government formally requested consultation with the EU through the WTO. It claimed that the EU regulation violates various international trade agreements, including the agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and the Agriculture Agreement.
If the two parties can reach no resolution within sixty days, the case will be advanced to the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism.
Canada has publicly criticized the EU initiative to ban seal products ever since the regulation was initially proposed. A year ago, Canada’s Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Gail Shea, expressed Canada’s discontent with the EU’s position.
Shea asserted that Canada has “provided ample evidence of the humaneness and sustainability of the hunt. Unfortunately, this evidence is not yet understood in Europe.” She continues to criticize the EU’s position by expressing that “Canada does not make trade decisions based on emotion and we expect others to act accordingly.”
The second response to the EU ban came from organizations representing the Inuit people of Canada and Greenland, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and Inuit Circumpolar Council. Inuit individuals are uniting with these organizations in a lawsuit filed against the EU in the European General Court. They claim that “there are no valid conservation or humane harvesting arguments to justify a ban in seal products trade.”
This lawsuit is being pursued despite the fact that the ban makes exceptions for Inuit and aboriginal peoples; Inuit groups claim that this exemption is unclear. The ITK states “until now, the EU has demonstrated more interest in keeping non-Inuit out of the market than finding ways of including Inuit.
“As such, it is hard to support such an unclear, flawed, and unfair regulation. They left us with no alternative but to sue.”
There is heated debate over whether the practice of clubbing or shooting seals should be considered inhumane. Indeed, the hunt is difficult to witness: a seal appears curious and friendly as the hunter runs at it and hits it on the head several times. Still images can be just as disturbing, featuring freshly killed seal carcasses surrounded by blood-stained snow.
It is this type of visual propaganda that is used by animal activist groups to argue that the hunt is inhumane enough to justify restrictive trade measures.
On the other side of the debate are those who claim that the seal industry is an integral part of certain peoples’ way of life, and a vital source of income. As well, the ban on seal products on ethical grounds is seen by some as a violation of commitments made under international trade agreements.
Prof. Gilbert Gagné of Bishop’s Political Studies department commented that “under trade agreements, countries commit themselves to open their borders to other countries’ products.” They cannot say that they want to limit the import of a particular product for no good reason.
However, he reminds us that “a sovereign state can do whatever it wants” and that all the WTO can do in the end is suggest that the EU amend their regulation to conform to trade law, and give Canada permission to impose sanctions if the EU fails to comply. It cannot force the EU to rescind the legislation.
Curiously, the TBT includes a provision that permits trade barriers designed for the “protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment”; so the EU ban on the sale of seal products for ethical reasons may not actually conflict with international law. However, Prof. Gagné does not believe that it is possible to make an argument on these grounds.
He recalls the dispute over beef products containing hormones, in which the EU sought to reduce imports of beef from the US and Canada on the grounds that it is hazardous to human health. In that case, there was not sufficient evidence that the hormones were hazardous, and so the WTO ruled against the EU.
It is unlikely that the WTO would rule in the EU’s favour this time, since there is more empirical evidence of the negative effects of hormone-treated beef than there is that seals suffer when they are clubbed or shot.
Canada’s position remains that there is nothing inhumane about the seal hunt, at least in this country. This position was supported by an article in The Economist, which states that seal clubbing “is not cruel if it is properly done by competent and trained professionals… [and] that the Canadian hunt [is] professional and highly regulated.”
The article goes on to state that objection to the hunt is based mainly on emotional responses to “images that are difficult even for experienced observers to interpret”.
The article goes so far as to suggest that the EU ban on seal products does more to hurt the seals than it does to protect them. When an animal can no longer be traded, “it loses its value and thus the incentive for people to conserve it.” By this logic, hunting an animal creates an economic interest and financial capacity to maintain healthy populations of that animal.
Aside from claiming that the seal hunt is humane and does not threaten the sustainability of seal populations, the Canadian government and other advocates of the seal hunt assert the cultural and economic importance of the seal hunt to people in Eastern and Northern Canada.
Revenue gained from the hunt equals approximately $16.5 million. However, the industry represents only a small fraction of the total revenue earned by maritime industries in Canada.
The commercial sealing industry may not be doomed as a result of the ban. Trade with the EU only represents 15% of the industry’s exports, and Canada is currently busy promoting its seal products in other global markets.
Minister Shea recently traveled to China with several Canadian sealing companies in an effort to develop the country’s market for Canadian seal products. China is a major importer of seal oil, but the country has not yet certified seal meat for human consumption.
Regardless of whether the seal hunt is economically important or inhumane, the Canadian government is intent on pursuing every legal option available to fight the EU ban. The battle of animal activist interest groups and economically interested interest groups continues.