No C 168/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 90 
3.7.9. Support will also be needed for joint evaluation 
by Community and MNC socioeconomic groups of areas 
of Mediterranean policy where their role is particularly 
important. 
3.7.10. The Commission could also consider promoting 
a Euro-Mediterranean social dialogue, in line with 
Community practice. 
3.7.11. The Economic and Social Committee should 
play a fundamental role in economic and social dialogue 
and in promoting the involvement of MNC socioeconomic 
groups. The Committee's role should extend beyond 
consultative duties (important though these are, and much 
though they need to be developed with respect to the 
MNC). The Committee should be an active tool of the 
Council and Commission in Euro-Mediterranean econ­
omic and social dialogue. 
3.7.12. We should here reaffirm the Committee's 
commitment to set up, with the support of the Council, a 
standing group for liaison between the Committee and the 
MNC economic and social councils (where they exist) or 
socio-occupational organizations. The Committee also 
plans to organize an annual meeting of the socioeconomic 
groups of the Euro-Mediterranean area. The purpose of 
these arrangements would be to keep tabs on the 
implementation of Mediterranean policy in all its aspects, 
with special reference to those which most directly concern 
the socioeconomic groups. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee, subject to the following com­
ments, welcomes the Commission's proposal and feels that 
it is in fact long overdue. It is pleased that the European 
Community should take such a stand in the interests of 
more humane treatment of animals. The use of leghold 
traps was partially banned in Greenland as early as 1938 
(l) OJ No C 134, 31. 5. 1989, p. 5. 4. Conclusions 
4.1. The Committee is pleased that the Commission is 
proposing a new Mediterranean policy and it endorses the 
specific proposals for the six action areas. However, it feels 
that the Commission should show greater boldness and 
coherence by framing a wider joint development policy into 
which these measures can be slotted. 
4.2. At the same time, the Committee cannot hide its 
regret that talks between Community Governments — as 
was clear at the Council meeting of 5 February 1990 — still 
have much ground to cover. Some governments feel that 
freer access for MNC products is all that is needed; others 
merely call for an increase in financial aid. This reflects a 
failure to grasp the strategic importance of the Mediter­
ranean issue and the need for Community policy to adopt a 
global approach. 
Done at Brussels, 26 April 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
and totally banned in 1989. Its use is becoming less and less 
acceptable in more and more countries. We are living in a 
world of rapidly changing attitudes towards animals and 
what was acceptable some years ago is no longer so. 
As stated in the explanatory memorandum attached to 
COM(89) 198 final, the leghold trap has been banned in 
over 60 countries and other countries have imposed strict 
conditions on its use. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the importation of certain furs (!) 
(90/C 168/15) 
On 18 May 1989, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
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 3 April 
1990. The rapporteur was Mrs Flather. 
At its 276th plenary session (meeting of 26 April 1990), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted, by 70 votes for, 14 against and 35 abstentions, the following opinion: 
10. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 168/33 
1.2. Concern has been expressed about the legal basis of 
the Commission's proposed Regulation as it has been 
formulated under Article 113 of the Treaty, since the 
objective pursued here is not the harmonization of the 
Community's fur trade policy but animal welfare. 
However, it would not be the first time that this approach 
has been adopted to achieve a laudable objective. 
1.3. The case against any use of leghold traps in all 
circumstances has been stated and is also the opinion of the 
European Parliament (!). 
1.4. Clearly it would be inconsistent to prohibit the use 
of leghold traps in Member States while continuing to 
accept the importation of furs trapped in this manner. The 
Committee accepts that inconsistencies exist in other 
matters which concern Member States, but feels that its aim 
should be to achieve as much consistency as possible in 
matters concerned with welfare of any sort. The Commit­
tee proposes, therefore, to amend the proposed Regulation 
to include this prohibition as a new Article (see specific 
comments, point 2.4). 
1.5. When any animal is killed, wild or domesticated, it 
should be dispatched in as humane a manner as possible. 
Leghold traps do not, and cannot, meet this criterion and 
should be banned by international agreement. 
1.6. The objections to leghold traps can be restated 
briefly as follows: 
1.6.1. At best, animals caught in leghold traps may 
suffer pain and distress for a significant period of time. 
Inspection of traps takes place only at intervals of many 
hours. 24-hour intervals between inspections is currently 
accepted as 'good' practice. However 72-hour trap 
inspection is permitted on Crown Land in British 
Colombia. Such land is 90 % of the province. Alberta has 
reduced the requirement for trap inspection to every 
48 hours (previously 72). Manitoba retains 72 hours. Thus 
the time elapsing between trapping — with possibly a 
fracture of the leg — and death is measured in hours rather 
than in minutes or seconds. 
1.6.2. In the even less satisfactory cases the trapped 
animal may remain for days until it dies from cold, 
starvation or attack from another predator; this is 
unacceptable. 
1.6.3. Non-target species may be caught in leghold traps 
and injured or killed. 
(!) Tabled in 1988 as a written declaration by Mrs Castle and 
Mr Seligman and adopted as an opinion under rule 65 of the 
Rules of Procedure [OJ No C 69, 20. 3. 1989, p. 198, and 
COM(89) 198 final]. The number and type of non-target animals captured varies 
considerably. One survey by the British Colombia Ministry 
of the Environment indicates that 9,3 % of all animals 
trapped are not even fur-bearers. Another survey mentions 
11,5 % are non-target species. The total number of fur-
bearing animals trapped in the USA is of the order of 
16 million per year and the Canadian total appears to be 
between 3 and 6 million. It is estimated that figures for the 
Soviet Union are about 16 to 17 million. If 5 % non-target 
species are involved this means that at least a million 
animals or birds are killed 'inadvertently' and these 
unintended victims may well include some endangered 
species. The unselective nature of leghold or killing traps 
makes them unsatisfactory for the control of wildlife 
populations except in so far as indiscriminate killing 
reduces the overall animal population and so reduces 
competition for food and territory. However, without 
human intervention nature maintains its own ecological 
balance. 
1.6.4. Suggestions that leghold traps could continue in 
use subject to 'codes of conduct' or controls on positioning 
and seasonality of their use are not acceptable. Trapping is 
a 'private' procedure, usually carried out alone and in 
isolated places. The opportunities for enforcement are very 
small even if any acceptable use can be agreed. 
1.7. Concern has been expressed about the loss of 
income that trappers would suffer if the leghold trap and 
other inhumane methods of capture were banned, and the 
effect that this proposal would have on the traditional way 
of life of indigenous populations. Leghold traps, par­
ticularly steel jaw ones can hardly be described as 
'traditional' methods of killing, although they have been in 
use for the past 100 years. 
1.7.1. Details of the numbers of trappers, their ethnic 
origin and the proportion of their annual income derived 
from trapping vary very much according to the source of 
the information, and perhaps according to the point of view 
that the informant wishes to progress. However 10 or 20 % 
of total annual income and less than 1 000 dollars seems to 
be a high estimate of the average income from trapping. In 
the early 1980s it is said that 105 000 trappers shared 
between 45 and 85 million dollars per year in Canada (raw 
pelts sold), i.e. 428 to 809 dollars per trapper before any 
expenses. The income per trapper in the USA may be 
considerably greater than this. 
1.7.2. There is a very good case for providing help to 
people of any origin, but especially to the indigenous 
populations, to enable humane traps to be purchased and 
to train trappers in their use. The future developmental 
needs of the indigenous people would not be best served if 
No C 168/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 90 
they were to be excluded from the responsibility of 
conforming to international standards of animal welfare. 
1.7.3. Consideration must be given to making certain 
that the indigenous populations, whose lifestyle is affected 
by this proposal, can continue to enjoy a way of life which 
is satisfactory to them, but clearly continuing to accept 
inhumane methods of capture and killing cannot be the 
solution and this acceptance would not reverse social and 
environmental changes that have taken place over many 
generations and are continuing so to do. 
1.7.4. In any event the present proposal will not prevent 
hunting and trapping for fur providing humane methods 
are employed and if the general public were convinced that 
fur is produced in a humane manner it may increase in 
popularity — which can only be of benefit to the fur trade. 
1.8. There are no internationally agreed humane 
trapping standards at present. Discussions are proceeding 
but the Community has no direct input into these 
discussions. If a Regulation is to be adopted which 
demands certification of the use of humane trapping 
methods (or, preferred version, capture and killing), 
Community involvement in the determination of humane 
standards is essential. To this end the Community should 
seek representation on the ISO (j) committee considering 
humane trapping standards, either in its own right or 
through Member States. 
1.8.1. At the end of 1987 West Germany was a 
participating member of the ISO technical committee TC 
191 on humane animal traps and Italy, Belgium and Spain 
had observer status. (The other members were Canada, the 
USA, Sweden, Finland, Australia and Argentina. Other 
countries with observer status were Hungary, India, 
Kenya, Switzerland, Turkey and the USSR). 
1.8.2. Leghold traps are banned in five Member States 
and their use is restricted in others. It would seem 
appropriate that the proposal for harmonization of 
legislation for a total ban within the Community on the 
manufacture, sale and use of the leghold trap should be 
included in the proposed Regulation to avoid any danger of 
appearing to follow double standards. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. First recital 
This clause is based on the assumption that the manufac­
ture, sale and use of the leghold trap in the Member States 
(J) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva. will be prohibited under the proposed 'habitats' Directive. 
The Committee considers that this prohibition should be 
retained in the present proposal whether or not it appears 
eventually in the 'habitats' Directive (if and when adopted). 
2.2. Article 1 
Revise this Article to include references to furskins and 
pelts so that it now reads as follows: 
'This Regulation applies to the importation of furs, 
furskins or pelts of the species listed in Annex I and of 
goods including the fur, furskin or pelt of those species.' 
because the skins of fur bearing animals are referred to as 
'pelts' by the fur trade and 'furskins' in GATT nomencla­
ture. This change will avoid ambiguity. 
2.3. Article 2 — paragraph 1 
Insert the words 'furskin or pelt' after the word 'fur' in the 
text so that it now reads: 
'Specified goods means all goods listed in Annex II 
which consist of or include the fur, furskin or pelt of any 
of the animals listed in Annex I.' 
For the same reasons as in Article 1. 
2.4. Insert between present Articles 2 and 3 a new 
Article to read as follows: 
'Member States shall prohibit the manufacture, sale and 
use of the leghold trap.' 
This is in line with the foregoing observation under the first 
recital. 
2.5. Article 3 (1) — paragraph 1 
The Committee notes that research into humane trapping 
methods has been going on for nearly 50 years. Earlier 
implementation of the prohibition is more likely to 
accelerate the development of humane methods than delay 
them. It may be of interest to note that as early as 1948 the 
Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the 
United Kingdom had offered a prize of £ 1 000 for an 
alternative. In 1985 a report on the defence of the fur trade 
recommended stopping the use of the steel jawed leghold 
trap, and added 'It is possible Canada can buy more time on 
the steel trap issue.' That time has been bought; there is no 
reason for a further inordinate delay. 
10. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 168/35 
2.6. Annex 1 
The suggested list of eight species (out of a possible 22 
caught in the wild) is incomplete as it does not include 
many of the species which are caught in large numbers 
using the leghold trap. For example, about 1 600 000 
muskrats are trapped each year in Canada alone; also 
about 1 million mink (USA and Canada); 80 000 foxes 
(Canada); 250 000 squirrels (Canada). 
It is quite possible for those pelts coming from farmed 
species to be identified by an approved official method and 
therefore separated from pelts of the same species but 
caught in the wild. 
It is suggested that the list of animals in Annex I is 
incomplete and should at least include the following: 
— coypu: myocastor coypus, 
— muskrat: ondatra zibethicus, 
— oppossum: didelphis virginiana, 
— fisher: martes pennanti, 
— marten: martes americana, 
— red fox: vulpes vulpes, 
— grey fox: vrocynon littoralis, 
— mink: mustela vison, 
— squirrel: family Sciuridae. 
The list may have to be added to from time to time but 
perhaps the Council should consider the legal implications 
of this list as far as practical implementation is concerned. The suggested alteration will mean that all species of wild 
animals — fur bearing or not — will be protected to the 
extent that they will not be trapped by inhumane methods. 
Sheep skins, cattle hides and similar by-products from the 
food industry are clearly excluded and problems of 
identification of particular species of fur avoided — which 
will make enforcement easier. 
2.7. Annex 11 
Add 'articles manufactured prior to the date of implemen­
tation of this prohibition are excluded from restrictions'. 
The burden of proof is to be on the importer; because there 
is no reason to interfere with any trade in 'second-hand' 
clothing or other articles containing fur or non-domesti­
cated pelts. As drafted it would appear to prohibit 
individuals from importing fur garments which may have 
been their personal property for very many years. 
Done at Brussels, 26 April 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
APPENDIX 1 
The following amendments, which were supported by at least a quarter of the votes, were rejected during the 
debate: 
Point 2.2 (Article 1) 
Delete and retain the Commission text. 
Voting 
For: 48. 
Against: 56. 
Abstentions: 19. 
Paragraph 2.7 (Annex I) (in this text: paragraph 2.6) 
Annex I (list of species) should be left as it stands in the Commission document. 
Voting 
For: 53. 
Against: 57. 
Abstentions: 9. 
No C 168/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 7. 90 
APPENDIX 2 
The following members, present or represented, voted in favour of the opinion: 
ARENA, ARETS, BAGLIANO, BAZIANAS, BEALE, BELTRAMI, BERGER, BERNS, BLESER, BOISSEREE, 
BREDIMA SAVOPOULOU, BREYIANNIS, BRIGANTI, BROICHER, CEYRAC, COYLE, van DAM, DE 
TAVERNIER, DONCK, DOS SANTOS, EULEN, FORGAS, GARCIA MORALES, GERMOZZI, 
GEUENICH, GIACOMELLI, GOMEZ MARTINEZ, GREEN, HAGEN, HANCOCK, JESUS SEQUEIRA, 
KAARIS, KAZAZIS, KELLY, KENNA, KIRCHFELD, KITSIOS, KROGER, LAPPAS, LAUR, LOW, 
LUSTENHOUWER, MAINETTI, MARVIER, MORALES, MUHR, MULLER, NIELSEN Bent., NIER-
HAUS, NOORDWAL, PARDON, PEARSON, PELLETIER Charles, PETERSEN, PROUMENS, ROBIN­
SON, ROLAO GONCALVES, ROMOLI, ROSEINGRAVE, SHADE-POULSEN, SCHMITZ, SILVA, 
SOLARI, TUKKER, VALLEJO CALDERON, VASSILARAS, VELASCO MANCEBO, VIDAL, WICK, 
WITHWORTH 
The following members, present or represented voted against the opinion: 
BERNASCONI, CAVAZZUTI, ALVES CONDE, CORELL AYORA, FREEMAN, LIVERANI, MACHADO 
VON TSCHUSI, MERCIER, MURPHY, ORSI, STAEDELIN, STRAUSS, VERCELLINO, WILLIAMS 
The following members, present or represented abstained: 
AMATO, ASPINALL, ATAIDE FERREIRA, BORDES-PAGES, BOS, Vasco CAL, CALVET CHAMBON, 
CHRISTIE, DELLA CROCE, DRAGO, DRILLEAUD, van EEKERT, ELSTNER, ETTY, FLATHER, 
GREDAL, HILKENS, HOUTHUYS, HORSKEN, JENKINS, de KNEGT, LAKA MARTIN, MADDOCKS, 
MARGOT, MORELAND, MOURGUES, NIEUWENHUIZE, de NORMANN, RAMAEKERS, ROUZIER, 
SALMON, SCHOEPGES, SMITH L.J., STORIE-PUGH, TAMLIN. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning municipal waste water 
treatment (*) 
(90/C 168/16) 
On 23 November 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
pursuant to Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned 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 3 April 
1990. The rapporteur was Mr Boisseree. 
At its 276th plenary session (meeting of 25 April 1990), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following opinion: 
I. Summary of the Commission proposal 
Following the resolution adopted at the European Summit 
in Hanover, the Environment Council decided at its 
28 June 1988 meeting to call on the Commission to propose 
measures for the treatment of waste water collected in and 
discharged from urban sewage plants (municipal waste 
water). The aim of this proposal is to ensure that the quality 
of ground and surface water throughout Europe complies 
with European standards. These quality requirements will 
provide a basis for drinking water supplies and help to 
maintain the ecological balance. 
The proposal seeks to achieve this aim by laying down 
Community rules with regard to: 
(!) OJ No C 1, 4. 1. 1990, p. 20. — requirements for the collection and treatment of 
municipal sewage, 
— control of discharges of sludge, 
— control of comparable industrial waste water, 
— phasing-out of disposal of sludge at sea, 
— administrative arrangements: creation of a regulatory 
committee, implementation of joint national program­
mes, public access to information, training of skilled 
staff. 
II. General comments on the proposal 
1. The proposed treatment of municipal waste water 
throughout Europe is welcomed on environmental protec­
tion grounds.