TL: STATE SPONSORED SEALING IN A VACUUM OF KNOWLEDGE (GP)
SO: Greenpeace International
DT: Unknown
Keywords: oceans marine mammals seals greenpeace gp factsheets
hunting ussr norway scandinavia europe atlantic north /

INTRODUCTION

In 1991, a total of 51,217 harp and hooded seals were reported
killed in the northeast Atlantic by Norway and the former Soviet
Union. Specifically, this consisted of 2,542 hooded seals and 6,695
harp seals from the Greenland Sea and 41,980 harp seals from the
White Sea. The quotas recently announced for 1992 have increased to
59,900 seals.

The natural response to such a large hunt is to ask several
questions. How many seals are there in the northeast Atlantic? Can
the stocks sustain such a large hunt? Why is the hunt being
conducted? What is the government policy and management program me
for the hunt?

This paper briefly addresses these questions. It concludes that,
despite assurances from the Norwegian government, the stocks of
seals are poorly understood, but what little we do know suggests
that they are severely depleted and in need of protection. While
the hunt has often been justified as a necessary means to
protect fish stocks, it is misleading to blame seals and other
marine mammals for problems with the poor state of fish stocks in
the Barents Sea during the 1980's, or to suggest that further
reducing the numbers of seals would help the fish to recover. It is
poor fishing practices which lead to over-fishing which must be
reduced, not seals or other marine mammals.

Norway has never defined its policy towards the management of
seals, nor made any serious attempt to ensure their survival. In
fact, if seals were to be managed under the procedure formerly used
by the International Whaling Commission, all sealing would have to
stop immediately.

STATUS OF THE SEAL STOCKS

The results of investigations by Norwegian and Russian
scientists on seals have been presented to a Working Group on Harp
and Hooded Seals, which meets every two years under the auspices of
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).
The last meeting was held in October 1991, and the report of that
meeting shows just how little is known about these seals.

Hooded Seals in the Greenland Sea ("West Ice")

Russian scientists have conducted aerial surveys of the herds
between 1986 and 1989, but have not provided enough information to
enable the ICES Working Group to evaluate the results. Also, no
tagging program me has been conducted for this stock. As a result,
there are no direct estimates of the number of pups born annually.


Nor is there any information on other biological parameters such as
natural mortality, pregnancy rates or age of sexual maturity, which
are needed to understand the consequences of any level of hunting.

As a result of this almost total lack of information, the ICES
Working Group concluded at its most recent meeting that they were
unable to provide an estimate of the current population size or pup
production, nor any scientific advice on catch
levels for the 1992 season. Similar statements have appeared in
every report of the Working Group since 1985.

The 1992 quota for this stock was set at 9,000 seals.

Harp Seals in the Greenland Sea ("West Ice")

For this stock, estimates of pup production are available, based
upon Norwegian aerial surveys and tag return work. However, there
are major problems with the techniques used to obtain both of these
estimates, and they must be considered unreliable.

Pups have been tagged for many years in the West Ice, in order to
gain information on distribution and migration of the seals.
Recently, information on the number of these tagged animals which
have been killed in the hunt has been used to estimate the number
of pups born. While "mark-recapture" techniques have often been
used to estimate pup production of seals, the method has several
strict requirements in order to produce valid
results, and requires careful planning. Since the Norwegian program
me was not designed to estimate population size, no consideration
was given to these problems, and it has not been possible to
compensate for them in the analysis. The results have not been
adopted by the ICES Working Group. It is also noteworthy that
Canadian scientists have questioned the wisdom of tag return
programmes for harp seals under any circumstances.

Norwegian scientists also conducted an aerial survey of the harp
seal breeding patches in 1991. The results presented to the ICES
meeting were largely based on visual estimates, since analysis of
the photographs taken during the survey was incomplete.
Canadian work has demonstrated how difficult it is to use the naked
eye to estimate the number of seals on an ice floe.
Furthermore, few details on the methodology of the survey are
available in order to assess its validity and accuracy.

Despite the fact that neither tag returns nor the survey
resulted in a reliable estimate of pup production, the ICES Working
Group adopted a figure of 50,000 as "minimum pup
production" in 1991. There was no scientific justification for
this.

They then proceeded to use a computer model to examine the
effect of various catch levels on the population. With no
reliable estimate of pup production, and no estimates of such
parameters as age of sexual maturity or natural mortality for the
West Ice stock, this was a futile exercise. The model was even
programmed in such a way as to preclude the possibility that the
population has been decreasing in size.

Clearly, understanding of the size and dynamics of the West Ice
stock of harp seals is still very poor.

The 1992 quota for this stock was increased to 10,900 seals. Harp Seals in the White Sea ("East Ice")

The harp seal population which breeds in the White Sea is also
poorly understood. Very little information is available on any
aspect of its biology or exploitation, and the ICES Working Group
only began to consider this stock in 1989.

There is a long series of Russian aerial surveys, which has been
reported to show an increase in females on the breeding patches
from 1963 to about 198, followed by a few years of stability and
then a crash from 140,000 in 1985 to 71,000 in 1988. Again, few
details are available on the methodology of these surveys, so it is
not clear whether the results of the surveys in different years are
comparable. However, it is the only information
available on stock size and trends, and, providing the
methodology of the surveys was reasonably consistent over the past
30 years, the data should provide at least a relative index of the
number of breeding females in the population.

There are also reports from Russian scientists that very few young
animals are appearing on the breeding and moulting patches in the
White and Barents Seas. This supports the indications from the
aerial survey data that something very serious has happened to the
White Sea population.

The ICES Working Group in 1991 pointed out that great
uncertainties about the state of the stock exist, but that there
was evidence of a drastic decline in the number of breeding
females. They were unable to offer any scientific advice on catch
levels or other forms of management measures.

The 1992 quota for this stock was set at 40,000 sea as.

Conclusions

For all three stocks of seals in the northeast Atlantic, no
reliable estimate is available of either the number of seals or the
number of pups born. Nor is it not known whether they are stable,
increasing or decreasing, though there are indications that harp
seals in the East Ice have recently undergone a
drastic reduction in the number of breeding females.

Such a poor state of understanding of the biology and status of the
stocks could not be considered to be a sufficient and
credible basis for responsible management of sealing in the
northeast Atlantic.

SEALS AND FISH IN THE BARENTS SEA

Increasingly, the seals are being blamed for "significant and
highly damaging imbalances in the Northeast Atlantic marine
ecosystem", to quote a recent Norwegian government memorandum. The
implication of this view is that sealing is a necessary activity in
order to restore this "balance". The logic runs something like
this: fish stocks in the Barents Sea are in a depleted state, but
seals are very abundant. Since seals eat fish, it is assumed that
they compete with fishermen for the few fish that remain. If the
seal herds were reduced, their
consumption of fish would also decrease. Finally, according to this
scenario, the fish that those seals would have eaten (had they not
been killed) will be available to Norwegian fishermen.

An examination of the facts behind each of the above statements is
necessary to evaluate the claim that killing even more seals will
help to protect fish stocks.

It is true that many fish stocks in the Barents Sea are
currently in a depleted state. However, the evidence suggests that
this is due to over-fishing and environmental fluctuations, not to
predation by seals or other marine mammals. A quick
glance at the fishery statistics reveals that, more often than not,
Total Allowable Catches (TAC's) have been set higher than the
scientific recommendation, and even those have been
frequently exceeded. For instance, in the five years before the
moratorium on capelin fishing was established in 1986, the TAC was
set higher than the recommended figures four times, and the
landings overshot the TAC's in four years. Similarly, cod TAC's
have been set at levels higher than the scientific advice in 1982,
1984, 1985 and 1988, and exceeded in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and
1989. Considering the extent to which over-fishing seems to have
become the centre-piece of Norwegian management, it is not
surprising that stocks are depleted. It is absurd to blame seals
for the current state of affairs.

The claim that seals are abundant has been dealt with in an earlier
section.

While it is true that seals do eat fish, very little is known about
what species, in what area and to what extent. Work on harp seal
diet in Canada indicates that they consume a wide variety of
species, many of them of no commercial importance. Contents of
stomachs of seals taken from the Barents Sea show a similar
pattern: amphipods, shrimp, polar cod (not northeast Arctic cod,
which was not observed) and sculpins were the major species
observed in this limited sample.

Another sample, taken from seals drowned in fishing nets in coastal
Norway in 1986 and 1988, found several species which are fished
commercially, including cod, saithe and herring. However, this was
the period of seal "invasions" of the mid-1980's, when the
depletion of several fish stocks in the Barents Sea caused by over-
fishing forced large numbers of emaciated harp seals outside their
normal range to look for food. These were very abnormal conditions,
and so the results cannot be considered to be representative of the
normal diet of harp seals.

The issue of interactions between seals and commercial fisheries is
extremely complex, and it is very difficult to predict the outcome
of reducing the number of seals. Statements such as "fewer seals
mean more fish for the fishermen" are too
simplistic, and assume that only two fates are possible for a fish:
either it is eaten by a seal or is caught by a fishing boat. The
real world is more complicated, for vast numbers of fish also die
of disease, parasites and predators such as birds, marine mammals
and, most importantly, other fish. There is no scientific evidence
to support the assumption that fish which are not eaten by seals
(or other marine mammals) would
necessarily be caught by the fishery. If the species consumed by
the seals is a major predator of commercially important fish, it is
even possible that fewer seals would mean fewer fish for the
fishery.

The conclusions of the 1991 Benguela Ecology Workshop-on Seal
Fishery Biological Interactions are interesting in this regard. The
fur seal population off southern Africa is thought to number well
in excess of one million animals (i.e. larger than any of the seal
stocks in the northeast Atlantic), and the local
fishing industry has expressed concerns about its impact on fish
stocks. However, the Workshop concluded that, "A biological impact
by seals on commercial fisheries in southern Africa has yet to be
demonstrated." They further pointed out that
monitoring of fishery yields before and after any seal cull would
"almost certainly not provide a reliable indication of its effect."

In summary, there is no evidence that seals are having a
detectable, negative impact on commercial fisheries in the
Barents Sea, or that any further reduction in their numbers would
result in any increase in the profits of the fishing
industry. On the contrary, it is the modern fishing industry which
is responsible for the depleted status of the Barents Sea fish
stocks. Seals have an important role to play in the
maintenance of the healthy marine ecosystem upon which the
fishing industry depends.

GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR THE SEALING INDUSTRY

In 1983, the European Community banned the importation of the skins
of white coats (nursing harp seals) and blue backs (hooded seals
less than one year old). Since these age groups were
important targets of the hunt, the market opportunities for seal
skins declined. However, sealing did not die out as an industry.
Rather than being supported by the market, the economic
viability for the hunt now comes from the Norwegian government in
the form of massive subsidies, amounting to several million Kroner
annually.

The pattern of subsidies has changed over the years, but
currently both the hunt itself and the shore processing industry
receive large amounts of government money.

Each sealing vessel is paid up to one million Kroner (US
$170,000; 6 NoK = US $1), depending on how many days they are
sealing. This subsidy can reach a total of five million Kroner
(three million for vessels going to the West Ice, two million for
the East Ice). A further amount is paid for each seal
landed, 400 Kr for the West Ice and 153 Kr for the East Ice. When
all of these subsidies are added up, they come to 9.0
million Kr ($1.5 million) available each year.

During the ten years from 1981-1990, the amount actually paid out
varied from almost 2.0 million to over 8.6 million Kr, with a clear
increasing trend. The total for the period was almost 51 million Kr
($8.5 million).

For the last few years, an additional 3.9 million Kr ($650,000) has
been given annually to the processing industry, A/S Rieber & Co. in
Tromso.

These amounts of money are far greater than the value of the
products of the hunt. For example, in 1990, the Norwegian
sealers killed 5,931 seals from the West Ice and 9,522 from the
East Ice. The total value for the skins, blubber and meat from thee
animals was reported to be worth 873,000 Kr ($145,000). The total
subsidy paid out that year, to support the hunt, was
8,610,000 Kr to the vessels and 3,900,000 Kr to Rieber -
altogether, 12,510,000 Kr ($2.1 million) or 14.3 times the value of
the products.

It is obvious that the Norwegian sealing industry cannot survive
without massive state intervention. The question must be asked
whether the support of a dying industry, based upon severely
depleted seals, is an appropriate use for such a large amount of
money.

MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

The Norwegian government does not seem to have a clearly defined
policy with respect to its seal hunt. It has not declared a
management goal of attempting to regulate the seal stocks at some
pre-determined level relative to the unexploited state, such as
that producing the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The closest the
Norwegian government has come is to state that they base their seal
management, "like other resource management, on the principle that
all living marine resources can be harvested within biologically
appropriate limits." Unfortunately, these "appropriate limits" are
nowhere defined.

This lack of a clear policy means that it is impossible to
evaluate whether management of the seal hunt is meeting the goals
of the Norwegian government. For instance, are too many seals being
killed, resulting in a population that is below the desired level?
Could the hunt be larger and still fulfil
Norwegian objectives? It is impossible to say.

An interesting analogy can be made with the exploitation of whales.
Under the New Management Procedure of the International Whaling
Commission (IWC), established in 1975 and currently being revised,
"sustained management stocks" were defined as those whose abundance
lay between 10% below and 20% above their MSY level. Stocks above
this level were "initial management", whereas those whose stock
size were "more than 10% below the level of their maximum
sustainable yield" were termed "protected stocks". No commercial
whaling was allowed on protected stocks.

As is evident from the discussion above, the status of seal stocks
in the northeast Atlantic is poorly known. Nevertheless, for the
sake of argument, let us say that the current pup
production for harp seals on the West Ice is some 100,000,
double the "minimum" figure adopted by the ICES Working Group last
year. Assuming a ratio of 6.0 seals in the population for every pup
born, gives a total population size of 600,000 seals. The only
published estimate of the population size before
hunting is 3.0 million animals, by the Canadian scientist David
Sergeant. While the MSY level is not known for this stock, a figure
of 60% of the unexploited stock size is often suggested as a first
approximation for marine mammals. This gives a figure of 1.8
million seals.

Under this scenario, using generous estimates for current
population size, harp seals on the West Ice are at about one third
of their MSY level. If the estimate of 50,000 pups adopted by the
Working Group is used, the population is in even worse condition.
The obvious implication is that, if seals-were
whales, and managed under the previous procedure of the IWC, this
stock would be completely protected.

While it is true that seals are not whales, they do share many
physiological and life history traits with cetaceans- they are
long-lived, with relatively constant reproductive and mortality
rates, and so do not normally undergo wide fluctuations in
abundance.

Conversely, the New Management Procedure of the IWC, and
attempts to manage me at the MSY level in general, have been shown
to be dismal failures. This approach leads to over-
exploitation, leading to crashes in abundance, and does not offer
sufficient protection to the population.

The suggestion from the above calculations that harp seals in the
West Ice are so far below even their MSY level is a strong
indictment of Norwegian mismanagement. For the other stocks there
is no estimate of the present population size at all.

As mentioned above, the IWC is in the process of developing a new
procedure for management, having finally admitted that the earlier
one did not work. Norway is not even up to the standards of the old
IWC.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of all of the problems discussed above, the logical
question is why Norwegian sealing is allowed to continue? All three
of the stocks have been drastically depleted, and no
reliable estimates of pup production exist. The problems faced by
the fishing industry in the Barents Sea over the past several years
are due to rampant over-fishing, not by any perceived "excess" in
the number of seals. There is thus no justification for the
continuation of the hunt, yet the sealing industry
receives millions of Kroner annually in government subsidies.

The only reasonable conclusion is that Norway's commercial seal
hunt must stop immediately. There is a very real danger that any
further hunting will have disastrous consequences for the future of
the seals.

It is also imperative that the status of the various populations be
examined as an urgent priority. A rigorous, comprehensive analysis
must be conducted as soon as possible by an
international group of independent scientists.