This is the first fact sheet on the impact of the EU ban on seal product imports and the legacy of anti-sealing activism for the project Seals, Stigma and Survival. The fact sheet is informed by interviews with sealers – Indigenous and non-Indigenous – across the Circumpolar North, as well as civil servants, diplomats and fisheries industry players and scientists.
1. The ban falsely reinforces the idea that the seals in the Arctic, sub-Arctic and North Atlantic are endangered; they are not.
The two seal species that received the most attention from anti-sealing activists for reportedly being endangered are the harp seal which migrates between the Northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut, Canada and the Northwest coast of Greenland and the grey seal in the Baltic Sea.
Grey seas in the Baltics were endangered in the 1960s with an estimated 3000 animals. However, grey seals in the Baltics are no longer endangered. Now the estimated grey seal population in the Baltics is in excess of 60000 animals.
The harp seal population was historically low in the 1960s. Sealers and fishers at that time were calling for industry reform including improved monitoring of the hunt, quota management, and more safety considerations to protect sealers since the late 1800s. Though the exact number of harp seals is contested, it is estimated that there are between 4.5 and 7.4 million harp seals.
2. The EU ban is contributing to ecosystem imbalance
In interviews for this project Greenlandic hunters have reported that they observe ecological imbalance due to the large number of harp seals which they are disincentivized to hunt due to the EU ban and the stigma on seal products. Coupled with climate change undermining ice conditions, food source access, and overall seal health, hunters report witnessing malnourished seals and the loss of commercially viable fish as too many seals compete for food sources with other species (e.g. whales) and fishers.
Similarly sealers in Northeastern Canada and the Baltics highlight ecosystem imbalance issues, too, and attribute the EU ban and reinforcement of stigma against sealing and seal products as a contributing factor. In the Baltics, there is a swelling grey seal population which is contributing to a decline in the health of commercially viable fish species, such as cod, and significant downward pressure on local fish species through predation.
Seal-borne parasite infestation issues – seal worm – has become a major issue in the Baltics. Seal worm is driving up the cost of fish production, undermining income for local fishers and decreasing the health and usability of fish.
The exponential increase of grey seals in the Baltics has resulted in significant and costly human-seal relationship issues that are undermining regional fishing and livelihoods. Seals are destroying fishing gear and eating fish in nets, while fishers/hunters in the region are unable to hunt seals and use them even within their own countries and cultures to balance out their personal economy.
For example, Finland is eligible to import and sell seal products from Greenland but is not permitted to sell seal and seal products from locally hunted seals. Fishers and hunters in the Baltics are reluctant to kill seals as current EU regulations force them to violate cultural hunting ethics by not permitting domestic use, resulting in the likelihood that seals killed which are in excess to what a hunter personally needs being buried in the woods.
3. The Inuit (Indigenous) Exception for imports into the EU does not work and the personal use exemption is very constrained
The Inuit Exception is meant to permit a seal import opportunity for Inuit/Indigenous peoples into the EU despite the seal product ban. It purports to acknowledge Indigenous traditional and cultural rights to subsistence hunt seals and use excess they have hunted for modest financial gain. In practice, the ban and exception undermine Indigenous economic self-determination while presenting a front of superficial helpfulness.
The Inuit Exception is costly for Indigenous operators due to the high degree of paperwork required and legal navigation demanded of small governments and businesses. The EU reportedly compounds these barriers by not having contact points for Indigenous actors to get aid in completing the processes required to export to the EU using the Inuit Exception.
Despite three Indigenous entities having obtained the exception – the Governments of Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Greenland – presently only Greenland imports seal pelts into the EU. Greenlandic seal products into the EU, however, are limited primarily to Denmark with a 2023 report noting that an extremely small number also went to Estonia.
The exception focuses on pelts. For Indigenous vendors wishing to sell products they have produced using seal, such as artwork and clothing, the EU rules do not permit them to sell remotely to EU addresses. Vendors are limited to people who buy directly from them and take the item across the EU border. These items are covered under the personal use exception, not the Indigenous exception.
The personal use exemption is applicable for products from Indigenous and non-Indigenous sources, but the rule presently is that the person buying the item must have it on them when they cross the EU border. EU residents cannot have seal products shipped directly across the border to them. Therefore despite there being two exceptions in the EU ban – the Inuit Exception and the personal use exception – a Canadian Inuk artist based in Nunavut or the Northwest Territories, for example, cannot set up an online store and ship locally produced goods to the EU for someone wanting it for their personal use. A non-Indigenous vendor (e.g. from Northeastern Canada or Norway) that may wish to offer items for sale online and ship to customers for personal use (e.g. clothing store) is also prohibited to send seal-based products directly into the EU.
Seals, Stigma and Survival 