EN    EN EN  
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 23.7.2008 
COM(2008) 469 final 
2008/0160 (COD)   
Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
concerning trade in seal products 
(presented by the Commission) 
  
{SEC(2008) 2290} {SEC(2008) 2291}  
EN 2   EN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM  
1. C ONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL  
• Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 
 This proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
is intended to ban the placing on the ma rket and the import in, transit through, 
and the export from the Community of seal products. Trade in those products 
would however be possible when certai n conditions, which concern the manner 
and method whereby seals are killed and skinned, are met. It also establishes 
information requirements aimed at ensuring that seal products whose trade would be possible by derogation to the pr ohibitions otherwise in force would 
be clearly identified as coming from a country mee ting the required conditions, 
or alternatively as having been killed and skinned by persons acting under the jurisdiction of countries where the said conditions are met.  
 The bans are intended to replace th e varied measures adopted, or whose 
adoption is planned, by certain Member  States to prohibit the import, 
production and distribution, as the case may be, of products deri ved from seals, 
so that harmonised conditions govern th e trade in those products within the 
Community. The provisions of the draft Regulation also aim at ensuring that 
seal products produced outside the Co mmunity cannot be imported into it, 
transit through it, or be exported from the Community. 
 Seal products are imported in the Community and being traded within it. The 
evidence available suggests  that most of these produc ts originate from third 
countries, even though some production ex ists within the Community as seals 
are killed and skinned in Finland a nd Sweden, while seal products are 
produced in other Member States, such as the United Kingdom (Scotland), using seal fur skins coming from other countries.  
 For several years, many members of th e public have been concerned about the 
animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals and about trade 
occurring in products possibly derived from seals that have been killed and skinned with avoidable pain, distress a nd other forms of suffering, which seals, 
as sentient mammals, are capable of  experiencing. Those concerns have 
therefore been expressed by members of th e public out of et hical reasons. The 
Commission received during the last y ears a massive number of letters and 
petitions on the issue expressing citi zens’ deep indignation and repulsion 
regarding the trade in seal products in such conditions.  
 As a result of the concerns expressed by citizens, several Member States have 
adopted, or are in the pro cess of adopting or examin ing, legislation aiming at 
restricting or banning economic activit ies linked to the production of seal 
products. National legislators are tackli ng the issue with different measures 
banning the import, production, commercialisation, or placing on the market, as the case may be, of products derived from seals or cert ain seal species. 
Increasing awareness among and pressu re from the public on national 
legislators are likely to result in further legislative initiatives in the Member  
EN 3   EN States aimed at responding to the widesp read concern of members of the public 
as mentioned above.  
 Two Member States have legislation in pl ace to the effect of restricting trade in 
seal products. 
 Whilst trade in seal products is (or ma y soon be) subject to restrictive rules in 
certain Member States, no specific requi rements to that effect have been 
enacted in other Member States so that different trade conditions coexist within 
the Community varying from one (group of) Member State to the other (group) of Member States. As a consequence, the internal market is fragmented as traders need to adjust their commercial practices to the different provisions in force in each Member State. 
 The Treaty establishing the European Community does not provide for a 
specific legal basis allowing the Community to  legislate in the field of ethics as 
such. However, where the Treaty empowe rs the Community to legislate in 
certain areas and that the specific conditions of those legal bases are met, the mere circumstance that the Community legislature relies on ethical considerations does not pr event it from adopting legisl ative measures. It should 
be noted, in that respect, that the Treaty enables the Community to adopt 
measures aimed at establishing and maintaining an internal market, which is a market without internal frontiers acc ording to Article 14 of the Treaty.  
 It follows from the Court of Justice’ s settled case-law that, where there are 
differences between the laws, regulations  or administrative provisions of the 
Member States which are such as to obstruct the fundamental freedoms and thus have a direct effect on the functi oning of the internal market, Community 
measures are justified in order to pr event such obstacles. Depending on the 
circumstances, those measures may cons ist in provisionally or definitely 
prohibiting the marketing of a product or products
1. 
 There are differences between the laws, regulations and administrative 
provisions of the Member States with re spect to seal products. Two of them 
have already prohibited the marketing of  such products and a third has notified 
its intention to do so. Other Member States have intens e public discussions 
about the need for such legislation. T hose measures are intended, according to 
their authors, to stop trade in seal products mainly on the basis of ethical 
reasons related to animal welfare. Thos e prohibitions of ma rketing contribute 
to a heterogeneous development of that market and are therefore such as to 
constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods.  
 Having regard also to the public’s growing awareness and sensitivity to ethical 
considerations in how seal  products are obtained, it is likely that obstacles to 
the free movement of those products would arise by reason of the adoption by the Member States of new ru les reflecting those concerns.  
                                                
 
1 Judgement of 14 December 2004 in case C-43 4/02 (Arnold André), pa ragraphs 34 and 35.  
EN 4   EN  Action by the Community legislature on the basis of Article 95 EC is therefore 
justified with respect to seal products2. 
 The harmonisation of the different pr ohibitions and/or other restrictive 
measures currently in place is the easies t and lightest way of ensuring that the 
welfare of the seals from which products  are derived is taken into account 
when trade in seal products takes pl ace, under the condition that certain 
requirements are met. 
 The Court of Justice has recognised that  the protection of animal welfare is a 
legitimate objective in the public interest3. 
 The Court of Justice has also held th at, where the conditions  for recourse to 
Article 95 EC as a legal basis are fulfilled, the Community legislature cannot be prevented from relying on that legal basis on the ground that public health protection is a decisive factor  in the choices to be made
4. 
 It follows from a combined reading of  the above case-law that the Community 
legislature cannot be prev ented from relying on Ar ticle 95 EC on the ground 
that animal welfare consider ations would be a decisive factor in the choices to 
be made. 
 In any case, the draft Regulation, insofar as it seeks to establish uniform 
conditions under which seal products may be traded in derogation to the prohibitions otherwise appli cable, contributes to ensu re the free movement of 
those goods within the internal market.  
 As the vast majority of seal products present in the Community originate from 
third countries, the establishment of th e ban trade must be accompanied by an 
equivalent ban on imports of the sa me products into the Community.  
 A ban on transit and exports should also en sure that seal pro ducts do not transit 
through the Community nor are produced in the Community for export. Such 
additional bans would contribute to render the ban on intra-Community trade 
more effective, as there is a risk th at seal products placed under a transit 
procedure or allegedly produced for e xport may be fraudulently brought on to 
the Community market.  
 Insofar as the provisions of this Regulat ion affect commercial activities in seal 
products with third countries, beyond what  is strictly require d to preserve the 
ban on intra-Community trade, it shoul d also be consider ed as a measure 
governing international trade. 
 The various prohibitions provided for by this Regulat ion would respond to the 
animal welfare concerns expressed by me mbers of the public as to the possible 
introduction into the Community of seal  products obtained from seals that 
                                                
 
2 See paragraphs 37, 38, 39 and 41 of case C-434/02. 
3 See Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 Vi amex Agrar Handels e.a., paragraph 22. 
4 See paragraph 32 of Case C-434/02.  
EN 5   EN might not have been killed and ski nned without causing  avoidable pain, 
distress and other forms of suffering. 
 It should however be possible for trade in seal products to take place where the 
killing and skinning methods used w ould be such as offering reasonable 
guarantees that the killing and skinni ng occur without causing avoidable pain, 
distress and other forms of suffering. 
 The regulatory framework so establishe d would therefore be  designed so as 
giving incentives to countries concerne d to review and improve, where need 
be, their legislation and pr actice concerning the met hods to be complied with 
when killing and skinning seals. 
 The fundamental economic and social  interests of I nuit communities 
traditionally engaged in the hunting of seals should not be adversely affected. Seal products deriving from traditional hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit communities and which contribute to thei r subsistence should therefore not be 
covered by the prohibitions provi ded for by this Regulation.  
•  General context 
 Products derived from seals are trad ed within and outside the Community. 
 Within the Community, seals are kille d and skinned in Sweden, Finland and 
the United Kingdom (Scotland) with a view  to obtain products derived from 
seals, or for pest control reasons. Outs ide the Community, seals are killed and 
skinned to the same effect in Cana da, Greenland, Namibia, Norway and 
Russia.  
 The Community has adopted since long appropriate legisl ation seeking to 
ensure that hunting within and outside the Community would not lead to endanger the conservation status of se veral seal species (see below).  
 Beyond those conservation concerns, methods used to kill seals and seal pups 
have raised serious among members of  the public, organisations and certain 
Member States for several years on account  of the fear, pain, distress and other 
form of suffering experienced  by seals and seal pups.  
 On 17 November 2006, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 
adopted a recommendation on seal hunting inviting member and observer states practising seal hunting, amongst other issues, "to ban all cruel hunting 
methods, which do not guarantee the instant aneous death, without suffering, of 
the animals, and to prohibit the stunning of  animals with instruments such as 
hakapiks, bludgeons and guns".   
 On 26 September 2006, the European Parliament adopted a declaration 
requesting the European Commission to regulate the import, export and sale of 
all harp and hooded seal produc ts, while ensuring that this regulation would not 
have an impact on traditional Inuit seal hunting. 
 Belgium adopted on 16 March 2007 an Act prohibiting the manufacture and 
placing on the market of products derive d from seals while the Netherlands  
EN 6   EN adopted a Decree of 4 July 2007 am ending the Flora and Fauna Act 
(Designation of Species of Animals and Plants) Decree and the Protected 
Species of Animals and Plants (Exemp tion) Decree in connection with the 
prohibition of the trade in products of harp seals and hooded seals. Germany 
intends to adopt an Act banning the import, processi ng and placing on the 
market of seal products. Similar initiatives from other Member States may not be excluded in the future.  
•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 
 Trade in seal products is subject to a certain extent to existing Community 
provisions, the scope a nd rationale of which are however significantly 
different. 
 Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 Ma rch 1983 prohibits the commercial 
importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups
5 and products 
derived therefrom6. The Directive was adopted furt her to various studies which 
had have raised doubts concerning the popul ation status of the harp and hooded 
seals, and especially as to the eff ect of non-traditional hunting on the 
conservation and population status of hoode d seals. As hunting, as traditionally 
practised by the Inuit people, leaves s eal pups unharmed, the Directive does not 
apply to products resulting from this particular form of hunting. 
 Council Directive 92/43/ EEC of 21 May 1992 on the c onservation of natural 
habitats and of wild fauna and flora7 protects all seal species present in the 
Community. As with all other species (a nd habitats) covered by the Directive, 
the overall aim thereof is to maintain  or restore a favourable conservation 
status with regard to the seal sp ecies occurring in the Community.  
 As part of the measures designed to  achieve this goal, Article 15 of the 
Directive prohibits the use of all indisc riminate means capable of causing local 
disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of such species. The 
prohibited methods and means of capture a nd killing are listed in Annex VI (a) 
and the prohibited forms of capture a nd killing from modes of transport are 
listed in Annex VI (b). 
 The Directive prohibits all forms of de liberate capture or killing of specimens 
of those species listed in its Annex IV (a), which include the following seal 
species: Monachus monachus  and Phoca hispida saimensis . It also requires 
Member States, in the light of the survei llance of the conservation status of the 
species concerned, to ensure that the ta king in the wild of specimens of those 
species of wild fauna listed in Annex V – which includes all seal species 
occurring in the Community not liste d in Annex IV – as well as their 
exploitation is compatible with their being maintained at a favourable conservation status. Such measures may include the regulation of the methods 
                                                
 
5 Whitecoat pups of harp seals and pups of hooded seals (blue-backs). 
6 OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30. Directive as amended by Directive 89/370/EEC (OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 37). 
7 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Directive as last amended by Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 
adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 2002/83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of 
the accession of Bulgaria and Romani a (OJ L 363, 20.12. 2006, p. 368).  
EN 7   EN of taking specimens, the a pplication, when specimens  are taken, of hunting 
rules which take account of the cons ervation of such populations, or the 
regulation of the purchase, sale, offering for sale, keeping for sale or transport 
for sale of specimens. 
 Member States are obliged to report every six years on the implementation of 
the measures taken under Directive 92/43. The latest reporting period covered 
2001-2006 and revealed information for the first time on the conservation status of all seal species to which the Directive applies. 
 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of 
species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein
8 implements the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) within the Community. The aim of the Regulation (and of Cites) 
is to guarantee the conservation of species  of wild fauna a nd flora by regulating 
trade therein. Pursuant to Cites and the Regulation, trade will only take place if it does not threaten the survival of th e species concerned. Several species of 
Pinnipeds are listed in e ither Appendix I or II to  Cites and the corresponding 
Annexes A and B to the Regulation. Th e proposal for a Regulation only covers 
one species – the Namibian Cape fur seal ( Arctocephalus pusillius pusillus ) –, 
which is also currently listed under Cites (Appendi x II thereof).  
 In summary, the existing legislation pursues conservation objectives and its 
actual implementation depends to a certain extent (at least with respect to Directive 92/43) of the evolution in the conservation status of the species 
concerned. In any case, it does not prohi bit all commercial activities in respect 
of all seal species as purports this pr oposal for a Regulation, nor does it address 
specifically the methods whereby seals ar e killed and skinned from an animal 
welfare viewpoint.  
•  Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 
 The protection of animal welfare is a legitimate objective which the 
Community can pursue in the public interest when exercising the legislative powers conferred upon it by the EC Treaty
9. Animal welfare considerations are 
taken into account by the Community legislature in va rious fields. In certain 
areas, such as the internal market, Co mmunity institutions are even bound to 
pay full regard to animal welfare requirements when legislating10.  
 Animal welfare is also at the centre of the Community Action Plan on the 
Protection and Welfar e of Animals 2006-201011. This Action Plan reflects the 
Protocol to the EC Treaty on the Protec tion of Animals defined as sentient 
beings. As agreed at the time of the adop tion of the Action Plan and in order to 
                                                 
8 OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 318/2008 (OJ 
L 95, 8.4.2008, p. 3). 
9 See Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 Vi amex Agrar Handels e.a., paragraph 22. 
10 Protocol (No 33) on protection and welfare of animals annexed to the Treaty establishing the European 
Community (OJ C 340, 10.11.1997, p. 110). This Protocol reflects itself Declaration No 24 on the 
protection of animals annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union. 
11 COM(2006)13 final of 23.1.2006.  
EN 8   EN support the harmonisation of animal welfare standards adopted in the 
Community both on public and private ba ses, the Commission has launched a 
feasibility study to cr eate a European Centre for the Protection and Welfare of 
Animals. The European Centre could be  developed in a way to assist the 
Community and Member States in the ma nagement of animal welfare issues 
both at Community and intern ational level. As and wh en established, such a 
Centre could for instance assist the Co mmission in the implementation of the 
labelling/marking requirements whose basi c features are to be established by 
this Regulation. 
 There is no conflict be tween this proposal and other existing Community 
legislation (see above): the former focu ses on animal welfare considerations 
while the latter addresses conservation is sues and, insofar as this Regulation 
would impose stricter provisions in terms of trade, it could perfectly do so as 
the existing Community legislation only provides for minimum requirements. 
Conversely, should trade in seal products be allowed to occur under the benefit 
of a derogation, it is necessary to ensu re that the specific regimes provided for 
under the existing Community legisl ation continues to apply.  
 As to the import ban, it is in conform ity with Article XX(a) of the General 
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), under which the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures necessary to protect public 
morals is allowed provided that such  measures are not applied in a manner 
which would constitute a means of arb itrary or unjustifiable discrimination. 
The proposed Regulation is non-discrimina tory as the various prohibitions it 
provides for will apply to intra-Community trade as well as to imports and exports.  
2. C
ONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
• Consultation of interested parties 
 Consultation methods, main secto rs targeted and general profile of 
respondents  
 An Internet-based public consulta tion was conducted by the European 
Commission providing the po ssibility for EU citizens as well as non-EU 
citizens to express their vi ews on regulation of seal hun ting, as an input to the 
policy-making process. 73,153 answers were received from citizens in 160 countries worldwide. This high number  of responses (and additionally around 
1,350 e-mails) indicates that seal hunting is a very salient issue to a large 
number of citizens. The responses show ed massive dissatisfaction with current 
seal hunting practices, at least how they  are perceived by the general public. A 
clear majority of responde nts in nearly all the geographical area analysed 
preferred a ban. The majority of res pondents resided in the United Kingdom, 
the USA and Canada.  
 Furthermore, a stakeholder consultation was organised by the European Food 
Safety Agency (EFSA) in the framework of its work to establish a scientific opinion on the animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals (see  
EN 9   EN below). The stakeholders were inv ited to express their opinion on the 
completeness and reliability of the data presented in the draft report prepared by the EFSA working group, in order to avoid any possibility of leaving out 
some important scientific evidence. Moreover, the European Commission organised a workshop with experts from  sealing countries, animal welfare non-
governmental organisations as well as fu r trade and hunters associations with 
the objective to receive feed-back on th e factual information under the country 
reporting exercise (national hunt mana gement systems) conducted in the 
framework of the overall Commission asse ssment. Bilateral meetings were also 
held with a whole range of stakeholders an d took place at political as well as at 
technical level. 
 Summary of responses and how th ey have been taken into account
 
 The results of the consultation showed  that many respondents are against seal 
hunting for reasons of principle, whic h again may be rooted in a certain 
perception of the human-nature relation. Ho wever, the results also showed that 
for some respondents the level of acceptabi lity of seal hunting is influenced by 
how the seal hunt is managed and undertaken, and for what reasons. 
 The proposal takes the outcome of the consultations held into account as it 
seeks to respond to the concerns expre ssed as to the placing on the Community 
market, including further from imports fr om third countries, of seal products 
obtained from seals that might not ha ve been killed and skinned without 
causing avoidable pain, dist ress and other forms of suffering. Furthermore, the 
overall scheme of the proposal is so desi gned as to give in centives to sealing 
countries to improve the methods in  which seals are killed and skinned.  
• Collection and use of expertise 
 The Commission, in its response to the European Parliame nt on 16 January 
2007, recognised the high level of public concerns regarding the animal welfare aspects of seal hunting. In line with its commitment to high animal 
welfare standards, it un dertook to make a full obj ective assessment of the 
animal welfare aspects of seal hunting and, based on the results, to report back 
to the European Parliament with possibl e legislative proposals if warranted by 
the situation. The Commission carried out its assessment on the basis of 
various elements, among which, as far r ecourse to expertis e is concerned, the 
independent scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 
and a study commissioned to support the impact assessment process.  
 In follow-up to the request from the European Commission in May 2007, 
EFSA adopted on 6 December 2007 an i ndependent scientific opinion on the 
animal welfare aspects of methods fo r the killing and skinning of seals
12. 
 EFSA concluded that "it is possible to kill seals rapidly and effectively without 
causing them avoidable pain or distress. However, the Panel also reported 
                                                 
12 The EFSA Journal (2007) 610, 1-122.  
EN 10   EN evidence that, in practice, effectiv e and humane killing does not always 
happen".  
 EFSA does not explicitly take position on the methods currently used for 
killing and skinning seals. It rather establishes a number of criteria for 
assessing the acceptability of methods applied in the different seal hunts. 
 Given the scarcity of robust, scientifi cally peer reviewed data, the EFSA Risk 
Assessment process was conducted in a qualitative way. Nevertheless, the general conclusions and recommendati ons are considered to be rigorous 
enough to inform the policy-making process. 
 Building upon the EFSA scientific  opinion, a study (commissioned by the 
Commission)
13 examined the regulatory frameworks for, and the management 
practices of, the different seal hunts. 
 Legislative and enforcement provisions in a number of sealing countries, both 
within the European Community and be yond were assessed and best practices 
identified. The assessments were based on desk study research and information provided during the overall consultation process; the study team did not visit 
all the range states worldwide.  
 The study also assessed the impact of a possible ban of seal products on trade 
and other socio-economic aspects.  
• Impact assessment  
 Both legislative and non-legislative policy measures were considered in the 
impact assessment. Furthermore, policy m easures that are not linked directly to 
seal hunt management systems, such as  a total prohibition  of placing on the 
Community market and/or of imports/expo rts, as well as measures that could 
be linked to the good or bad practices of  the seal hunt management systems, 
were analysed. 
 The environmental dimension of the assessment is limited to the impacts of 
animal welfare aspects for seals wh ich, however, are difficult to measure 
because the effectiveness of killing met hods used for seals vary according to 
the methods used, the skill of the operators and the environmental conditions. Furthermore, economic impacts are limited to those impacts to trade and local 
economies, both on the side of the seali ng countries as well as of potential 
transit and transformation countries, while  the social dimension touches mainly 
upon the conditions for the Inuit population. 
 A total prohibition of placing on the Co mmunity market of seal products is 
assessed to have minor economic impacts in Member States of the Community. 
This assumes, however, that transhipment  of sealskins and other seal products 
and imports of sealskins for further pr ocessing and exports  can continue. The 
impacts are assessed to be slightly mo re significant for non-Community range 
states. This is a result of the fact that the size of the seal hunts in these non-
                                                
 
13 COWI "Assessment of the potential impact of a ban of products derived from seal species", April 2008  
EN 11   EN Community countries are much larger th an in the Community range states, and 
that the Community market - apart for Russia - is of some importance. This 
option would also deny consumers the c hoice to purchase seal products in the 
Community. 
 A total prohibition of imports and exports would have medium economic 
impacts on the Community Member Stat es, although those impacts could be 
significant for Finland and Germany, if such  ban would also cover transit trade. 
The impacts would be slightly higher for the non-Community range states. This 
is again a result of the f act that the size of the seal hunts in non-Community 
countries is much larger than in th e Community range st ates, and that the 
Community market - apart for Russia - is of some importance. However, if the 
ban is extended to transit trade, Canada  will in particular suffer, unless this 
trade can be shifted from Germany and Finland to outside of the Community 
(for instance to. Norway). Hence, Norw ay may actually strengthen its position 
as a transit trader. With regard to consumers they would only have a very 
limited choice of seal products derive d from seal spec ies hunted in the 
Community and offered for sale on local markets only. 
 Denmark and Italy are by far the two la rgest importers of raw fur skin from 
seal for further processing/sales on the Community market, and will thus also be affected by such regulation. Denmar k imports the raw fur skins directly 
coming from Canada and Greenland (tha t are not categorised as goods in 
transit), while Italy imports the raw fur skins from Russia, Finland and the UK 
(Scotland). Greece also has a noticeable trade in raw skins originating in the 
two latter range states. 
 Benefits from a labelling system might include a price mark-up on the 
consumer market and at the same an in crease of the image of seal hunting in 
general. If the system is voluntary, it might encourage a natural self-selection 
process regarding compliance and thus  maintain the balance between the 
animal welfare, economic and social dimensions, i.e. those who pursue the label might benefit more than it costs,  and the welfare of the seals could be 
enhanced. Furthermore, it is assessed that the impact will be largest if it is a widespread international labelling system rather than a specific Community system. 
 Bi-/multilateral agreements between th e Community and one or more range 
states could be made, which could en large the geographical area not to be 
covered by any legislative measures. The im pact will be similar to that of a 
limited ban that allows trade if the hun ting of the seals complies with some 
established standards as discussed above. 
 Given the animal welfare concerns expressed by the public, the European 
Parliament and Member States, stand-al one non-legislative measures are not 
considered sufficient to address the issue. 
 The EFSA scientific opinion clearly indicates that there is reported evidence 
that, in practice, effective killing does not always happen, which is reinforced by the further assessment findings. There are therefore reas onable grounds to 
consider undertaking precautionary steps to  ensure that products derived from  
EN 12   EN seals, which are killed and skinned in a way that causes them avoidable pain, 
distress and suffering, are denied ac cess to the Community market.  
 Labelling alone of seal products is not an alternative to a ban on trade in those 
products as labelling would only be rele vant to assuage the ethical animal 
welfare concerns of citizens and consumers as and when the killing and skinning methods in force in the sea ling countries would accord with the 
criteria provided for in this Regulati on. There should therefore be incentives 
for sealing countries to adapt their legisl ation and practice to that effect, which 
can only be achieved by mean s of trade prohibitions.  
3. L
EGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL  
•  Summary of the proposed action  
 This proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
is intended to ban the placing on the ma rket and the import in, transit through, 
and the export from the Community of seal products. Trade in those products 
would however be possible when certai n conditions, which concern the manner 
and method whereby seals are killed and skinned, are met. It also establishes 
information requirements aimed at ensuring that seal products whose trade would be possible by derogation to the pr ohibitions otherwise in force would 
be clearly indicated as coming from a country meeting the above-mentioned 
conditions, or alternatively as having been killed and skinned by persons acting under the jurisdiction of countries wh ere the said conditions are met.  
•  Legal basis 
 The proposal is based on Articles 95 and 133 of the Treaty. In the drafting of 
this proposal, the Commission has taken due account of the case law of the Court of Justice where the Court set up the conditions for the recourse to 
Article 95
14.  
 As the proposal also aims at banning imports and exports of the products in 
question from outside the Community, reference to the provisions of Article 
133 is also necessary. The proposal ha s indeed a twofold component as it 
simultaneously pursues two different obj ectives (the ban on intra-Community 
trade and the ban on imports and exports ) which are inseparably linked without 
one being secondary and indirect  in relation to the other.  
 The procedures laid down for the adoption of Community legislation under 
Articles 95 and 133 respectively of the EC  Treaty are not incompatible with 
each other.  
                                                 
14 Judgment of 10 Decembe r 2002 in Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco  
[2002] ECR I-11453, paragraphs 60 and 61; j udgments of 14 December 2004 in Case C-434/02 Arnold 
André  [2004] ECR I-11825, paragraph 34 and in Case C-210/03 Swedish Match  [2004] ECR I-11893, 
paragraph 33; judgment of 12 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural 
Health  [2006] ECR I-6451, paragraph 32 and of 6 December 2005 in Case C-66/04 United Kingdom v 
European Parliament and Council  [2005] ECR I-10553, paragraph 41.  
EN 13   EN •  Subsidiarity principle 
 The proposal aims at the harmonisation of laws concerning the trade in seal 
products. This harmonisation at Community level is necessary to eliminate the 
present fragmentation of the internal market, which results from the existing differences between Member States’ pr ovisions governing the trade, import, 
production and marketing of seal products , while taking into account animal 
welfare considerations. Such result coul d only be obtained by measures taken 
at Community level since national m easures, including total bans, are by 
definition only enforceable in pa rts of the internal market.  
 Similarly, the possible con tinuance of trade in seal products, by derogation to 
the prohibitions otherwise applicable, ar e better taken at Community level as 
this ensures that uniform conditions are met before de rogations are granted and 
that trade of those products benefiti ng from derogations is governed by 
harmonised rules throughout the intern al market. The same reasoning holds 
true with respect to the labelling and marking requirements applying to 
products benefiting from derogations, as national legislation on the same subject would by definition not be app licable in the whole Community and 
would lead to market fragmentation.  
 The proposal therefore complies wi th the subsidiarity principle. 
•  Proportionality principle and choice of instruments 
 The proposal complies with the propor tionality principle for the following 
reason(s). 
 Labelling alone of seal products is not an alternative to a ban on trade in those 
products as labelling would only be rele vant to assuage the ethical animal 
welfare concerns of citizens and consumers as and when the killing and skinning methods in force in the sea ling countries would accord with the 
criteria provided for in this Regulati on. There should therefore be incentives 
for sealing countries to adapt their legisl ation and practice to that effect, which 
can only be achieved by mean s of trade prohibitions.  
 In these circumstances, prohibitions c oupled with the possi bility to issue 
derogations constitute the least burdensome measures to be taken which can 
effectively achieve the pursued objectives.  
 Appropriate requirements should be provided for ensu ring that derogations to 
trade prohibitions can be properly enforced under th is Regulation. To that 
effect, provisions should be made relati ng to certification schemes as well as 
on labelling and marking. Certificati on schemes should ensure that seal 
products are certified as coming from s eals which have been killed and skinned 
in accordance with the appropriate requirements, which are effectively enforced, and whose object is to ensu re that seals are killed and skinned 
without causing avoidable pain, distress and any other form of suffering.  
 All measures adopted by the Commission to implement this Regulation will 
comply with the proportionality principle.  
EN 14   EN •  Choice of instruments 
 Proposed instrument: Regulation. 
 It offers the advantages of having general and uniform application, being 
binding in its entirety and di rectly applicable in all Member States on the same 
day, without the additional administra tive burden of a national act being 
necessary for transposition 
 Other means would not be adequate. A Directive requires national measures of 
implementation and increases the ri sk of divergent application. The 
enforcement of a ban relies on Member States while they keep the freedom on how to ensure that seal products ar e no longer placed on the market, imported 
and exported and to develop the methods of how to enforce the ban. Similarly, 
there is a need to guarantee the uniform application of possible derogations to the trade prohibitions otherwise applicable. 
4. B
UDGETARY IMPLICATION  
The Proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 
5. A DDITIONAL INFORMATION  
•  Simplification 
 The Proposal does not have a simplification element as it does not touch 
existing legislation. 
 It should be noted with respect to Regulation No 338/97 that it would not be 
appropriate to remove from that Regulat ion seal species which are currently 
included therein, as such decisions are intr insically linked to the decisions to be 
made by the governing bodies of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites). (Even though the Community is not a Party to 
Cites, Regulation No 338/97 expressly purports to implement that Convention 
within the Community).  
 See below with respect to S eal Pups Directive 83/129/EEC.  
•  Repeal of existing legislation 
 The adoption of the Proposal will not lead to the repeal of existing legislation 
as the latter either covers other elemen ts or is based on different grounds and 
seeks to assuage different concerns as it relates to the conservation status of the seal species concerned.  
 Concerning more speci fically the Seal Pups Directive 83/129/EEC (as 
amended), it is clear that this Regul ation encompasses the prohibition of 
commercial imports of the specific products  covered by this le gislation. Yet, 
this Directive must remain unaffected as this Regulation contemplates the possibility for trade to c ontinue by derogations to the prohibitions otherwise  
EN 15   EN applicable. Should such derogations be gr anted, it is necessary to ensure that 
the conservation objectives pursued by Di rective 83/129 are still met, which in 
turn implies that the ban import the latter provides for continues to apply. It would therefore not be appropria te to repeal Directive 83/129. 
•  Review/revision/sunset clause 
 The Proposal does not include any of these clauses. 
•  Recasting 
 The Proposal does not involve recasting. 
•  Correlation table 
 N/A as correlation tables are only re quired with respect to Directives. 
•  European Economic Area (EEA) 
 The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the 
European Economic Area.  
EN 16   EN 2008/0160 (COD) 
Proposal for a 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
concerning trade in seals products 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE CO UNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Eu ropean Community, and in particular Articles 
95 and 133 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission15, 
Having regard to the opinion of the Eu ropean Economic and Social Committee16, 
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty17, 
Whereas: (1) Seals are animals that can experience pai n, distress, fear and other forms of suffering. 
(2) Seals are hunted within and outside the Community an d used for obtaining products 
and articles, such as meat, oil, blubber, fur skins and articles made therefrom, which 
are sold commercially on different markets, including the Community.  
(3) The hunting  of seals has led to expressi ons of serious concerns  by members of the 
public, governments as well as the European  Parliament sensitive to animal welfare 
considerations since there ar e indications that seals may not be killed and skinned 
without causing avoidable pain, distress and other forms of suffering. The European 
Food Safety Authority concluded, in its scientific opinion on the Animal Welfare 
aspects of the killing and skinning of seals, that it is possible to kill seals rapidly and 
effectively without causing them  avoidable pain or distress , whilst also reporting that 
in practice, effective and humane killing does not always happen
18. 
(4) In response to the concern about the animal welfare aspect s of the killin g and skinning 
of seals, several Member States have adopt ed or intend to adopt legislation regulating 
trade in seal products, by prohibiting their import, and production, while no 
restrictions are placed on the trade in these products in other Member States.  
                                                 
15 OJ C , , p. . 
16 OJ C , , p. . 
17 OJ C , , p. . 
18 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on the 
Animal Welfare aspects of the killing and skinning  of seals. The EFSA J ournal (2007) 610, 1-122.  
EN 17   EN (5) There are therefore differences between  Member States' pr ovisions governing the 
trade, import, production and marketing of  seal products. Those differences between 
national measures affect the operation of the internal ma rket. The measures provided 
for in this Regulation should therefore harm onise the rules across the Member States 
as regards commercial activiti es concerning seal products. 
(6) To eliminate the present fragmentation of the internal market, there is a need to 
provide for harmonised rules while taking into  account animal welfare considerations. 
A ban on placing seal products on the mark et is appropriate to that effect. 
(7) A vast majority of seal products in the Community originate from third countries. In 
order to be more effective, the ban on intra-Community trade should be accompanied 
by a ban on the introduction of the sa me products into the Community.  
(8) A ban on transit and exports should also  ensure that seal products do not transit 
through the Community nor are produced in the Community for export. Such bans 
would contribute to render the ban on intra- Community trade more effective, as there 
is a risk that seal products placed under a transit procedure or allegedly produced for 
export may be fraudulently brought on to the Community market.  
(9) Insofar as the provisions of this Regula tion affect commercial activities in seal 
products with third countries, beyond what is  strictly required to preserve the ban on 
intra-Community trade, it should also be considered as a measure governing 
international trade. 
(10) The various prohibitions pr ovided for by this Regulation sh ould respond to the animal 
welfare concerns expressed by members of the public as to  the placing on the 
Community market, including further to imports  from third countries, of seal products 
obtained from seals that might not have been killed and skinned without causing 
avoidable pain, distress and other forms of suffering. 
(11) It is appropriate, however, to provide for the possibility of derogations from the 
general ban on the placing on the market and the import in, or export from, the 
Community of seal products insofar as th e appropriate conditions based on animal 
welfare considerations are met. To that e ffect, criteria should be provided for the 
compliance with which should ensure that se als are killed and skinned without causing 
avoidable pain, distress and other forms of  suffering. Any such derogation should be 
granted at Community level so that uniform conditions apply throughout the 
Community with respect to the trade specifi cally allowed under t hose derogations and 
the smooth functioning of the in ternal market is preserved. 
(12) Seal products should only be placed on the market, imported, transiting, or exported if 
they meet the conditions provided for to that  effect by this Regul ation. However, if 
placed on the market, imported or exported in accordance with a derogation granted under this Regulation, seal products will also have to comply with the relevant Community legislation, including animal h ealth and food and feed safety provisions, 
as appropriate. This Regulation should not  affect the obligations under Regulation 
(EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliame nt and of the Council of 3 October 2002 
laying down health rules concerning anim al by-products not intended for human  
EN 18   EN consumption19 concerning the disposal of seal products for public and animal health 
reasons. 
(13) The fundamental economic and social in terests of Inuit communities traditionally 
engaged in the hunting of seals as a means to ensure their subsistence should not be 
adversely affected. The hunt is an integrated part of the culture a nd the identity of the 
members of the Inuit society. It represents a source of income and contributes to the subsistence of the hunter. Therefore, seal products deriving from  hunts traditionally 
conducted by Inuit communities and which contri bute to their  subsistence should not 
be covered by the prohibitions pr ovided for in this Regulation. 
(14) Appropriate requirements should be provided for ensuri ng that derogations to trade 
prohibitions can be properly enforced under this Regulation. To th at effect, provisions 
should be made relating to certification sche mes as well as on labelling and marking. 
Certification schemes should ensure that se al products are certified as coming from 
seals which have been killed and ski nned in accordance with the appropriate 
requirements, which are effec tively enforced, and whose object  is to ensure that seals 
are killed and skinned without causing avoida ble pain, distress and any other form of 
suffering. 
(15) The measures necessary for the implemen tation of this Regulation should be adopted 
in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of impl ementing powers conferred on the Commission
20.  
(16) In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adopt all measures necessary 
to ensure that procedures are in place allo wing applications for derogation to the trade 
prohibitions set out in this Regulation to be  lodged and handled in an efficient manner, 
as well as to ensure the proper implementa tion of the provisions of this Regulation 
concerning certification schemes and labelli ng and marking. Since those measures are 
of a general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this 
Regulation by supplementing it, inter alia , by supplementing it wi th new non-essential 
elements, they must be adopted in accord ance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of  Decision 1999/468/EC. The Commission should 
also be empowered to decide on der ogations to trade prohibitions under this 
Regulation, suspension or revocation thereof.  Since those measures are adopted to 
ensure the management of the scheme provide d for in this Regulation and apply it in 
individual cases, they must be adopted in accordance with the management procedure 
provided for in Article 4 of Decision 1999/468/EC.  
(17) Member States should lay down rules on pe nalties applicable to infringements of the 
provisions of this Regulation and ensure th at they are implemented. Those penalties 
should be effective, propor tionate and dissuasive.  
(18) Member States should report on a regular  basis on the actions taken to enforce this 
Regulation. On the basis of those reports , the Commission should itself report to the 
European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Regulation.  
                                                 
19 OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 523/2008 
of 11 June 2008 (OJ L 153, 12.6.2008, p. 23). 
20 OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. Decision as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC (OJ L 200, 22.7.2006, p. 
11).  
EN 19   EN (19) Since the objective of this Regulation, na mely the elimination of obstacles to the 
functioning of the internal market by harm onising national bans concerning the trade 
in seal products at Community level, ca nnot be sufficiently ach ieved by the Member 
States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may 
adopt measures, in accordance with the principl e of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 
of the Treaty. International trade may be  regulated by the Community pursuant to 
Article 133 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set 
out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the 
objectives it pursues, 
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
Subject matter 
This Regulation establishes harmonised rules co ncerning the placing on the market and the 
import in, transit through, or export from, the European Community of seal products. 
Article 2 
Definitions 
For the purpose of this Regulation: 
1. 'seal' means specimens of Pinnipeds bel onging to the species listed in Annex I; 
2. 'seal product' means all products, either processed or unpro cessed, deriving or 
obtained from seals, including meat, oil, blubber, and raw fur skins and fur skins, 
tanned or dressed, including fur skins assemb led in plates, crosses and similar forms 
as well as articles made from seal fur skins; 
3. 'placing on the market' means introducing onto the Community market, thereby 
making available to third parties, whet her in exchange for payment or not;  
4. 'import' means any entry of goods into th e customs territory of  the Community, with 
the exception of imports that: 
(i) are of an occasional nature, and (ii) consist exclusively of goods for the personal use of the tr avellers or their
 families;  
5. 'transit' means the transport of goods between two points outside the Community 
through the territory of the Community with or without trans-shipment, warehousing, 
breaking bulk, or change in the mode of transport and during which any interruption 
in the movement arises only from the arrangements necessitated by this form of traffic; 
6. 'export' means any departure of goods from  the customs territory of the Community;  
EN 20   EN 7. 'applicants requesting a derogation' m ean countries, including Member States, 
requesting a derogation under Article 5 of this Regula tion on whose territory or 
under whose jurisdiction the seals from wh ich seals products are made, have been 
killed and skinned as well as the country under whose jurisdiction fall the persons who kill and skin seals where the killing a nd skinning take place on the territory of 
another country. When adopting the implementing measures referred to in Article 5(5), the Commission will decide, in line with the objectives of this Regulation, under which conditions entities other than countries should be included. 
Article 3 
Bans 
1. The placing on the market and the import in, transit through, or  export from, the 
Community of seal produc ts shall be prohibited. 
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to seal products resulting from hunts traditionally 
conducted by Inuit communities and which contribute to their subsistence. 
3. The Commission shall adopt  all measures necessary to implement paragraph 2, 
including evidentiary requirements relating to  the proof of the orig in of seal products 
referred to in that paragraph. 
 Those measures, designed to amend non-e ssential elements of this Regulation by 
supplementing it, shall be adopted in accord ance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3). 
Article 4 
Conditions of placing on the market, import, transit and export 
1. Notwithstanding Article 3(1), the placing on the market, and the import in, transit 
through, or export from, the Community of se al products shall be allowed where the 
following conditions are met: 
(a) they have been obtained from seals killed and skinned in a country where, or 
by persons to whom, adequate legislat ive provisions or other requirements 
apply ensuring effectively that seals are killed and skinned without causing 
avoidable pain, distress and a ny other form of suffering; 
(b) the legislative provisions or other requi rements referred to in point (a) are 
effectively enforced by the relevant authorities;  
(c) an appropriate scheme is in place wher eby seal products, in cluding seal skins 
and other raw materials deri ved from seals used to produce seal products, are 
certified as coming from seals to which the conditions laid down in points (a) and (b) apply, and 
(d) the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in points (a), (b) and (c) is evidenced 
by:  
EN 21   EN (i) a certificate, and 
(ii) a label or marking, where a cert ificate does not suffice to ensure the 
proper enforcement of this Regulation, 
 in accordance with Articles 6 and 7. 
2. Member States shall not impede the placi ng on the market, import and export of seal 
products which comply with the provisions of this Regulation. 
Article 5 
Derogations 
1. Applicants requesting a derogation whic h demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
Commission that the conditions provided for in Article 4(1) are met shall be granted 
a derogation. 
2. The Commission shall appraise the fulfilmen t of the conditions la id down in point (a) 
of Article 4(1) on the basis of th e criteria set out  in Annex II. 
3. Derogations granted pursuant to paragra ph 1 shall be suspende d or revoked where 
any of the conditions referred to in th at paragraph would cease to be met. 
4. The Commission shall grant derogations, and decide on suspension or revocation 
thereof, in accordance with the proc edure referred to in Article 9(2). 
5. The Commission shall adopt all measures ne cessary to implement this Article, such 
as measures on the applications to be submitted to the Commission, including evidentiary requirements, in order to  obtain a derogation. In doing so, the 
Commission shall take into consideration the different conditi ons which may occur 
in the territories of different countries. 
 Those measures, designed to amend non-e ssential elements of this Regulation by 
supplementing it, shall be adopted in accord ance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3).  
Article 6 
Certificates 
1. Certificates referred to in Article 4(1 )(d)(i) shall fulfil the following minimum 
conditions: 
(a) they shall display all relevant information necessary to attest that the seal 
product or products they refer to meet  the condition laid down in Article 
4(1)(c); and 
(b) they shall be validated by an independe nt body or public aut hority attesting the 
accuracy of the information displayed therein.  
EN 22   EN 2. The Commission shall adopt all measures necessary to implement this Article. It 
may, in particular, specify the informati on to be displayed and the evidentiary 
requirements to be submitted to attest that  the condition laid dow n in point (b) of 
paragraph 1 is met.  
 Those measures, designed to amend non-e ssential elements of this Regulation by 
supplementing it, shall be adopted in accord ance with the regulatory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3). 
Article 7 
Labelling and marking 
1. The label or marking referred to in Arti cle 4(1)(d)(ii) shall be affixed in an 
intelligible, indelible and visible manner. 
2. The Commission shall adopt all measures ne cessary to implement this Article, such 
as measures specifying the conditions whic h marking and label shall meet and the 
circumstances under which they shall be a ffixed. Those measures, designed to amend 
non-essential elements of this Regulation by supplementing it, shall be adopted in 
accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3).  
Article 8 
Amendments to the Annexes 
The Commission may amend the annexes. Thos e measures, designed to amend non-essential 
elements of this regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regu latory procedure with 
scrutiny referred to in Article 9(3). 
Article 9 
Committee procedure 
1. The Commission shall be assisted by th e Committee established by Article 18(1) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/9721. 
2. Where reference is made to this paragr aph, Article 4 and Artic le 7 of Decision 
1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. 
3. Where reference is made to this paragra ph, Article 5a(1) to (4), and Article 7 of 
Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having re gard to the provisions of Article 8 
thereof. 
                                                 
21 OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1.   
EN 23   EN Article 10 
Penalties and enforcement 
Member States shall lay down the rules on pena lties applicable to infringements of this 
Regulation and shall take all measures necessary  to ensure that they are implemented. The 
penalties provided for shall be effective, propo rtionate and dissuasive. Member States shall 
notify the Commission of those provisions by  31 December 200X, and shall notify it without 
delay of any subsequent amendment thereto. 
Article 11 
Reports 
1. Member States shall send every five years to the Commission a report outlining the 
actions taken to enforce this Regulation. 
2. On the basis of the reports referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall report to 
the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Regulation within 
twelve months of the end of the five-year reporting period concerned.  
Article 12 
Entry into force and applicability 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the 
Official Journal of the European Union . 
Articles 3 and 4 shall apply 6 mo nths after the date of entry into force of the Regulation 
unless the implementing measures referred to in Articles 3(3), 5(5), 6(2)  and 7(2) are not in 
force on that date, in which case they shall a pply on the day following the entry into force of 
those implementing measures. 
This Regulation shall be binding in  its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 
Done at Brussels,  
For the European Parliament For the Council 
The President The President    
EN 24   EN ANNEX I  
Species of Pinnipeds referred to in Article 2  
1. Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus; 
2. Callorhinus ursinus; 3. Cystophora cristata; 4. Erignathus barbatus; 5. Eumetopias jubatus; 6. Halichoerus grypus; 7. Histrophoca fasciata; 8. Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus; 9. Odobenus rosmarus divergens; 10. Pagophilus groenlandicus; 11. Phoca largha; 12. Phoca vitulina; 13. Phoca vitulina  richardii; 
14. Pusa caspica; 15. Pusa hispida; 
16. Pusa sibirica; 
17. Zalophus californianus.  
  
EN 25   EN  
ANNEX II  
Criteria for appraising the adequacy of the legislative provisions and other requirements 
in force referred to in Article 5(2)  
1. A NIMAL WELFARE PRINCIPLES : 
Animal welfare principles are specified in the applicable legislation or other 
requirements.  
2. H UNTING TOOLS :  
The characteristics of the weapons used to ki ll seal are specified. It is made explicit 
in the legislation or other requirements  which weapons are allowed for stunning 
and/or killing pups and which are allowed for stunning and/or killing adult seals.  
3. V ERIFYING INSENSIBILITY AND DEATH BY USING APPROPRIATE MONITORING 
METHODS :  
Requirements are specifically outlined for using appropriate monitoring methods and 
thereby oblige the hunter to verify that th e seal is irrevocably unconscious before 
bleeding it out and before continuing to the next seal. 
4. B LEEDING -OUT OF STUNNED ANIMALS :  
Bleeding-out of all animals is  required directly following adequate stunning, that is, 
before proceeding to stun another seal. 
5. H UNTING CONDITIONS :  
Requirements are specified as to secure that  the seal and/or the hunter is sufficiently 
stable and that the target can be properly visualised. Other factor s, relevant for the 
hunt in question, are also regulated. 
6. T RAINING OF HUNTERS :  
A defined level of knowledge and ability of the hunter regarding seal biology, 
hunting methods and the "three-step" pro cedure, hereunder practical use of the 
hunting tools, such as shooting tests are required. The “three-step” procedure is a 
method of effective hitting/s hooting, effective monitoring ( by application of the blink 
reflex or skull palpation that the animal is irreversibly unconscious or dead), and 
effective bleeding-out in order to ensure that a s eal is killed wit hout avoidable pain, 
distress and suffering.  
EN 26   EN 7. I NDEPENDENT MONITORING :  
A system for monitoring and observation of the hunt, securing regular supervision of 
the hunt and independence of the inspectors is provided for. 
8. A BILITY OF THIRD PARTY TO MONITOR :  
Third party monitoring of the hunt is possibl e, with a minimum of  administrative or 
logistic barriers. 
9. R EPORTING REQUIREMENTS :  
Clear requirements for reporting targeting bo th hunters and inspectors are provided 
for, which cover where and when anim als are killed and which weapons and 
ammunition are used. The range  of relevant environmenta l factors is also to be 
reported. 
10. S ANCTIONS AND COMPLIANCE :  
Statistical information on th e hunt, instances of non-complia nce with the applicable 
requirements and related enforcement actions is compiled and systemised.