The theme of this seminar has been formulated as a global issue. Indigenous peoples are found on all over the world and have - some of them over millenia - shaped cultures and life forms that represent a very large gammut of variations. Common to practically all of them is that they are repressed by dominant societies - some of them in rather subtle ways, others, however, to the point of regular genocide.
Indeed, since the time of the great discoveries, many indigenous cultures have been strangled or drowned in blood by what nowadays we call Western civilization. Not that the dominant societies of the East, Far or Near, are any better at this score. The big fish eat the small fish. Isn't that world history in one sentence?
Well, maybe. But then again, maybe not. It is obvious, at least to us here present, that there are in fact powers at work which do respect true cultural diversity and stand up for minority rights.
The timely and praiseworthy initiative taken by the Nordic Council of Ministers which has brought us together here deals with these matters in a positive mood: how can the remaining indigenous peoples be helped to maintain a modest niche in world economy? How can they survive?
You will excuse me if I narrow down the subject matter. I will consider today the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. After all, they are the responsibility of among others the Nordic Council of Ministers, and they have been facing big problems particularly in recent years, precisely in the matter which is our focus here: international trade barriers on the few products that they can produce and sell.
This morning, I would like to say a few words about the barriers created against seal skins a little over 20 years ago in the USA, and some 10 years later in the EEC, and the wild fur import ban the implementation of which is now being reconsidered in the EU.
There cannot be any doubt about who are responsible for perpetuating that situation: government officials and leaders are to blame. Unlike the man in the street, they do know the reality that seals in the Arctic are non-endangered - indeed they know that seals cannot be endangered by the traditional hunt or marketing of products therefrom. But who has ever heard a British or a Dutch politician - who knows better - speak up against a public opinion which is being led astray by false statistics and emotional propaganda?
Only a few months ago I had the opportunity to ask a top ranking leader in one of the world's most influential inter-governmental environmental organizations why he didn't lodge a protest against all this anti seal-skin nonsense. His answer was singularly direct and honest. He said: "Because I am a coward."
Are all governments cowardly when faced with this new mania called the animal rights movement? Is the EU Commission's Directorate-General XI peopled with cowards?
Doesn't personal courage and commitment to the indigenous peoples' cause, now heralded by a UN Decade, have a place in what the Germans call Realpolitik?
Well, maybe not! At any rate, I challenge you people here present to come up with an answer which can be put to practical use. We have had enough of the evasive rhetoric. If the international community really wants to help indigenous peoples in distress, there is no more room for time-wasters or cowards. Time is running out on us.
One thing the Nordic Council of Ministers could do would be to challenge the GATT/WTO consistency of the American Marine Mammal Protection Act and the European Seal Skin Directive. If the Nordic countries really want to set their fingerprints on the UN International Decade for the Indigenous Peoples, they could pick up a report called "The GATT Consistency of the U.S. Import Embargo on Harp Seal Fur Coats From Greenland", a legal analysis contracted by the High North Alliance in Norway and written by a law professor in British Columbia. Why couldn't the Nordic Council respectfully submit this report in Washington and Brussels? It shows beyond much possible doubt that the anti seal skin legislation which has done so much harm to us, is basically inconsistent with the rules governing international trade. There is no reason in the world why we shouldn't be able to sell our seal skins on the international market.
Will the Nordic countries help us, or have they given up the case before even considering to try?
In 1991, the EEC Council of Ministers adopted a regulation which would prove to be particularly cumbersome when it came to implementing it. That was the so-called leghold trap regulation, which was inspired by a powerful animal rights lobby wanting to see the abolition of the wild fur trade.
I say that this lobby wanted the abolition of the wild fur trade and NOT the abolition of cruel methods of trapping. Several facts support this assessment:
The regulation allowed for a period of 4 years during which wild fur exporting countries should change their many different trapping methods, but especially the leghold trap, to other internationally acceptable ways to catch the animals. The EEC Commission relied on the International Standardization Organization for developing a set of agreed standards to that effect. Actually, at the time ISO already had set up a special working group for precisely that purpose.
Originally, the formal aim of the regulation was to restrict the importation of furs to such specimens as had been caught in non-cruel traps. As time went by, however, the Commission's directorate-general for environmental affairs changed its interpretation of the regulation, and the over-arching idea behind the whole exercise now appeared to be to impose a complete ban on the import of the skins of the 13 wild fur species covered by the regulation, no matter how they were caught. In actual political operations, if not in official rhetoric, the environmental directorate began to serve the ultimate goal of the animal rights lobby. This development became apparent in the course of 1994.
Two major groups were affected by this situation: the international fur trade, and the trappers themselves.
At this seminar, we are dealing with the indigenous peoples. How many of them are directly affected - say: threatened - by the developments in question remains unclear, if for no other reason because it is very difficult to get statistics out of Russia. But it can be established that in Canada alone, when you include the families who are economically dependent upon the existence of the fur trade without necessarily being out there checking the trap lines them-selves, a couple of hundred thousand Indians, and some ten thousand plus Inuit will be deprived of a major source of income. Situations of social distress such as alcohol and drug abuse and high suicide rates will be worsened.
We know the pattern, both in Greenland and in Canada, from the years following the EEC seal-skin ban of 1983.
At this point it is important to mention that wild furs account for only about 10% or a little less of all fur marketed by the dealers.
This is not the place to expand upon the rules of the WTO or past verdicts of the GATT panel in other relevant cases. Other people are present here who have an expertise in that field which I could never hope to rival. Suffice to say that to the outside observer, it is crystal clear that what has, in the nick of time, been decisive in making the Commission change its mind with regard to the anti fur regulation, has not been the indigenous people's cause. It has been the international rules governing trade, and the prospect of the Commission losing a WTO-case leveled by USA and Canada against the EU using exactly the same arguments which the EU employed successfully in challenging the US at the GATT panel over the tuna-dolphin issue.
The underlying philosophy here is that nature's resources may be harvested as long as no species are threatened, and nature is left to operate with a reasonable balance of its own. The issue of non-cruel harvesting methods is identified as a valid concern, and is to be dealt with in the various cultural con-texts in which it occurs. The indigenous peoples of the world are asked to make their voices heard, and the dominant socie-ties are called upon to listen to them. In fact, for the first time in history, a ministerial-level international conference recognizes that indigenous peoples are entitled to co-decision in matters that touch upon their vital interests. That is specifically set down in the Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration.
Government representatives have also had talks with indigenous groups from Canada. But the point here is, that this has always taken place as a result of the latter knocking at the door. So far, no EU country, nor the environmental direc-torate of the Commission, have ever actively sought the advice of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic in this matter which is vital to their economy and social well-being.
A. One wording of the regulation should be amended to place greater emphasis on the establishment of an international agreement on standards for humane trapping.
This position runs counter to the de facto tendency of the last two years to see the purpose of the regulation rather to be a general ban on the import of furs from the 13 different wild animal species listed in the regulation's annex.
B. The rules governing international trade have to be respected, and the implications thereof must be reflected in an amended regulation text. This results in a number of concessions to the fur exporting countries, to the inter-national fur trade, as well as to the indigenous peoples of the Arctic:
This is a reversal of earlier positions taken by the directorate for environmental affairs, and a concession to USA & Canada.
This allows for flexibility and realism and is actually what had been promised to the fur-producing countries when the regulation was still a proposal.
So many concessions to the international fur trade.
C. In winding up the matter in front of the European Parliament, the Commissioner stated
One gets the feeling that somebody has advised the environ-mental commissioner to adopt a political solution to an impossible technical problem. How does one make a regulation work which is emotionally based, discriminatory, legally indefensible, illogical and filled with hidden agendas of special-interest organizations infiltrating the corridors of power? The advice of the directorate for trade to the directorate for environment, one may presume, has been to try and turn the tide in favour of reason. And so, this story leaves us with a question: are we really witnessing the turning of the tide?
On the one hand, with the statement in Strasbourg on December 11, 1995, the Commission certainly went a long way to allay the worst fears of those who want to uphold the fur trade.
On the other hand the world is full of trickery, and no good deed goes unpunished. We just have to hope that the light at the end of the tunnel is not in reality the headlights of an oncoming train.
There can be no guarantee that the Council of Ministers will not turn in another direction when it considers the proposal and - presumably - arrives at a final decision.
A special working group was set up between EU, USA, Canada (and subsequently Russia) for the purpose of agreeing on the much needed standards for what can be called humane traps. The work in this quadrilateral group is reported to be making good progress. But again, there can be no guarantee that an agreement will be reached. In the ISO, as we know, a solution of that kind became totally out of reach. All those concerned know well that there are extremely dedicated forces at work to prevent an agreement on trap standards.
How Parliament will react to the Commission's proposal is also unknown. The amended regulation text will go through a first reading maybe in May, and a second reading probably in Septem-ber. Parliament is very upset with the situation, and is - for all practical purposes - totally in the hands of the animal welfare lobby. What that means in practice remains to be seen. Parliament has a so-called Intergroup for indigenous peoples. This group, with its professed interest in the problems facing anybody who might look like an Indian has so far taken great pains to stay clear of the leghold trap issue. The group's secretariat needs are taken care of by the Greens, who are well known to be vehemently anti-fur.
Strangely, a special alliance has been forged between the Greens and the Grand Council of the Cree in Eastern Canada. The Cree beaver hunt is said not to involve the use of the leg hold traps, and the Grand Council - motivated by the separa-tist movement of Quebec to preemptively shape a "foreign policy" of its own - is pressing for a special exemption from the provisions of the regulation for their people. Officially, that wish is supported by the Greens; but at the same time, the Greens do not appear ready to support such an amendment of the regulation as would be needed to put an exemption into effect.
With that example of odd bedfellows, the goodwill of the European Parliament toward the indigenous peoples of the Arctic seems to be exhausted.
There are also white men living as trappers, and white families depending socio-economically on fur-hunting. But there will be no special exemption for them. They are whites. They should know better!
How well we recognize this from the International Whaling Commission, where the Greenlanders can get their minke whale quotas, but the Norwegians not. After a good many years of working with the International Whaling Commission, let me now publicly admit that I have never been able to see any other significant difference between the Greenlanders hunting the minke whale, and the Norwegians pursuing their small scale coastal whaling, than that of the colour of their hair.
These two aims are fully shared and supported by the fur producing countries, and in particular by USA, Canada and Russia. Also the indigenous organizations support these two principles of good nature management, as does any sensible hunters' association anywhere.
In preparing for the implementation of the regulation, though, it is striking how clearly the EU Commission signals its knowledge of what is inhumane, without, however, being able
to say what then IS humane. Maybe that will change in the coming 6 to 8 months. That remains to be seen.
A little while ago, I said that the anti wild fur regulation issue serves well for anybody who wants a deeper insight into European attitudes toward the use of the natural resources.
Looking into that crystal ball, I think we can safely conclude that public opinion in Europe - and with that, the entire EU institutional machinery - is of the opinion that the harvesting of nature's riches, if it entails the taking of animal lives, has to be not only biologically sustainable, socio-economically called for and culturally appropriate. It also has to LOOK NICE. If it does not LOOK NICE in the eyes of Europeans and Americans, Western governments are perfectly entitled to take their measures and destroy the economy of whatever poor people out there in the woods who don't show sufficient respect for urban sentiments in Hamburg, London, Amsterdam, Boston or Chicago. Let there be no doubt who rules the world.
There is not much indication that this kind of neo-colonialism should be on the decline, or that the tide should be about to turn. It does look like the Bambi syndrome has come to stay. Unless of course a group of nations, like for example the Nordic countries, who know in their own backbones what sound nature utilization means for both people and nature, and who have a strong tradition for taking international agreements seriously, go together under the motto:
Enough is enough!
Sound management of nature often does entail the taking of animal lives.
Providing food for people in the Arctic certainly does. Don't try and tell us otherwise.
No humans can exist without inflicting suffering on the animal world. Every shoe, every belt, every leather jacket comes from a dead animal.
Modern leghold traps of the padded kind are certainly NOT inhumane, looked at in the light of what other animal restraining methods are accepted in every township in Europe. I am willing to stick my own fingers in them any time. My finger-bones don't break, and my hand is held untill somebody comes and releases me.
Every single animal welfare issues inside the EU is viewed in counter-balance with the socio-economic necessities imposed by society. Yet, in this case, the European Parliament is blatantly uninterested in the socio-economic hardship EU is about to impose on the trappers.
Viewing colonial history, Europe has a special obligation to be attentive to the needs of indigenous peoples. Creating trade barriers which hurt poor people overseas is not only unacceptable. It is an abomination.
The European countries, as well as the EEC/EU-institutions, have consistently supported the report from the World Commis-sion on Environment and Development, the guidelines laid
down in the World Conservation Strategy, the Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration Principles and the Bio Diversity Convention.
At this point, it is appropriate that EU honour the several thousand years old motto, which serves as a bedrock for all civilized behaviour:
PACTA SUNT SERVANDA. Agreements are meant to be honoured.
1. Trade barriers to seal skins
In Greenland, we have felt the sinister effects of the numerous anti seal skin campaigns that have been conducted over the years, marked officially by the American Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the European seal skin ban of 1983. With the general public attitude that seal products are somehow "bad", it seems virtually impossible to regain any significant foothold in the world market for our products, especially in United States and in Europe.
2. EU trade barriers to wild fur
Some people feel that in order to conduct intelligent and sustainable policies, you need a crystal ball to predict the future so you can take your measures. If that is how you feel, I've got news for you: you don't have to go through the trouble and consult your favorite witch or soothsayer. It is enough to take a close look at the EU leghold trap anti-fur regulation. Here, you are faced with a regular crystal ball. This regulation is a process which clearly reflects the inner workings of the interplay between political leadership and the animal rights lobby in contemporary decision-making, and which may allow us, better than other similar phenomena, to look into the future.
3. The trappers
The trappers - trapping for pest control, food or for commercial reasons - can be divided into many different sub-groups:
4. The fur trade
The other major group affected by the anti wild fur regulation is the international fur trade. It is in a different position. The fur trade doesn't represent human rights issues or lofty declarations about the morally correct behaviour towards repressed groups. It simply deals with collecting fur, processing, selling and transferring it to other countries. It obviously depends very much on the inter-national rules concerning trade.
5. Sustainable use of nature
Parallel to what one might call an anti-use-of-wild-animals trend in European politics, an opposite development took place on a higher level. In 1992 Rio de Janeiro, ministerial-level international agreements were approved which clearly endorsed the general trend established by the Brundtland Commission and the two editions of the World Conservation Strategy formulated by IUCN, WWF and UNEP: that of sustainable development.
6. Consulting the indigenous peoples
All the EU countries, as well as the EU Commission, have voiced their support for the Rio declaration, and have applauded its outcome. However, no consultations have been sought with the indigenous organizations in the matter of wild fur. True enough, every so often government representatives have expressed their sympathy for the indigenous peoples, more specifically for those who are going to suffer severe socio-economic distress because of the anti-fur regulation.
7. Redefining the EU position
As a result of massive pressure especially from Canada, but also from USA and Russia, the environmental directorate of the EU Commission was, let's say, motivated by the directorate for international trade policy to redefine the Commission's stance regarding the regulation. Remember that Canada, the U.S. and Russia never asked for the ban to be removed, just delayed untill standards were in place. Less than three weeks before the end of the calendar year of 1995, in the nick of time before the due implementation date of the anti-fur regulation, the Commissioner for environment & consumer protection appeared at the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg and served a hardball right in the face of this animal rights lobby dominated fortress. The Commission, so she told the members of Parliament, had had second thoughts about this regulation, and had decided as follows:
Now, where does all this leave us?
8. Turning the tide?
Personally, I would like to answer that question with a resounding maybe.
9. Conclusion
Returning to the issue of the anti wild fur regulation, there is good reason to finish by stressing the fact that this legislation has two professed aims: