The regulation about the trade in seals products is very important for the Greens/EFA group as its main purpose is to protect animal welfare. Back in 2009 the group, together with NGOs, fought very firmly to achieve the ban of marketing of the seal products in the EU.
Already then the Greens/EFA and animal welfare organisations felt that there were loopholes in the legislation, as it is extremely difficult to define and put in practice when the seals are being killed in a genuinely humane way.
Because of the main two exemptions, this is the Inuit and the marine time resource management exemption (MRM), Norway and Canada have challenged the ban of trade in seal products in the EU.
RELATED CONTENT
Their argument was that the current exemptions were discriminatory. Therefore, it was concluded that the regulation needs to be changed in order to be world trade organisation (WTO) compliant, otherwise the EU could risk sanctions.
In parliament's internal market and consumer protection committee, which was responsible for the regulation, mainly Nordic MEPs have attempted to introduce additional exemptions to the ban from those that the commission had originally proposed.
These exemptions would have allowed more products from seals onto the market and would have meant the EU ban would not be compliant with WTO rules, and as such would put the whole ban at risk. Thankfully, this intent was rejected by the committee.
In the view of the Greens/EFA, the MRM exemption was the most problematic and therefore I was very much in favour of deleting this from the directive. Compliance with the WTO ruling was the sole purpose of this revision. Therefore, I fought firmly to prevent this being abused as a pretext for adopting other provisions which would not serve this purpose of compliance or even further undermine the legal basis for banning the marketing of seal products in the EU.
As the Greens/EFA shadow rapporteur I have strongly opposed any such attempts and can say that the final outcome of the trilogue, which took place on 25 June 2015, was good and my group is satisfied with it.
In my view there are quite some positive final outcomes, such as deletion of the word "avoidable" which is important because it would otherwise have undermined the animal welfare purpose of the regulation.
Furthermore, the article on public information has been considerably reduced and improved and that's important because the purpose of this regulation is not to promote the purchase of seal products even if there are cases when this is legal.
I also support the empowerment of the commission regarding the Inuit exception, as it is more explicit as regards the possibility to prohibit the placement on the market. This is mainly important because the commission's empowerment must be consistent with the general purpose of the regulation which is prohibition and not merely limitation.
Most importantly, all references to the MRM exception have been removed, even regarding reporting, and that's absolutely crucial in preserving the WTO compliance of the EU's ban.
There are still some words, such as "income" in the definition of the Inuit exemption which I do not support, because it mixes socioeconomic considerations with the true purpose of the regulation which relates to the public's moral concerns.
But all in all the final outcome of the revision is good and I and the Greens/EFA support it. Throughout the whole process of the revision of the regulation my main aim was to make sure the ban would not be undermined in any way and to make the directive WTO compliant, which together with the rapporteur, other shadows, council and the commission we have succeeded in achieving.