The Canadian commercial seal hunt is one of the largest marine mammal hunts in the world. This hunt is controversial and leads to heat debate for the perspectives of sustainable stock management and “humane killing”. Canadian authorities, basically the department of fisheries and oceans, are the key decision makers in this case and they claim that they carefully incorporate different interests of stakeholders, such as aboriginal sealers, Asian markets and European authorities. It is declared that the governments undertake a science-based decision making which is of transparency, accountability and participation. Despite the statement made by government, opponent believes that there is a problematic decision-making process and ineffective legislation. This paper will review several sources of international agreements, domestic legislations and cultural traditions. A detailed analysis of governance practice will be depicted in the following paragraphs. Finally a relatively fair conclusion of current resource governance performance will be displayed.
Since harp seals are a migratory species subjected to international trade, international law and agreements are of paramount importance in governance framework. Generally speaking, international regulations are tended to conserve the sustainable stock of seal. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), one of whose party is Canada, states that party should ensure “the maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation”. However, the quota set by the Canadian government seems like a violation of Article 61. (UNCLOS, supra note 186, art. 61(2).) Furthermore, the Canadian government is unwilling to cooperate with other parties such as Greenland or Norway to conserve seals. (Alder. J, 2001) Unfortunately, there is little recourse or dispute settlement provision available in UNCLOS, so this convention does not appear to accomplish its original purpose Similarly, the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), which is a Multilateral Environmental Agreement for biodiversity protection, imposes one binding commitment of national reports. (CBD protocol, 2005) However, it mainly contains soft and unambiguous law so it also has a problematic implementation. There is another promising international body, called North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), aims at conservation management of marine mammals in the North Atlantic. Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are the parties of the agreement, but Canada does not show its will to sign this agreement. (NAMMCO, 1992) As a result, the domestic implementation in Canada cannot be supervised by this commission.
Canada is under international criticism regarding the issue of humane hunting. The European Union acts as the biggest opponents of this cruel action and they ban all the seal products from Canada, which is “a landmark vindication of the right to protect animal welfare under international trade law”. (R.HOWSE, J.LANGILLE, and K.SYKES, 2013) The Canadian government describes this action as “lack of a scientific, legal or other credible basis” (DFO, 2011) and it has launched a WTO challenge against this ban. But the panel of WTO rejected these arguments since Canada could not show its innocence and verifiably make the seal hunt humane. Furthermore, CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is likely to protect harp seals from unsustainable trade. Each party is required to nominate a management authority and a scientific authority. Authorities ought to maintain export quota which is not detrimental to the survival of species and steady ecosystems. (CITES, supra note 29, 2006) Basically, international agreements believe the Canadian commercial seal hunt is inhumane and unsustainable. But Canada contributes little effort to cooperate with other parties and its action cannot be convinced by other parties in the world.
In terms of domestic regulation, such as federal and local policies, commercial seal hunt appears to be profitable, sustainable and humane. As declared in five general principles of application in government document, governance has “a high degree of transparency, clear accountability and meaningful public involvement”. (A framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision making about risk, 2003) For transparency, government states clearly in their fisheries plan about the scientific stock assessment and precautionary approach. It seems like plausible, but opponents argue that the Canadian Marine Mammal Regulations can be easily violated without any penalties. In terms of the Human society in United States (2013), in 2002, sealers had already killed substantially more than the quota allowed by the regulated closing date, and yet the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean chose to extend the sealing season and the quota was exceeded by more than 37000. Furthermore, according to Dr. Mary Richardson, a Canadian veterinary expert in humane slaughter methods, from the speed and the environment of killing, seal hunt is inherently inhumane and should be prohibited. Due to the criticism, Canada imposes legal obstacles to observe the seal hunt. Only people with a legal license and observe seal hunt in a closer way. However, the license can only be issued if “the Minister determines that the issuance of the license will not cause disruption to a seal fishery”. It is obvious that this creates a challenge for people who want to film seal hunt or protect seals. In this way, Canada can keep the opponent away from getting evidence and minimize the exposure of hunting. Since information is inaccessible to the general public and the data provided is not accurate, the transparency of seal hunt is reduced, making people remain sceptic towards seal hunt.
For the accountability, as stated above, there is a low or even no compliance with regulations by hunters and the department of fisheries and oceans fails to enforce and supervise the hunting. Another issue which needs to address is that there is no local regulation found in Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is the main place for hunting. As there is a gap between federal regulation and local practices, the governance framework is subjected to low cooperation and coordination. This can also be concluded from the gap between international agreements and domestic legislations. As a consequence, Canada cannot defend their actions and respond to questions, losing the accountability and credibility gradually.
Canada does have some non-statutory institutions focusing on seal protections, such as Greenpeace and other environmental protection organization. However, since they do not have political will, they can only initiate proposal or campaign instead of issuing regulations. So this can reflect that government give a low participation chance for the general public. Canada does conduct annual information sessions for the seal hunt, but only with fishing industry representatives and individual sealers. This is against the principle of participation and the low public involvement cannot perform as a platform to resolve conflict as stated in precautionary approach (A framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision making about risk, 2003).
For cultural traditions, the Canadian government tries to hide commercial seal slaughters behind the native hunting. “Preservation of traditional indigenous cultures” or “subsistence hunt is a valuable link to Canadian cultural heritage’ seems to be a good excuse. However, the public can easily distinguish the difference between commercial seal hunt and subsistence needs. This is because only less than 2 percent of aboriginal people are involved in trapping animals for fur. (Andrew, 2006) In a word, this justification is invalid and it can not support the argument of government.
To conclude, there are failures in governance framework. Canada government should shift the focus from economic profit to biodiversity preservation in decision-making process as purposed by international organizations. The lack of local legislation and coordination of each level of government should also be improved. It is also shown that the legislation is ineffective, so government should increase transparency and accessible participation to general public as well as enhance supervision and management of the seal hunt.
References
Alder, J., Lugten, G., Kay, R., & Ferriss, B. (2001). Compliance with international fisheries instruments.
Cynthia F. Hodges (2009). The Canadian Commercial Seal Hunt: In Search Of International Legal Protection For Harp Seals. Michigan State University College of Law.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (2011). 2011-2015 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic Seals.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (2003). A framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision making about risk. ISBN 0-662-67486-3
- HOWSE, J. LANGILLE and K. SYKES (2013).Canada’s seal hunt can’t find cover in WTO trade laws.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2005). Handbook of the convention on biological diversity: Including its cartagena protocol on biosafety (3rd ed.). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Humane Society of the United States (2013). About the Canadian Seal Hunt.
The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (1992). Agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals in the North Atlantic. Available at http://www.sdnpbd.org/sdi/treaty/oceans_their_living_resources/ww94.htm.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Agreement PART V. EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE Article 61. Conservation of the living resources. Available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf