The fight over trade constitutes
one of the most important confrontations in the whaling and sealing conflict.
The «save-the-seal» and «save-the-whale» movements
have employed two complementary strategies to sabotage markets: one is
to influence national and international legislation, and the other is to
destroy demand by creating an image of marine mammal products as being
morally unacceptable.
(Click the image for full-size version)
As early as 1972, the US introduced legislation prohibiting any importation of marine mammal products, an act which is clearly in conflict with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.(20)
In 1983, the EU banned imports of the skins of seals under six months of age. This ban was also in conflict with GATT. The negative light in which all sealing was cast during the campaign for the ban resulted in the complete collapse of the EU market for all sealskins, from pups and adults alike.
The EU market, which until then had been the most important for sealers, has never recovered, with the notable exception of Denmark. There are other bright spots, too. A sizable and growing market for sealskins has been developing in the Far East, buoyed by a general upswing in the fur market. Even though the number of sealskins on the market rose dramatically in 1996 due to larger catches off Newfoundland, demand has kept pace with supply. The value of the skins, however, is still far below what it was in the 1960s and '70s.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is intended, as its name states, to address only issues relating to trade in endangered species. Species threatened with extinction are listed in Appendix I, and all international trade in them is prohibited. But there is also a second appendix, which lists, amongst others, species that can be mistaken for endangered species. Trade in these species can only take place on the issuing of special permits, something which invol-ves a considerable amount of red tape.
In 1983, the «Save-the-Seal» campaign attempted to have the hooded and harp seals listed in Appendix II, but the proposal, which was submitted by Germany, was rejected.
The great whales, however, are listed in the CITES appendices. With reference to the moratorium adopted by the IWC in 1982, CITES listed in Appendix I all but one of the whale stocks covered by the IWC's mandate.(21) CITES made no independent assessment of the status of the various stocks. Amongst others, the abundant stocks of minke whales in the North-east Atlantic, the Central Atlantic and the Antarctic all ended up in Appendix I.
Species which are no longer considered sufficiently endangered to warrant inclusion in Appendix I must first be downlisted to Appendix II before they can be removed from the appendices altogether.
Prior to the CITES meeting in 1997, Norway and Japan proposed the downlis-ting of a number of whale stocks, inclu-ding those of minke whales.
In conjunction with its proposal to down-list the North-east Atlantic and Central Atlantic minke whale stocks, Norway committed itself to establishing a register containing the DNA «fingerprints» of every whale caught, thereby making it possi-ble to check whether meat on the market comes from legally caught whales,
Japan's downlisting proposals were rejected by a narrow majority, but Norway's proposal for the two minke stocks was carried by a narrow majority. However, this was to no avail as down-listing proposals require a two-thirds majority to succeed.
The opening of international trade in whale meat will be of particular importance to Iceland's assessment of whether or not to resume whaling, as its small population inevitably limits domestic demand. However, trade is also of importance to Norway, where the whale meat supplies a healthy domestic market, but where the blubber, which is not traditionally eaten by Norwegians, requires an export market. Before CITES listed the minke whale, the blubber was exported to Japan, but today it is dumped at sea.
Both Norway and Japan lodged reservations against the CITES listing of minke whales, together with a number of other stocks, and are therefore not bound by the CITES trade ban. So far, however, they have chosen not to activate their reservations. Iceland is not a member of CITES, and is thus exempt from its rulings.
 |
Not all American citizens know about the ban on the import of marine mammal products - or else they chose to ignore it. The illustration on the left is a list of objects confiscated by the US customs. The objects can be borrowed for exhibition purposes - to shock and to warn. |