1775, on Trade in Seal Products - Main contents

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	COM(2023)633 - Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1775, on Trade in Seal Products.
document	COM(2023)633
date	October 19, 2023

Annex II, listing the species requiring the designation and management of special areas of conservation, includes:

- Halichoerus grypus (Grey seal)

- Monachus monachus (Mediterranean monk seal)

- Phoca/Pusa hispida botnica (Baltic ringed seal)

- Phoca/Pusa hispida saimensis (Saimaa ringed seal)

- Phoca vitulina (Harbour seal)

The Mediterranean monk seal and the Saimaa ringed seal are priority species and therefore also listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, which means that Member States must take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for these species. The three other species (Grey seal, Baltic ringed seal and Harbour seal) are also listed in Annex V, meaning that Member States should take measures to ensure that their taking in the wild as well as their exploitation is compatible with their being maintained at a favourable conservation status.

During the reporting period, as the removal of the “sustainable management of marine resources” exception from the initial Regulation was without prejudice to the right of Member States to continue regulating hunts conducted for that purpose, Ringed, Harbour and Grey seals have been hunted on the territory of Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Sweden. In their report, these four Member States briefly described the purpose of the hunt, the conditions in which it was conducted, the method applied, how animal welfare was given due regard, and the impact of this hunt on the seal population, on ecosystems and on human activities. The text below illustrates the views expressed in the four national reports.

In Denmark, there is no hunting season or quota for seals. Shooting seals can only be authorised through a derogation, within a radius of 100 meters from the fishing gear and outside breeding and moulting periods, to prevent serious damage to fisheries. In addition, derogation shooting of Grey seals is not allowed within Natura 2000 sites designated for that species. From 2018, derogations have also been granted for shooting seals in streams, with a positive impact on brood stocks of fish populations under pressure. Derogation shooting is subject to using a rifle of approved calibre, passing a specific rifle test and having a Danish hunting licence. The hunter is encouraged to aim for the head for an instant kill. In Bornholm, Grey seals may be shot throughout the year, as there are no breeding grounds in that area. Seal populations are monitored in Denmark with yearly counting. Denmark reported that the number of seals shot through derogation shooting during the reporting period (134 Harbour seals and 9 Grey seals) has had no significant impact on the population size.

In Estonia, seals may be hunted to ensure a sustainable management of marine resources and the subsistence of the hunters and families from the local communities of Estonia’s small islands, to keep their cultural heritage and traditions alive. The seal hunt is strictly regulated and animal welfare is fully considered. Seal hunt may only take place in designated areas, during the hunting season, and hunters must have passed a shooting test and use specific weapons and ammunitions. Based on the latest Estonian monitoring report, the number of Grey seals in Estonian waters is on an upward trend, and the largest number of Grey seals in the last 20 years was counted throughout the Baltic Sea in 2021. Estonia reported that a small-scale hunt, limited to a yearly quota of 1% of the seal population, which represented 55 individuals per year during the reporting period, is necessary to reduce damage to fisheries, but it is not allowed in the special protection areas designated for the Grey seal.

In Finland, seal hunt is carried out for sustainable management of marine resources, to prevent damage to commercial fisheries. Hunting quotas are established for Grey seals and Ringed seals. Throughout the reporting period, the hunting quota for Grey seals in mainland Finland was 1 050 individuals per year. The average hunting quota for Ringed seals in the Bothnian Bay area during the same period was 335 individuals per year, while the average hunting quota for Grey seals in the Åland island, an autonomous region of Finland, was 480 individuals per year. The seal hunt is also subject to a hunting season, specific technical characteristics for guns and ammunitions, and passing an examination with a prior course on hunting ethics to apply a killing method causing immediate death. No hunting is allowed on threatened seal populations (e.g. Ringed seal in the Gulf of Finland and Archipelago Sea). Finland reported that the estimated yearly increase of the seal population is higher than the number of hunted seals, and that there is evidence that seals eat fish from fishing gear unless this gear is seal-proof. However, only traps, fykes (long bag-shaped fishing nets held open by hoops) or similar gear can be partly made seal-proof, while maintaining viable commercial fishing. Seals eat 3 to 5 kilos of fish per day, which may jeopardise fish species or populations protected by EU or national legislation. Recreational and commercial fishing with gill nets decreased by 30-40% over the last decades in the outer archipelago and even completely stopped in certain areas due to seal predation. The positive effect of a hunt close to fishing gear is only temporary as new seals emerge within a few days or even hours. Therefore, seal hunt cannot be considered the only way to mitigate the problems caused by seals.

Sweden’s wildlife management includes licence hunting of Grey seals since 2020 and Harbour seals since 2022, and “protective hunting” of Ringed seals. Protective hunting is allowed and strictly regulated in areas where the growing seal population is causing serious damage to local fisheries, destroying the fishing gear and eating the catches. As opposed to protective hunt, licence hunt is not restricted to the areas where seals are causing damage to fisheries. There is a hunting quota. The average hunting quota for Grey seals during the reporting period was 1 692 individuals per year, while it was 712 individuals for Harbour seals and 346 individuals for Ringed seals. Ammunitions are strictly regulated, the killing method used must cause immediate death, avoiding unnecessary suffering, and hunting seals from a boat requires the boat to stand still. Research is ongoing to develop seal-proof fishing equipment. Sweden reported that the number of seals hunted to protect the fishing sector only represents a small share of the seal population.

The chart below gives the total number of seals hunted during the reporting period by the four EU Member States authorising this hunt for the sustainable management of their marine resources. In Finland and Sweden, the quotas are set for a hunting season and not by calendar year. The hunting season starts in autumn and ends the following year in spring. Under the Habitats Directive, Member States are responsible for ensuring that the taking of specimens of these species, which are listed in Annex V of the Directive, is compatible with their being maintained at a favourable conservation status.

In Latvia, seal hunt applications were received during the reporting period, but denied. After the recent approval of a seal management plan, the hunting of a small number of adult Grey seals is allowed as of 2023, to prevent damage to fisheries when no alternative method can be found.

h) Overall assessment by the EU Members States

Member States were asked to provide an overall assessment of three aspects of the Regulation on their territory: its functioning (ability to perform its regular function), effectiveness (capacity to produce a desired result) and impact (for example, changed market for seal products).

Eight Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania and Slovakia) mentioned that there has been no trade in seal products on their territory during the reporting period and that they were therefore unable to assess the functioning, effectiveness and impact of the Regulation. Five Member States (Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania and Slovenia) did not provide any assessment.

Seven Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain) consider that the Regulation is fit for purpose and that procedures are in place at their customs authorities to implement it properly. They have not experienced any problem with the Regulation so far. The Netherlands committed to reinforce the cooperation between their competent authorities and customs in this regard.

Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Sweden consider that the Regulation functions well as a means to control the trade of seal products but its impact has gone beyond its intended purpose. According to them, the ban has contributed to the present poor state of coastal fishing and has significantly downgraded the value of seals as a game species. In their view, it is important to include the management of seal populations in the ecosystem-based management plans for EU waters. They claim that their seal populations are closely monitored and that the small number of seals hunted during the reporting period has had an almost insignificant impact on their population size and conservation status. These Member States consider that a seal hunt carried out to sustainably manage marine resources, with full respect of animal welfare and with all parts of the caught animal being used instead of wasted, should not raise public moral concerns. According to Swedish hunting ethics, an animal must be hunted in a humane manner and the resulting resource should be fully used for the hunt to be considered acceptable. As the seal hunters, after collecting what they need for their personal use, have to destroy or dump this valuable resource, Sweden considers that the ban goes against these ethics and makes the seal hunt less attractive. These Member States highlighted that, meanwhile, the increasing seal population is causing damage to fishing gear and catches, infesting all fish species with seal worms, killing harbour porpoises, and catching large adults of cod, salmon, sea trout and pike, with economic consequences for recreational fishing tourism. To alleviate the situation, Sweden enacted a national decree in 2020, which provides that, if a male Grey seal causing damage to fisheries or to aquaculture is legally hunted, the prejudiced party is entitled to financial aid for the appropriate processing of the carcass. In Finland, around 350-400 fishermen per year are affected by damage caused by seals. Compensation can be given for the costs incurred for salvaging and submitting seal carcasses of legally hunted seals to an approved facility for destruction. No compensation is given for the hunt itself. The support is intended to encourage increased seal hunting, but Finland considers that lifting the seal trade ban would be an even stronger incentive. It would also eliminate the need for compensation and the related administrative costs.

Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Sweden admit that trade in seal products has never been a large sector with significant economic turnover. However, in the coastal areas, trade has the potential to contribute as a source of income and nurture cultural values. A lift of the ban would help exploit this potential, create a national market and export opportunities for seal products, and increase the value of seal products and even the volume of imports to the EU from Inuit or other indigenous communities, as the placing on the EU market of seal products would not be wrongly perceived as totally banned anymore. These Member States claim that small-scale sale as handicraft by local communities in the EU should be allowed, in order to compensate for the expenses of the hunt and to showcase the creativity and traditions of these communities. If a lift of the ban is not possible, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Sweden advocate for considering the reinstatement of the sustainable management of marine resources exception for Member States that include protective and licence seal hunt in their wildlife management plans. In 2019, the Swedish Parliament called on the government to work towards a lift of the ban or at least an exception to the ban.

4. Report by the United Kingdom

For the current exercise, the United Kingdom was still requested to provide its national report to the Commission. The reporting period for Great Britain was from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020, which was the end of the transition period jointly agreed by the EU and the United Kingdom following the United Kingdom ’s withdrawal from the EU. For the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland, the reporting period was the same as for the EU Member States (i.e. until end 2022) by virtue of the Windsor Framework ¹⁷, which includes the Seals Regulation.

Therefore, the elements below applied to Great Britain until the end of the transition period and they continue to apply in and to the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.

The United Kingdom Seal Products Regulations 2010 implement the EU Regulation. His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, Home Office and Border Force Agency are instructed to act in accordance with the EU and domestic legislation and relevant guidance on the seal regime. The processes are in place for the EU Regulation to function effectively.

The rules on penalties are contained in the Seal Products Regulations 2010. Anyone guilty of an offence is liable to a fine not exceeding GBP 75 000. The maximum amount is the same for fines imposed on legal persons.

During the reporting period, no seal products were placed on the United Kingdom market under the “Inuit or other indigenous communities” exception.

The United Kingdom reported that there is no seal hunt on its territory as marine mammals, including seals, are protected under legislation that makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild marine mammal.

5. Reports by the recognised bodies

For the current exercise, the recognised bodies of Canada and Greenland were asked to answer a questionnaire. The reporting period was the same as for the EU Member States, i.e. from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022.

a) Attesting documents

The Greenland Department of Fisheries and Hunting issued attesting documents to accompany sealskins from Ringed and Harp seals, which were put on the EU market in Denmark and Estonia. The chart below shows the number of units of sealskins imported from Greenland by these two EU Member States during the reporting period. The Greenland Department of Fisheries and Hunting also mentioned the export of 281 sealskins to Italy and 18 sealskins to Portugal in 2019, but these imports were not reported by the relevant EU competent authorities.

The Government of Nunavut (Canada) issued two attesting documents, in 2020 only, to accompany two Ringed seal skulls and two Ringed seal skins exported to Belgium, and one complete seal skull with two tusks exported to Italy. These imports were not reported by the relevant EU competent authorities.

The Government of the Northwest Territories of Canada issued two attesting documents, in 2022 only, to accompany one fur trimmed coat for the Czech Republic and the same for France. Here again, these imports were not reported by the relevant EU competent authorities.

The recognised body of Nunavut identified several issues with the attesting documents and urged the EU to consider whether it would be acceptable for them to (1) issue one single certificate for multiple pelts; (2) issue a certificate to Nunavut handicraft workers who attest to only using seal pelts resulting from hunts by Inuit in their work; (3) not be obligated to specify the name of the EU Member State where the product will be placed on the market; and (4) explore other means of proving the Inuit origin than a physical certificate, for example a stamp tattooed on the pelts or tags with the QR code and a stamp embossed by the Government of Nunavut, which is nearly impossible to imitate.

In 2021, the Government of the Northwest Territories developed a Seal Certification Programme to identify seal products harvested by Inuit/Inuvialuit hunters and crafted by Inuit/Inuvialuit/indigenous peoples of the Northwest Territories. Once the seal product is complete, it is affixed with a Seal Certification tag (see below).

The recognised body of the Northwest Territories considers that pelts from seals harvested by Inuit/Inuvialuit in the Northwest Territories should be automatically certified and that the EU should provide financial or technical support to operationalise the exemption. Penalties for non-compliance do exist and have not been needed thus far.

b) Seal hunt under the “Inuit or other indigenous communities” exception

Article 3(1) of the Regulation, as amended, allows the placing on the market only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit or other indigenous communities, contributing to their subsistence, and with due regard to animal welfare.

In this respect, the recognised bodies mentioned that three main principles of sealing guide Inuit and Inuvialuit: (1) sustainable harvest, whereby resources are protected from over-harvesting and managed to maintain the place of seals within the global ecosystem; (2) complete use whereby the meat provides food, the pelts are used for clothing and the oil is a rich source of omega-3 acids; and (3) humane harvest, whereby seals must be treated with respect and hunted only for what is needed, and the kill itself is clean and quick.

c) Processing of data and protection of personal data

The three recognised bodies are using an electronic system for the exchange and recording of data contained in the attesting documents. None of them reported issues related to the protection of personal data at the time of processing the attesting documents.

d) Information through a QR code

Upon request from Greenland, the Commission agreed with the placing of a QR code label on seal products, with a view to better informing consumers of the existence and legitimacy of the “Inuit or other indigenous communities” exception, and facilitating the placing on the EU market. This QR code links to a webpage ¹⁸ providing information on the EU seal regime.

Great Greenland is placing a QR code on all its sealskins. Local artisans, craft makers or small sewing houses are allowed to add their own logo next to the QR code. Nunavut has a QR code that links to information on the exception in the EU seal regime. The QR code is placed on all attested items and available as needed by artisans and craft makers. In the Northwest Territories, a QR code is placed on the seal products made from the documented/certified pelts.

e) Overall assessment by the recognised bodies

The recognised bodies were asked to provide an assessment of three aspects of the Regulation and the “Inuit or other indigenous communities” exception on their terriroty: the functioning and effectiveness of the exception, the impact of the Regulation on the socio-economic development of their Inuit or other indigenous communities, and the impact on the Regulation on their seal populations.

Greenland acknowledges EU’s commitment to respecting and promoting indigenous peoples’ rights, including the right to engage freely in their economic activities. However, in practice, they consider that the EU seal regime is having adverse effects on these communities. They see a need to raise awareness and improve information to European citizens on the legality of trade in products from seals hunted by Inuit or other indigenous communities, hereby restoring consumer confidence in seal products.

Nunavut shares the same opinion and would like to replace the attesting document with small tags with a QR code. Nunavut considers that certification requirements have imposed an undue burden and disincentive on Inuit producers and EU purchasers. Nunavut would welcome support from the EU to undertake outreach activities with EU manufacturers, museums and retailers as regards the existence and functioning of the exception.

For the Northwest Territories, the direct benefits of the Inuit exception would be vastly improved if the EU agreed that all seals harvested by Inuit/Inuvialuit in the Northwest Territories were considered compliant and, therefore, automatically certified. The level of subsistence harvesting has remained fairly consistent, and the domestic and local market for seal products and raw materials has remained healthy throughout the last reporting cycle. However, the export market has been limited to non-existent.

In Greenland, hunting and trading in seal products is of fundamental socio-economic and cultural importance to Inuit communities. In the period 2019-2022, the number of seals sold to the Great Greenland A/S tannery increased by almost 6% in comparison with the previous reporting period, but is far from the pre-EU ban levels.

The total numbers of seals caught in Greenland in the period 2019-2021 has decreased by 6% in comparison with the previous reporting period. The graph below shows the seal catches in Greenland by species in the four years of the reporting period. The numbers do not include the last three months of 2022.

The value of traded skins from ringed, bedlamer and saddleback seals to the Great Greenland Tannery in the reporting period has not reached the pre-EU ban levels either.

The Greenland Ministry of Fisheries and Hunting questions the rationale behind the seal regime and notes that sustainable seal hunting with full respect of animal welfare would have been possible without it. The Ministry is concerned that no prior assessment was carried out, including on the perceived concerns of today’s European citizens as the basic justification for the Regulation, and on possible less trade-restrictive ways of addressing potential concerns. The Ministry is also concerned that the EU seal regime, even with the Inuit exception, is not fulfilling the Blue Economy concept that the EU supports in all aspects of sustainable use of living resources, except for seal species.

In Nunavut and in the Northwest Territories, the year-round harvest, consumption, design and sale of seal products has been a long-standing component of the cultural expression and economic livelihood of the Inuit/Inuvialuit society. Inuit/Inuvialuit today depend on seals for food security and income in a territory with the highest prices on store-bought food and limited employment opportunities. Inuit/Inuvialuit largely market their seal products locally and do not export them to the EU. Primary reasons include a fear of being in contravention of the EU seal regime, barriers to trade which have resulted from the ban itself (loss of interest from buyers, lack of connections with potential buyers), no experience of international trade, and confusion about certification of pelts vs products from certified pelts. As yet, the Regulation has not had a positive impact on the socio-economic development of Inuit/Inuvialuit. The EU seal regime has opened a door, but is seen as a policed instrument.

According to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, there has been no impact on seal populations as a result of the Regulation, nor did the exception increase harvesting. The harvest was and continues to be conducted according to harvest regulations and Inuit/Inuvialuit values.

6) Conclusion

The Regulation seems to work well in preventing the placing on the EU market of seal products not covered by the “Inuit or other indigenous communities” exception. Member States have established penalties in case of infringement, but they have not yet imposed any. Only Belgium reported non-compliant imports, which were stopped at its customs.

As they already expressed in their previous reports, the EU Member States of the Baltic Sea would welcome a reinstatement of the “sustainable management of marine resources” exception, which was removed in 2015 to bring the Regulation in compliance with a ruling of the World Trade Organization. They consider that the ban has negative socio-economic impacts in the EU Member States of the Baltic Sea.

The recognised bodies in Canada consider that the Regulation is perceived in the EU as a total ban on trade in seal products, that the “Inuit or other indigenous communities” exception is not sufficiently well known in the EU, and that this has an impact on the economic development of their Inuit/Inuvialuit communities. The exports of seal products from Canada to the EU are insignificant. Greenland continues exporting seal products to the EU, mainly to Denmark. A small number of imports from Greenland and Canada were not reported by the relevant EU competent authorities.

The Commission will launch, in 2024, an evaluation of the Regulation on Trade in Seal Products and of the Seal Pups Directive to assess their functioning, effectiveness and impact against their objectives, and whether they remain fit for purpose. This will involve an assessment of their socio-economic impact and of their impact on the seal populations. On the basis of the evaluation findings, the Commission will consider whether further measures are needed.

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32009R1007

2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.262.01.0001.01.ENG

3 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/wtodispute/show.cfm?id=475&code=2

4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015R1850

5 See Recital 8 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1775

6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1578667308224&uri=COM%3A2020%3A4%3AFIN

7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31983L0129

8 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31989L0370

9 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015D1027(02)

10 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.426.01.0056.01.ENG

11 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017D0265

12 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/trade-seal-products_en

13 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2022:282:FULL&from=EN

14 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/trade-seal-products_en

15 http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/biodiversity-and-its-status/marine-mammals/

16 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01992L0043-20130701

17 Since 24 March 2023, by virtue of Joint Declaration No 1/2023 of the Union and the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee established by the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland should be known as the ‘Windsor Framework’.

18 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/trade-seal-products_en

EN EN