The following article first appeared as an editorial in the January 2008 issue of Sustainable eNews, published by the IWMC World Conservation Trust, and is reproduced with the author's permission.

Canada and the WTO in the 21st Century
Anticipating a fair process to decide the legality of trade bans on seal products

By Dr. Janice Henke, anthropologist

At that time, the stimulus for the demand to ban these products was insistence by IFAW and other NGOs that the harvest techniques were prolonged and physically cruel to the creatures, and constituted an immoral act in that "infant" animals were being taken "on the nursery ice" while their dams "watched with flowing tears". The general public in the United States had similarly been influenced by Davies and other protest leaders, and had successfully urged the Congress to pass the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act, which prevents the import into the US of the products of any marine mammals, and prohibits any harvest activity (as of certain fish) which incidentally harms marine mammals such as dolphins.

Canada began a long environmentally and economically costly period in which harp seals were virtually unmanaged in the western Atlantic. The herd, which had been slowly increasing even with a well-supervised and scientifically monitored harvest of some 180,000 animals per year, was abruptly left to grow unchecked in the new absence of significant human predation. The population steadily grew from 1.8 million animals to its present level of over 5 million. Seals eat fish and krill. The impact that Davies and other animal activists have had on the natural environment is a collective human and environmental disaster.

Since that time, a new market has slowly developed in Eastern Europe, Russia and the Far East, and some pelt and seal oil processors in Europe have participated in a resurgence of trade, by processing seal products for sale to Eastern Europe, Russia and the Orient. Although the price of seal pelts rose dramatically, the problems of seal management have not been solved. Canada's wildlife managers have ensured that the animals' rate of increase was slowed, so that the plight of fish might be eased, and the economic status of fishermen would improve, with fish harvests more securely protected. The effort has seemed to some, too little, too late. And now, this new move in the EU to formally ban the import of seal products; Holland, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Austria are all moving towards an import ban based not on scientifically derived wildlife management concerns, but on cultural preferences that seals not be utilized. The NGO effect on public perception has surfaced again. This is a historic test of NGO power.

Canada's experts, sealers and diplomats have made countless trips to the EU, meeting with government decision makers to present them with evidence on everything from the humaneness of harvest techniques, to the economic and ecological consequences of inadequate population management, all to no avail. It is not the decision makers who need to be convinced; it is their constituents who have been "taught" by NGOs that seals should be regarded as untouchable icons of nature that must not be utilized in any way.

The EU decision makers in each nation dare not promote the well-documented and logical case for seal harvest and entry into the EU marketplace. Their jobs would be at risk. The EU citizens who demand an end to seal product imports, even en route to other final destinations, feel empowered by this success. This issue is not about seals. It is a power demonstration by urban peoples who have no stake in Canada's environmental health or the welfare of its fishermen. Their chief concern is to prove that they can stop a practice because they have a cultural preference that it not take place, and their power is publicly demonstrated. They feel morally superior. They do not wish to be bothered by facts that refute their unfounded beliefs about sealing, and they do not care about the human misery of Inuits or Newfoundlanders. It is a "let them eat cake" decision.

Canada has now wisely decided to take its case in this matter to the World Trade Organization for dispute settlement. The process will include certain prescribed steps for the parties to take; discussions among parties, the appointment of a WTO Panel, its recommendations for resolution, and specific time limits within which parties shall come to an agreement in order to comply with the procedures agreed upon in the Uruguay Round of talks on trade and environment matters. This shall be a historic test of the effectiveness of the WTO. Nothing less can solve this matter, and the fate of environmental and economic health in eastern Canada hangs in the balance.

The very best outcome would be a timely (15 months at the most) WTO decision that seal product bans are unjustified on environmental grounds, and therefore, illegal to be instituted by WTO parties against Canada. The evidence that the Canadian management of seals and sealers has been professional and accurate from biological and statistical perspectives is overwhelming. The evidence that the EU does not have a worthy (by WTO standards) environmental argument is also apparent. The world shall be watching the outcome of this extremely important issue. The US is itself in violation of its responsibilities as a WTO party because of its Marine Mammal Protection Act, which similarly bans the import of seal products into the country. Interestingly, in the US, treaty obligations such as this supersede any domestic legislation, so the US market has been illegally closed to seal products at least since the country signed the Uruguay Round.