When in July 2008 the European Commission presented its first draft for a
regulation banning the trade in seal products to the European Parliament, it
highlighted the ethical concerns of the European public over the hunting of seals.
This finding was based on a questionnaire that was part of the COWI study, but
which COWI considered, for various reasons, unrepresentative. Instead of following
COWI’s advice to implement a labelling system, the Commission proposed an
import/export ban as well as a ban on intra-Community trade. From a legal perspective, the Proposal saw the harmonisation of the EU’s internal market as the driving
force. After all, at that point, the internal market was fractured in regard to seal
products since different EU member states had different rules in place.
The different EU institutions received the Proposal with mixed reactions. While
some considered it not in line with EU law, others saw it as not strict enough. When
the Proposal was finally amended and tabled for a vote in the EU Parliament, its
provisions had been tightened. One element is noteworthy here: the Proposal saw a
continuation of sealing if high animal welfare practices are adhered to. This provision was removed, indicating that the EU would adopt a measure that did not
consider sealing as a legitimate activity anymore. The justification of the Parliamentary committee responsible for the amendments (the Internal Market and Consumer
Protection Committee, IMCO) was that commercial sealing is inherently inhumane.
In May 2009, Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council on Trade in Seal Products
33 was adopted with an overwhelming majority. It
was followed 1 year later by an implementing regulation. These two regulations are
commonly referred to as the ‘EU Seal Regime’ or, in common parlance, the ‘EU Seal
Ban’.
The EU Seal Regime places a blanket ban on the trade, import and export of
products of all seals. This means, any commercialisation of seal products within the
market of the EU are prohibited. In its original form, three exceptions to this ban
were possible: first, trade was still possible when the products stemmed from
indigenous/Inuit subsistence sealing (‘Inuit exemption’); second, import was possible when the products were in the personal luggage/property of travellers, indicating
non-commercial importation; third, trade was possible when the products stemmed
from hunts conducted for marine management purposes, such as seal culls for
fisheries protection. This trade, however, was to take place on a non-profit basis
(‘MRM exception’).
In 2015, the scope of the EU Seal Regime was altered, resulting from the
proceedings before the World Trade Organization, which I will deal with below.
In its amended version, two important changes were made. First of all, the possibility
to conduct non-profit trade in marine management seal products was abandoned.
Seal products from these hunts can therefore no longer be placed on the market.
Second, although the Inuit exemption still persisted, new criteria required high
animal welfare standards in these hunts. In how far this provision can effectively
33 Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September
2009 on Trade in Seal Products, OJ L 286, 31.10.2009, pp. 36–39.
152
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals
regulation banning the trade in seal products to the European Parliament, it
highlighted the ethical concerns of the European public over the hunting of seals.
This finding was based on a questionnaire that was part of the COWI study, but
which COWI considered, for various reasons, unrepresentative. Instead of following
COWI’s advice to implement a labelling system, the Commission proposed an
import/export ban as well as a ban on intra-Community trade. From a legal perspective, the Proposal saw the harmonisation of the EU’s internal market as the driving
force. After all, at that point, the internal market was fractured in regard to seal
products since different EU member states had different rules in place.
The different EU institutions received the Proposal with mixed reactions. While
some considered it not in line with EU law, others saw it as not strict enough. When
the Proposal was finally amended and tabled for a vote in the EU Parliament, its
provisions had been tightened. One element is noteworthy here: the Proposal saw a
continuation of sealing if high animal welfare practices are adhered to. This provision was removed, indicating that the EU would adopt a measure that did not
consider sealing as a legitimate activity anymore. The justification of the Parliamentary committee responsible for the amendments (the Internal Market and Consumer
Protection Committee, IMCO) was that commercial sealing is inherently inhumane.
In May 2009, Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council on Trade in Seal Products
33 was adopted with an overwhelming majority. It
was followed 1 year later by an implementing regulation. These two regulations are
commonly referred to as the ‘EU Seal Regime’ or, in common parlance, the ‘EU Seal
Ban’.
The EU Seal Regime places a blanket ban on the trade, import and export of
products of all seals. This means, any commercialisation of seal products within the
market of the EU are prohibited. In its original form, three exceptions to this ban
were possible: first, trade was still possible when the products stemmed from
indigenous/Inuit subsistence sealing (‘Inuit exemption’); second, import was possible when the products were in the personal luggage/property of travellers, indicating
non-commercial importation; third, trade was possible when the products stemmed
from hunts conducted for marine management purposes, such as seal culls for
fisheries protection. This trade, however, was to take place on a non-profit basis
(‘MRM exception’).
In 2015, the scope of the EU Seal Regime was altered, resulting from the
proceedings before the World Trade Organization, which I will deal with below.
In its amended version, two important changes were made. First of all, the possibility
to conduct non-profit trade in marine management seal products was abandoned.
Seal products from these hunts can therefore no longer be placed on the market.
Second, although the Inuit exemption still persisted, new criteria required high
animal welfare standards in these hunts. In how far this provision can effectively
33 Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September
2009 on Trade in Seal Products, OJ L 286, 31.10.2009, pp. 36–39.
152
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals