Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards` ()

(96/C 212/11)

On 2 February 1996, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7 May 1996. The Rapporteur was Mrs Cassina.

At its 336th Plenary Session (meeting of 29 May 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 109 votes to five, with four abstentions.

1. Background

1.1. The purpose of the Commission's proposal for a Regulation, is to amend Regulation No 3254/91, adopted by the Council on 4 November 1991. The Committee delivered its Opinion on 26 April 1990 ().

1.2. Article 3 of the above Regulation bans the import of the relevant products (furs and fur products obtained from 13 animal species listed in the annex) from third countries which do not comply with humane trapping standards.

1.3. The import ban was accompanied by a clause intended to provide for a procedure enabling the Commission to review progress in trapping methods in the third countries concerned. The deadline for this review was initially 31 December 1994 but the Commission, under Regulation No 1771/94, extended it to 31 December 1995, by which date it was expected that the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) would have produced results making it possible to establish a reference framework for the harmonization of standards.

1.4. Now that this second deadline has expired, the import ban should therefore take effect.

1.5. However, in the current proposal, the Commission is seeking to alter the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 3254/91, by specifying:

a) in Article 3, the aim of entering into or pursuing negotiations with third countries 'to achieve a framework agreement on humane animal trapping standards, in particular for the animal species listed in Annex I`. Article 3 confirms that 'This agreement shall include a timetable for its implementation`;

b) in Article 4, that 31 December 1996 is to be the new deadline for the procedure of reviewing the progress of negotiations and the situation in countries producing and exporting the products in question to the Community:

- if no agreement is reached, the Commission is to determine regularly the list of countries which have failed to make 'sufficient individual progress` or to prohibit the use of leghold traps; from the date the list is published, the import ban shall take effect;

- if an agreement is reached, the Commission is to supervise application; should the third countries concerned fail to 'commit themselves formally` to implementing the agreement within an agreed timeframe or to prohibit the use of leghold traps, the list of countries at fault will be published, thereby triggering the import ban.

1.6. The Committee is asked to deliver an Opinion on the above proposal.

2. General comments

2.1. There would seem to be three facets (two concerning standards and the other trade-related).

2.1.1. The ISO set up some years ago a Technical Committee (TC191) with the task of supplementing the proposed international rules on humane trapping standards. However, since September 1995, the TC191 has shifted its attention from the details of leghold traps to the drawing-up of trap testing standards. It is therefore still not possible to draw on firm ISO standards.

2.1.2. This factor, combined with the difficulties third countries concerned could experience from an import ban, prompted the Commission to set up, in conjunction with Canada, the United States and Russia, a 'Working group on the development of international humane trapping standards`. The Commission claims that this group's work is making headway and should be completed by June.

2.1.3. There is a third factor which undoubtedly has a major influence on progress of the negotiations mentioned in points 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 above. Community imports of the products concerned account for a large share of fur production, particularly in Canada but also in Russia and the United States. One forceful argument put forward by the producer countries is that an import ban would cause serious difficulties for indigenous peoples relying on traditional trapping methods. However, it must be noted that Article 4 of the proposed amendment specifically exempts these peoples from the impact ban.

2.1.4. To complicate matters further, many fur producers already claim that the import restriction provided for in Article 3 could be incompatible with free trade rules under the Uruguay Round Agreement and even go so far as to talk about lodging a complaint against the Community within the framework of the World Trade Organization.

2.1.4.1. The restrictions provided for in the existing Article 3 are rooted in Treaty Articles 113 (Common Commercial Policy) and 130s (Environment). The latter Article should invariably be read in conjunction with Article 130r, which spells our environmental aims including preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, prudent and rational utilization of natural resources and promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.

2.1.4.2. The EU is therefore under an obligation to promote environmental standards drawn up within international frameworks - e.g. in its capacity as a signatory to the Bern Convention - and, in particular, to give its full support in boosting the WTO's environmental dimension.

2.2. In addition, it might well be asked why it has taken so long to set standards - whether at international (ISO) level, by joint agreement between the producer countries and the Community, or at national level in the individual producer countries, which have known about Regulation No 3254/91 since 1991. The usefulness of a further extension of the derogation is therefore debatable in the absence of any guarantee of tangible results in setting standards.

2.3. Given the meagre achievements of the TC191's talks, which are hard to assess, and quadripartite negotiations which still lack substance and, at first sight, are highly unlikely to guarantee results by firm deadlines, the ESC is seriously concerned.

2.3.1. In view of a possible stalemate in negotiations at different levels and their indecisive stop-go progress, it cannot be ruled out that a succession of postponed deadlines could prevent the Regulation's aims ever being attained.

2.4. At the European Parliament Plenary Session of January 1996, which refused to include the proposed amendment on the agenda, a number of MEPs deplored the victory of commercial interests over efforts to protect the environment and preserve these animal species and their habitats.

2.5. The ESC has consistently taken a very even-handed stand on environmental issues and refused in similar cases to give unconditional support to animal rights' arguments making no effort to accommodate economic and commercial interests.

2.6. However, the ESC observes the growing social opposition to the killing and trapping of animals for their furs and feels that hunters of these animals should at the very least be required to ensure that trapping and killing are carried out humanely. Persuading third countries to observe these minimum standards forms part and parcel of the set of values that the EU should promote in its external relations.

2.7. In the light of the above, the ESC is concerned over the Commission's failure to exert sufficient pressure for the establishment of supervisory procedures guaranteeing humane trapping standards and feels that the proposed amendment to Regulation No 3254/91 is only acceptable if accompanied by clauses and commitments which specifically tailor the amendments to the goal of humane trapping.

In particular the ESC calls for:

2.7.1. a timetable to be established which makes it clear that negotiations with the third countries concerned are to be concluded this year (1996);

2.7.2. the Commission, in its relations with the third countries concerned, to tackle the problem of indigenous peoples using traditional trapping methods and of providing these peoples with adequate technical assistance to persuade them to accept and develop humane trapping methods;

2.7.3. negotiations with producer countries to include a 'transparency clause`, aimed at consumers, whereby imported pelts and furs would be accompanied by a declaration indicating trapping/killing methods as well as the place where the animal was trapped/farmed;

2.7.4. the Commission, on a broader front, to undertake both to amend existing agreements with third countries and, when negotiating future agreements, to include a clause providing for joint commitment and cooperation in the promotion of environmental protection;

2.7.5. the Commission to prepare without delay a communication setting out the strategies to be pursued by the EU within the WTO to ensure that the environmental and health-protection dimension of fur imports goes hand in hand with a drive to protect the environment in the producer countries.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The title of the proposed Regulation, in referring to trapping and killing methods, contains the highly inappropriate expression 'humane`, common in many languages. If animals are assumed to share our type of sensitivity, no form of killing or trapping can blamelessly be regarded as 'humane`. If the reference is to what we can imagine to be the suffering of animals in such situations, the expression 'without cruelty` is infinitely preferable.

3.2. Article 3

This provision should specify a deadline by which the Commission undertakes to have concluded these negotiations.

The ESC urges that the administrative arrangements for implementation of the Regulation should respect all the EU's commitments at international level.

3.3. Article 4(1) - first paragraph

The Commission should present a progress report on the results achieved (or, where appropriate, the breakdown of negotiations) within one month of the deadline set for the conclusion of negotiations.

3.4. Article 4(1) - third paragraph

The phrase 'regularly determine` should specify at what intervals (e.g. every two years).

3.5. Article 4(2)

See comments under point 3.2: if the Commission is to present a progress report no later than one month after the deadline set for conclusion of the negotiations, publication must be immediate (making allowance for technical delays required for publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities).

3.6. Article 4(3) - c)

To be deleted as it is redundant. This clause is already covered by existing EU customs rules.

Done at Brussels, 29 May 1996.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 58, 28. 2. 1996, p. 17.

() OJ No C 168, 10. 7. 1990.

APPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

During the discussion the following amendment, which was supported by over 25 % of the votes cast was defeated:

Point 3.2

Add:

'The banned leghold traps should be clearly defined on the basis of these standards.`

Reason

Decisions regarding the acceptability or non-acceptability of any trap should be taken on the basis of the agreed standards. To automatically reject all leghold traps as inhumane is unjustifiable as it undermines the very idea of agreeing trap standards and using such standards to determine what is acceptable.

Soft padded leghold traps are for example frequently used in North America - also for research purposes. The animals trapped in this way are held without injury and can be released afterwards. Such traps should not be dismissed if they are combined with regular checks by the trapper at short intervals so that the stress situation is as limited as possible.

Leghold traps are also used as drowning devices where the animal dies as a result of drowning and not as a result of the direct action of the trap. Leghold traps used as drowning devices should therefore not be deemed unacceptable when they are combined with a mechanism which instantly or as quickly as possible renders the animal unconscious. All other drowning devices should also be evaluated on this basis.

Result of the vote

For: 42, against: 51, abstentions: 14.