In 2024, the European Union held public consultations to review the fitness of the EU's seal product ban regulations. The results of these public consultations are available now and reveal zero public feedback from people in Kalaallit Nunaat, or Greenland.
Author
- Danita Catherine Burke
Senior Research Fellow, Center for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark
The lack of input from the Kalaallit/Greenlandic public is strange given the importance of seals and sealing to Kalaallit Nunaat. So why is the EU proceeding without them?
In 2009, the EU banned the import of seal products . The ban was revised in 2015 after a World Trade Organization ruling to permit two exceptions : certified Indigenous/Inuit pelts from subsistence hunting and personal-use items brought into the EU by people from their travels.
The EU based its ban on " public moral concerns ." The ban came about after decades of anti-sealing activism . The EU was heavily influenced by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW); arguably the leading anti-sealing advocacy group .
Is the ban 'fit for purpose?'
In 2020, the Kalaallit government called for the EU to help combat the stigma against seal products . It wants the EU to do more to educate the European public on what the Indigenous exception means and why it exists; for example, to make clear that Greenlanders don't hunt baby seals .
This call, however, has had little impact, though the EU claims the "rights of Indigenous peoples are a thematic priority under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights."
The European Commission launched a public consultation process on the fitness of its seal trade regulations in 2024 that ran from May 15 to August 7, 2024.
The purpose of the fitness check was to "assess if the rules in place remain fit for purpose ," focusing on their socio-economic impact and the impact on seal populations.
Negative feedback
The consultation process resulted in 14,146 public comments, most of them from France (82.74 per cent), Belgium (4.4 per cent) and the Netherlands (3.52 per cent).
A lot of the comments were negative, and included remarks in this vein:
" Against this barbarism , unnecessary cruelty … these 'killers' [show so much] indifference, are clearly psychologically suspicious."
Some questioned the validity of the exemptions for seal product imports, with one writing :
"These exceptions to the marketing of seal products within the EU are dangerous and can lead to abuses."
There was a lot of feedback from IFAW and Sea Shepherd supporters; both organizations are prominent anti-sealing advocates.
Though negative comments dominated the feedback, support was also expressed by Indigenous and coastal peoples and organizations from Arctic states .
Most notably, the consultations indicated no contributions from Kalaallit Nunaat . This is odd , considering the emphasis of the EU process on ostensibly learning more about the socio-economic impact of the ban on communities most affected.
Feedback from Kalaallit hunters
In interviews with Kalaallit hunters in July 2025, my co-author Erik Kielsen and I found seal hunters were unaware of the consultation process.
As part of ongoing research project entitled Seals, Stigma and Survival funded by the Nordic Council in Greenland's Nordic Arctic Programme , we spoke with Ole Jørgen Davidsen of Narsaq and Thor Eugenius of Nanotalik.
Davidsen and Eugenius are the community leaders for the hunting and fishing association KNAPK (the Fishermen and Hunters Association in Greenland) in Kalaallit Nunaat.
Both men were surprised the EU had conducted and concluded public consultations without hearing from Kalaallit hunters. They only learned about the EU review and consultations when talking to us.
Eugenius said: "I hadn't heard that. I also don't even know if the KNAPK has heard about it."
Davidsen echoed his colleague's surprise:
"This is the first time I'm hearing about it. From you. It would have been very important for the EU to have us have a say in these processes, and I would have had something to say, to include, if I had known it was happening but I'm just hearing about it now."
The EU ostensibly wanted its review to provide information on the socio-economic impacts of its sealing regulations on those most affected. Kalaallit Nunaat has been significantly impacted by the ban . Kalaallit hunters have endured loss of income, restrictions on their marine ecosystem management and socio-cultural consequences from the anti-seal hunt stigma.
So the EU's assertion that it wanted to hear from those impacted is suspect.
What's next?
The EU report on its seal trade ban is still pending.
The people of Kalaallit Nunaat, however, have been devastated by the fallout of the ban . It is unclear why the EU appears to be proceeding with its review without public input from Kalaallit Nunaat, given the impact the ban has had on their communities and economy.
The EU has time to address its research gap, given its report is not yet published. It should immediately solicit Kalaallit public input. In doing so, the EU would signal that it takes its legislative review seriously and it would show a commitment to its stated prioritization of Indigenous human rights and democracy.
Erik Kielsen, Founder of Kielsen Coordination in Kalaallit Nunaat, co-authored this article.
Danita Catherine Burke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
