Introduction
“As Inuit, we don’t have a choice as to whether we are part of the “Ice Economy” or the “Blue Economy”. We are the Blue Economy”, concluded Okalik Eegeesiak, former chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) in her contribution to the World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) magazine “The Circle” in April 2018. “As coastal people – the contribution continues – Inuit have lived thousands of years an intimate connection with the ocean, developing a deep and unique knowledge, which came to shape and define culture, food, transportation, language, well-being, and livelihoods” [Eegeesiak, 2018]. In turn, and as a result of thousands of years of direct experience and being part of the Arctic Marine ecosystem, Inuit have developed a unique knowledge of the environment and wildlife inhabiting it, through which the ecosystem has been used and managed sustainably and responsibly for millennia [Eegesiak, 2018; ICC, 2021].
Despite the concept of “Blue Economy” having been recently introduced, namely at the “Rio+20” UN summit of 2012 [Eikeset et.al, 2018, Siddi, 2019], the notion has rapidly come to shape policies and programs of nation-states and organizations worldwide. Possibly, the term has now as many nuances as the policies endorsing it, in fact, a common definition has not been agreed upon [Eikeset et.al, 2018]. Nevertheless, the Centre for Blue Economy pinpoints “three related but distinct meanings” underlying the different existing definitions, namely “the overall contribution of the oceans to economies, the need to address the environmental and ecological sustainability of the oceans, and the ocean economy as a growth opportunity for both developed and developing countries” [Middlebury Institute of International Studies].
In May 2021, the European Union (EU), in line with its growing commitment and its growing international leading role in climate change policy, endorsed a more ambitious view for its “Blue Economy” and announced a shift from “blue growth” -endorsed in 2012- toward a “sustainable blue economy”. The new framework, which shapes and will shape the economy of the EU for the decades to come, links together two major EU policies, namely the European Green Deal, a set of policies initiatives with the overarching aim of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, and the Recovery Plan for Europe, the EU long term economic recovery strategy. In doing so, the novel approach stresses the need to “mitigate the impacts on oceans and coasts to build a resilient economic model based on innovation, a circular economy and a respectful attitude to the ocean” [European Commission: 2021].
This paper explores how key concepts now underlying the EU approach toward a Sustainable Blue economy have started entering the European legislation already four decades ago; concepts that were in fact learned by the representatives of the European institutions from the Greenlandic Government’ and Inuit associations’ narrative and arguments in support of Inuit seal hunting since the beginning of the seal- issue, namely in the 1980s. By analyzing one of the most controversial issues between Inuit and the EU, namely the development of the “EU Seal Regime”, this paper argues that the core of the “Inuit exception”, formally elaborated in 2009, was grounded on the long-standing acknowledgment (since the 1980s) that Inuit hunt, as traditionally – or historically- conducted by Inuit, endorsed a more complex economic approach to sustainability that surpasses the notion of simple “species conservation” to embrace concepts now ascribable to resource efficiency, community resilience, sustainable and responsible food production, and a respectful attitude to the ocean. Arguably, the cruelty and inhumanity found in the killing methodology – at the core of the moral opposition upon which the Seal regime is grounded upon – is intrinsically linked to the scope(s) of the killing: commercial products derived from animals taken only for their fur to be used in luxury goods are considered ethically indefensible [Lowe, 2018] and impossible to control and redeem, and as such prohibited on moral grounds. The same commercial “luxury” products, derived from animals harvested for efficient use, first and foremost for “subsistence”- or food production-, which consequently eliminated almost any waste, while contributing to the overall economic, spiritual and cultural wellbeing of the communities involved, as put forward by the Government of Greenland and Inuit associations since the inception of the issue, “do not raise the same public moral concerns as seal hunts conducted primarily for commercial reasons”[European Commission, 2016] and in fact, were and are allowed on the commercial market. Therefore, this paper argues that a vision that links the “Inuit exception” of 2009 to a simple upright and formal compliance by the European Union to Indigenous Peoples Rights, not only fail in fully understanding the historical and complex processes that led to the adoption of the Seal regime and the Inuit exception contained within but also fail in acknowledging the fundamental and proactive theoretical contributions Inuit brought in outlining a different and more complex approach to sustainability.
Bibliography
Arnaquq-Baril, A., Thompson, B. (Producers), Arnaquq-Baril, A. (Writer), & Arnaquq-Baril, A. (Director). (2016). Angry Inuk[Motion Picture]. Canada
Barry D (2005). Icy Battleground: Canada, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Seal Hunt. St. John’s: Breakwater Books Ltd.
Council (1983). Council Directive of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products therefrom 83/129/EEC.
Desportes, G. (2017). Which is more blue, Arctic sealing or the EU seal ban? EURACTIVE Special Report -Seal of Approval: Greenland Fights Stereotypes on Inuit Hunt.
Eegeesiak O. (2018), Inuit and the Ice Blue Economy, The Circle, World Wild Foundation (WWF), April, retrieved at http://arctic.blogs.panda.org/the-circle/
Fakhri, M. (2017). Gauging US and EU Seal Regimes in the Arctic against Inuit Sovereignty. In N. Liu, E. A. Kirk, & T. Henriksen (Eds.), The European Union and the Arctic (pp. 200–236). Brill.
Fitzgerald PL (2011) ‘Morality’ may not be enough to justify the EU seal products ban: animalwelfare meets international trade law.Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy14:85–136
Garde, E. (2016) Seals in Greenland: -An important component of culture and economy.The Last Ice Area Project, World Wild Found (WWF): Copenhagen.
Konttinen,H. (2018, Decolonizing Seal Trade, Master’s ThesisAalto University School of Arts, Design and ArchitectureDepartment of DesignMaster’s Degree Programme in Creative Sustainability.
Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada (2021), Marine-Governance-Programme, Nov 1, , https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/marine-governance-programme/
Hennig, M. (2015). The EU Seal Products Ban -Why Ineffective Animal Welfare Protection Cannot Justify Trade Restrictions under European and International Trade Law. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 6(1), 74-86.
Lowe, B. (2017). War for the Seals: The Canadian Seal Controversy and Sociological Warfare.Taboo: The Journal of Culture andEducation, 12(1).https://doi.org/10.31390/taboo.12.1.09
Lynge, F. (1992). Arctic Wars, Animal Rights, Endangered Peoples.(M. Stenbaek, Trans.) Hanover & London: University Press of New England.
Lynge, F. (1995). Indigenous Peoples between Human Rights and Environmental Protection -An Arctic Perspective. Nordic Journal of International Law, 64, pp. 489-494
Middlebury Institute of International Studies. Our History and Our Methodology (https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/academics/centers-initiatives/center-blue-economy/about/history)
European Commission (2008) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning Trade in Seal Products, COM(2008) 469 Final. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2010) Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed Rules for the Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Trade in Seal Products. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2015) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 on Trade in Seal Products. COM(2015) 45 Final. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2016) The EU seal regime, Brussels: Pubblication Office. doi:10.2779/70265
European Commission (2021) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a new approach for a sustainable blue economy in the EU. Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future. COM(2021) Final. Brussels: European Commission.
European Parliament (2006) Declaration p6-TA(2006)0369, Banning Seal Products in the European Union. Brussels: European Parliament.
European Parliament (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on Trade in Seal Products. Brussels: European Parliament.
European Parliament (2011) Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council Banning the Placing on the Market and the Import to, or Export from, the Community of Cat and Dog Fur, and Products Containing Such Fur of 11 December 2007. Brussels: European Parliament.
Sellheim, N.P. (2014). The Legal Question ofMorality: Seal Hunting andthe European Moral Standard, Social & Legal Studies2016, Vol. 25(2) 141–161.
Sellheim, N.P. (2014). The Right Not to be Indigenous: Seal Utilization in Newfoundland, The Arctic Yearbook, 2014.
Siddi, M. (2019), The European Green Deal, Assessing its Current State and Future Implementation. Finnish Institute of International Affairs: Working Paper, Issue May 2020/114.
Rasmussen, M.Y. (2018). Subsistence? A critical analysis of the EU protection of indigenous peoples’ rights through the case of the EU seal regime. Global Campus Europe (EMA) theses 2017/2018, https://doi.org/20.500.11825/909
Wenzel, G. (1991). Animal Rights, Human Rights. Ecology, Economy and Ideology in the Canadian Arctic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wegge, N. (2013). Politics between science, law and sentiments: explaining the European Union’s ban on trade in seal products, Environmental Politics, 22:2, 255-273, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2012.717374