Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of an International Agreement in the form of Agreed Minute between the European Community and the United States of America on humane trapping standards
Date: 1997-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United States, hunting regulations, international agreement, international standard, protection of animals

'*Wfif»»««# 

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

-it 

* 

Brussels,  11.12.1997 
COM(97) 726 final 

97/  0360 (ÇNS) 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL DECISION 

concerning the signing and conclusion of an 

Internationa] Agreement in the form of Agreed Minute between the European 
Community and the United States of America on humane trapping standards 

(presented  by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1.  Article  3 of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  3254/91  prohibits  the  introduction 
into  the  Community  of  pelts  and  manufactured  goods  of  certain  wild  animal 
species  unless  the  country  where the  pelts  originate  has  prohibited  the  use of 
leghold traps or uses methods that meet internationally agreed  humane trapping 
standards. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

In June  1996 the Council authorized the Commission to negotiate a framework 
agreement  on  humane  trapping  standards  with  Canada,  the  United  States,  the 
Russian Federation and any other country interested. 

These negotiations took place and resultedin the approval by the Council, on 
22 July  1997, of an agreement  on humane trapping  standards with Canada and 
the  Russian  Federation.  At  the  same  occasion  the  Council  called  upon  the 
Commission to intensify  its efforts  to reach an agreement with the United  States 
of America,  that  is equivalent  to  the  Agreement  with  Canada  and  the Russian 
Federation. 

Pursuant  to  the  additional  specific  guidelines  given  by  the  Council,  the 
Commission conducted intensive negotiations with the United  States of America 
since July in close  consultations  with the Council.  As a result,  an agreed  text 
was approved by the Commission and initialed by the Community and the United 
States  of America  on  3 December  1997.  The  initialed  text  is  fully  consistent 
with the above mentioned negotiating directives and additional guidelines of the 
Council,  noteably  with  regard  to  its  equivalence  with  the  Agreement  with 
Canada and the Russian Federation. 

The Agreement's objectives are to establish humane trapping standards for traps 
designed to kill or capture certain species of wild animals (and in particular those 
covered by Regulation No 3254/91), to improve communication and cooperation 
between the Parties for the application and further  development of the standards, 
and to facilitate trade between Parties. 

Its approval by the Parties will bring trapping methods, in the Community and in 
the United  States of America, up to a level adequate for the welfare  of trapped 
animals and create favourable and stable conditions for trade between the Parties 
in traps and pelts. 

£ 

Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of an 
International Agreement in the form of Agreed Minute between the European 
Community and the United States of America on humane trapping standards 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

riaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European  Community,  and  in particular 
Articles 113 and 100a in conjunction with the first part of Article 228 (3) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament, 

Having regard to the Council's decision of June  1996 authorizing the Commission to 
negotiate  an  agreement  on  humane  trapping  standards  with  Canada,  the  Russian 
Federation, the United States and any other country interested. 

Having  regard  to  the  Council's  decision  of July  1997 approving  the  Agreement  on 
humane trapping standards with Canada and the Russian Federation  and calling upon 
the Commission to intensify its efforts to reach an agreement with the United States of 
America that is equivalent to the Agreement with Canada and the Russian Federation. 

Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91,1 and in particular  the second indent 
of  Article  3(1)  thereof,  refers  to  internationally  agreed  humane  trapping  standards 
with which trapping methods used by third countries that have not prohibited leghold 
traps must conform in order for those countries to be able to export pelts and products 
manufactured  from certain species to the Community; 

Whereas the Agreement's main purpose is to lay down harmonized technical standards 
offering  a sufficient  level of protection to the welfare of trapped animals and governing 
both  the  production  and  use  of traps,  and  to  facilitate  trade  between  the  Parties in 
traps, pelts and products manufactured  from species covered by the Agreement; 

Whereas implementation of the Agreement requires the establishment of a timetable of 
testing and certifying the conformity  of traps with the standards laid down and for the 
replacement of uncertified traps; 

Whereas the Agreement in the form  of an Agreed Minute annexed to this Decision is 
consistent  with  the  negotiating  directives  referred  to  above;  whereas  it  therefore 
satisfies the concept of internationally agreed humane trapping standards referred  to in 
the second indent of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91. 

OJNoL308,9.11.1991,p.l. 

Whereas the Agreement  between  the European  Community and the United  States of 
America on humane trapping standards should be approved. 

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS : 

Article  1 

The Agreement in the form  of an Agreed Minute between the European  Community 
and the United States of America on humane trapping standards is hereby approved. 

The text of the Agreement is annexed to this Decision. 

Article 2 

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to appoint the person authorized to 
sign the Agreement. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 

The President 

<+ 

AGREED MINUTE 

1. 

2. 

In  the  course  of  the  negotiations  of  the  Agreement  described  in  paragraph  8 
below to  develop a common framework  for  describing and evaluating progress 
toward the use of more humane traps and trapping methods, the Representatives 
of the European Commission and of the United  States of America acknowledge 
that the following Understanding has been reached. 

The United  States of America  and the European  Community  consider  that  the 
Standards  annexed  to  this  Understanding  provide  such  a  common  framework 
and a basis for co-operation  on the further  development  and implementation by 
their respective competent authorities of the Standards. 

3.  Underscoring that it does not by its endorsement  intend to alter the distribution 
of  authority  within  the  United  States  for  regulation  of  the  use  of  traps  and 
trapping methods, the United  States of America endorses the annexed Standards 
as providing  such a common  framework,  for  implementation  by its  competent 
authorities,  for  the  humane  trapping  of  specified  terrestrial  or  semi-aquatic 
mammals. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

The United States of America and the European Community intend to encourage 
and  support  research,  development,  monitoring  and  training  programs  by their 
respective authorities that promote the use and application of traps and trapping 
methods for the humane treatment  of such mammals.  They both recognise the 
need to re-evaluate and update the Standards annexed to this Understanding  as 
new technical and scientific information and data become available based on such 
programs. 

The United  States  of  America  and the European  Community  further  intend  to 
encourage their competent authorities to monitor and report on progress toward 
implementation of the Standards annexed to this Understanding. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  European  Community  recognise  that 
nothing  in  this  Understanding  affects  their  rights  and  obligations  under  the 
Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation. 

The European Community and the United States of America state their intention 
to  consult  with  each  other,  at  the  request  of  either  of  them,  on  any  matter 
concerning this Understanding or the annexed Standards with a view to finding a 
mutually acceptable solution. 

8.  Wherever  the  term  "the  Agreement"  is  used  in  the  annexed  standards,  it  is 
understood  to  mean  the  Agreement  on  Humane  Trapping  Standards  between 
Canada, the European Community, and the Russian Federation. 

r 

Done at Brussels this 

day of 

1997, in duplicate, in the English language. 

For the United States of America:  For the European Commission: 

Annex:  Standards for the Humane Trapping of Specified  Terrestrial and Semi-aquatic 
Mammals 

C 

STANDARDS FOR THE HUMANE 
TRAPPING OF SPECIFIED TERRESTRIAL 
AND SEMI-AQUATIC MAMMALS 

^ 

PARTI  : THE STANDARDS 

1. 

AIMS,  PRINCIPLES  AND GENERAL  CONSIDERATIONS  OF THE 
STANDARDS 

1.1. 

AIMS 

The aim of the Standards is to ensure a sufficient  level of welfare of trapped animals, and to 
further improve this welfare. 

1.2. 

PRINCIPLES 

1.2.1. 

1.2.2. 

1.2.3. 

In the evaluation of whether or not a trapping method is humane, the welfare of 
a trapped animal must be assessed. 

The principle for deciding that a trapping method is humane is that it meets the 
threshold requirements set out in sections 2 and 3. 

It is assumed  in setting the Standards  that  traps  should  be selective,  efficient 
and  in  compliance  with  the relevant  requirements  for  human  safety  of  each 
Party. 

1.3. 

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 

1.3.1. 

Welfare of animals is indicated by measures of the extent of ease or difficulty in 
their coping with the environment  and the extent  of failure to cope with their 
environment.  Since animals vary in the methods that they use to try to cope 
with their  environment,  a  range  of measures  should  be used  when  assessing 
their welfare. 

Indicators of welfare of trapped animals include those of physiology, injury and 
behaviour.  Since some of these indicators have not been studied for a variety 
of  species, further  scientific  studies will be necessary  to  set thresholds  under 
these Standards, as appropriate. 

Although welfare  can vary widely, the term  "humane" is used  only for  those 
trapping methods where the welfare of the animals concerned is maintained at a 
sufficient  level, although it is acknowledged that in certain situations with killing 
traps there will be a short period of time during which the level of welfare may 
be poor. 

1.3.2. 

The thresholds established in the Standards for the certification of traps include: 

a) 

b) 

for restraining traps: the level of indicators beyond which the welfare of 
trapped animals is considered poor; and 

for killing traps: the time to unconsciousness  and insensibility and the 
maintenance of this state until death of the animal. 

P 

1.3.3. 

Notwithstanding  that  the  trapping  methods  must  meet  the  requirements  of 
sections  2.4  and  3.4,  consideration  should  be  given  to  continuing  the 
improvement of the design and setting of traps, in particular to: 

a) 

b) 

improving the welfare of animals trapped in restraining traps during the 
period of restraint; 

producing  rapid  onset  of unconsciousness  and  insensibility  of animals 
trapped in killing traps; and 

c) 

minimizing the capture of non-target animals. 

2. 

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTRAINING TRAPPING METHODS 

2.1. 

DEFINITION 

"Restraining  Trapping  Methods"  means traps  designed  and  set  with the  intention  of  not 
killing the trapped animal, but restraining its movements to such an extent that a human can 
make direct contact with it. 

2.2. 

PARAMETERS 

2.2.1. 

2.2.2. 

In the evaluation of whether or not a restraining trapping method  meets these 
Standards the welfare of an animal that is trapped must be assessed. 

The  parameters  must  include  indicators  of  behaviour  and  injury  listed  in 
paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. 

2.2.3. 

The magnitude of responses for each of those parameters must be assessed. 

2.3. 

INDICATORS 

2.3.1. 

Behavioral indicators recognized as an indicator of poor welfare in trapped wild 
animals are: 

a) 

b) 

self-directed biting leading to severe injury (self-mutilation); or 

excessive immobility and unresponsiveness. 

2.3.2. 

Injuries recognized as indicators of poor welfare in trapped wild animals are: 

a) 
b) 
c) 
d) 
e) 
t) 

fracture; 
joint luxation proximal to the carpus or tarsus; 

-  severance of a tendon or ligament; 

major periosteal abrasion; 
severe external haemorrhage or haemorrhage into an internal cavity; 
major skeletal muscle degeneration; 

9 

g) 
h) 
i) 
j) 
k) 
1) 
m) 
n) 

limb ischemia; 

fracture  of a permanent tooth exposing pulp cavity; 

ocular damage including corneal laceration; 
spinal cord injury; 
severe internal organ damage; 
myocardial degeneration; 
amputation; or 
death. 

2.4. 

THRESHOLDS 

A restraining trapping method would meet the Standards  if: 

a) 

b) 

the  number  of  specimens  of  the  same  target  species from which  the 
data are derived is at least 20; and 

at least  80 per cent of these animals show none of the indicators listed 
in paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. 

3. 

REQUIREMENTS FOR KILLING TRAPPING METHODS 

3.1. 

DEFINITION 

"Killing  Trapping  Methods"  means traps  designed  and  set  with  the  intention  of  killing  a 
trapped animal of the target species. 

3.2. 

PARAMETERS 

3.2.1. 

The time  of occurrence  of unconsciousness  and  insensibility  produced  by the 
killing  technique  must  be  determined  and  the  maintenance  of  this  state  until 
death must be checked (i.e., until heart function has ceased irreversibly). 

3.2.2. 
palpebral reflexes or any other scientifically proven suitable substitute  parameter.2 

Unconsciousness and insensibility must be monitored by checking corneal  and 

In  cases  where  further  tests  are  necessary' to determine  if  the  trapping  method  meets  the 
standards, additional clcctro-cnccphalogram  (EEG), visual evoked response (VER) and 
sound evoked response (SER)  measurements may be made. 

/o 

3.3. 

INDICATORS AND TIME LIMITS 

limit 

to 

loss  of  Species 

and 

palpebral 

Time 
corneal 
reflexes 

45 seconds 
120 seconds 

300 seconds5 

Mustela erminea 
Martes americana 
Martes zibellina 
Martes martes 
all other species set out in paragraph 4.1 

The Committee  will evaluate the time  limit  at  the three-year  review referred  to in  Article 
9(b), where data, warrants such action, to adapt the time limit requirement on a spccics-
by-species basis, with a view to lowering the 300 second time limit to  180 seconds, and 
to define a reasonable time-frame for implementation. 

it 

3.4. 

THRESHOLDS 

A killing trapping method would meet the Standards if: 

a) 

b) 

the number of specimens of the same target  species from which the 
data are derived is at least  12; and 

at least 80 per cent of these animals are unconscious and insensible 
within  the time limit, and remain in this state until death. 

IX 

PART II: LIST  OF SPECIES AND IMPLEMENT A TION SCHEDULE 

4. 

LIST  OF  SPECIES  REFERRED  TO  IN  ARTICLE  3  OF  THE 
AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION  SCHEDULE 

4.1. 

SPECIES LIST 

The Standards apply to the following species: 

Common name : 
Coyote 
Wolf 
Beaver (North American) 
Beaver (European) 
Bobcat 
Otter (North American) 
Otter (European) 
Lynx (North American) 
Lynx (European) 
Marten 
Fisher 
Sable 
Pine marten 
Badger (European) 
Ermine 
Raccoon dog 
Muskrat 
Raccoon 
Badger (North American) 

Species 
Canis latrans 
Canis lupus 
Castor canadensis 
Castor  fiber 
Felis rufus 
Lutra canadensis 
Lutra  lutra 
Lynx canadensis 
Lynx lynx 
Martes americana 
Martes pennon ti 
Martes zibellina 
Martes martes 
Mêles mêles 
Mustela erminea 
Nyctereutes procyonoides 
Ondatra zibethicus 
Procyon lotor 
Taxi de a taxus 

Additional species will be included in the future as appropriate. 

4.2 

IMPLEMENTATION  SCHEDULE4 

4.2.1. 

Trapping methods are tested to demonstrate their conformity  with these 
standards by the competent  authorities within: 

a) 

for  restraining  trapping  methods,  3  to  5  years  after  the  entry  into 
force  of  the  Agreement,  depending  on  the  testing  priorities  and 
availability of testing facilities; and 

Auihoriiy lo regulate traps and trapping methods for the taking in the United Slates of the specified 

terrestrial or semi-aquatic mammals resides primarily in the state and tribal authorities 

/? 

4.2.2 

4.2.3 

b) 

for killing trapping methods, 5 years after  the entry into force of the 
Agreement. 

Within three years after the end of the periods referred to in 4.2.1., the use 
of traps that are not in accordance with these Standards are phased out by 
the respective competent authorities. 

Notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  paragraph  4.2.2.,  where  a  competent 
authority  determines  that  the  results  of  trap  testing  do  not  support  the 
conformity  of  traps  with  the  Standards  for  specific  species  or  under 
specific  environmental  conditions, a competent  authority may continue to 
permit  the  use  of  traps  on  an  interim  basis  while  research  continues  to 
identify  replacement  traps.  In  such  cases,  prior  notification  should  be 
given between the European Community and the United States of the traps 
to be authorised for interim use and the status of the research program.  In 
cases in which this paragraph applies with respect to trapping in the United 
States, the competent authorities in the United States should transmit such 
information to the Government of the United States for transmission to the 
European Community. 

4.2.4 

In  addition  to  paragraph  4.2.3.,  and  notwithstanding  the  provisions  of 
paragraph 4.2.2., derogations may be granted by a competent authority on 
a  case-by-case  basis  consistent  wilh the  objectives  of the  Standards,  for 
any of the following purposes: 

a) 

the interests of public health or safety, 

b) 

protection of public or private property, 

c) 

purposes  of research, education  and  protection  of the  environment, 
including repopulation, reintroduction, breeding or for the protection 
of flora and fauna, 

d) 

using  traditional  wooden  traps  essential  for  preserving  cultural 
heritage of indigenous communities. 

Where  implementing  this  paragraph,  prior  written  notification  of  such 
derogations,  along with their reasons and conditions,  should  be given by 
the United  States or the European Community.  In the case of the United 
States, the competent  authorities  should  give  such written  notification  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  for  transmission  to  the  European 
Community, along with their reason and conditions. 

4.2.5. 

Consultations  on the  subjects  referred  to  in paragraphs  4.2.3.  and 4.2.4. 
should  be  held  pursuant  to  paragraph  7  of  the  Agreed  Minute  at  the 
request  of  either  the  United  States  of  America  or  the  European 
Community. 

i^ 

PART III : GUIDELINES 

5. 

GUIDELINES FOR THE TESTING OF TRAPS AND RESEARCH ON 
THE  ONGOING DEVELOPMENT OF TRAPPING METHODS 

To  ensure  accuracy  and  reliability,  and  to  demonstrate  that  trapping  methods  fulfill  the 
requirements  set  out  in the  Standards,  studies for  testing  those trapping  methods  should 
follow the general principles of good experimental practices. 

In  the  event  that  testing  procedures  are  established  under  the  framework  of  ISO,  the 
International  Organization  for  Standardization, and that  such procedures  are  relevant  for 
the assessment of the conformity of trapping methods with some or all the requirements of 
the Standards, the ISO procedures shall be used as appropriate. 

5.1. 

GENERAL GUIDELINES 

5.1.1. 

Tests should be performed according to comprehensive study protocols. 

5.1.2. 

The functioning of the trap mechanism should be tested. 

5.1.3. 

5.1.4. 

Testing  of  traps  in  the  field  should  be  carried  out  in  particular  for  the 
assessment'of selectivity.  This test  can also be used to collect data on capture 
efficiency  and user safety. 

Restraining  traps  should  be  tested  in  a  compound,  in  particular  to  evaluate 
behavioral  and  physiological  parameters.  Killing traps  should  be  tested  in  a 
compound, in particular to identify unconsciousness. 

5.1.5. 

In field tests, traps should be checked daily. 

5.1.6. 

The effectiveness  of killing traps to  render the target  animal unconscious  and 
kill  it  should  be  tested  on  conscious,  mobile  animals,  by  laboratory  or 
compound  and field measurements.  The ability of the trap to  strike the target 
animal at vital locations should be evaluated. 

5.1.7. 

The  order  of testing  procedures  may  be  varied  to  ensure  the  most  effective 
evaluation of the traps to be tested. 

5.1.8. 

Traps should not expose the operator to undue hazard under normal use. 

5.1.9. 

If appropriate,  a  broader  range of measures  should be  checked  when  testing 
traps.  Field  testing  should  include  studies  of the  effects  of trapping  on  both 
target and non-target species. 

5.2. 

STUDY SITUATION 

5.2.1. 

The  trap  should  be  set  and  used  according  to  the  best  advice  from 
manufacturers or others on how to do so. 

K 

5.2.2. 

5.2.3. 

For  compound  testing,  a  compound  should  be  used  that  provides  a  suitable 
environment for the animals of the target species to move freely, hide and show 
most normal behaviour.  It should be possible to set traps and monitor trapped 
animals.  The trap should be set so that video and sound recording can be made 
of the whole trapping episode. 

For field testing,  sites should be  selected  that  are representative  of those that 
will  be  used  in  practice.  Since  the  selectivity  of  the  trap  and  any  possible 
adverse effects  of the trap on non-target  species are important reasons for  field 
testing, sites for field testing may need to be chosen in diffèrent  habitats where 
diffèrent  non-target  species are likely to be encountered. Pictures of each trap 
and  its  set  and  of  the  general  environment  should  be  taken.  The  trap 
identification  number should be made a part of the photographic record  before 
and after a strike. 

5.3. 

STUDY PERSONNEL 

5.3.1. 

Test personnel should be appropriately qualified and trained. 

5.3.2. 

Among the test personnel there should be at least one person experienced in the 
use of the traps, and capable of trapping the animals used in the test and at least 
one  person  experienced  in  each  of  the  methods  of  welfare  assessment  for 
restraining traps and in methods of assessing unconsciousness for killing traps. 
For  example,  the  assessment  of  behavioral  responses  to  trapping  and  of 
aversiveness  should  be done in particular  by a trained  person  who  is  familiar 
with the interpretation of such data. 

5.4. 

ANIMALS TO BE USED IN TRAP TESTING 

5.4.1. 

5.4.2. 

Compound  test  animals  should  be in good  health and  representative  of those 
that are likely to be caught in the wild.  The animals used should not have prior 
trapping experience of  the trap being tested. 

Prior to the testing of traps, animals should be housed in appropriate conditions 
and provided with adequate food  and water.  Animals should not be housed in 
a manner  that might in itself result in poor welfare. 

5.4.3. 

Animals should be acclimatised to the testing compound prior to the start of the 
test. 

5.5. 

OBSERVATIONS 

5.5.1. 

Behaviour 

5.5.1.1. 

Behavioral  observations  should  be  made  by  a  trained  person,  particularly  in 
reference to the knowledge of the ethology of the species. 

ic 

5.5.1.2.  Aversiveness  can  be  assessed  by trapping  the  animal  in  a  readily  recognized 
situation, then  re-exposing the  animal to  the trap in the  appropriate  situation 
and evaluating its behaviour. 

5.5.1.3. 

Care  should  be  taken  to  distinguish  responses  to  additional  stimuli  from 
responses to the trap or the situation. 

5.5.2. 

Physiology 

5.5.2.1. 

Some animals should be fitted with telemetric recorders (e.g., to  record heart 
rate,  respiratory  rate) before  testing.  Such fitting should  occur  long  enough 
before  trapping  for  the  animal  to  recover  from  any  disturbance  caused  by 
having been fitted with such recorders. 

5.5.2.2.  All precautions should be taken to limit inadequate or biased observations and 

parameters, especially those due to human interference when sampling. 

5.5.2.3.  When biological sampling (e.g., of blood, urine, saliva) is performed,  it should 
be  done  at  times  relevant  to  the  trapping  event  and  the  time-dependent 
considerations  of the parameter  being  evaluated.  Control  data from animals 
kept  elsewhere  in  good  condition  and  for  different  activities,  baseline  data 
before  the  trapping  event  occurs,  and  some  reference  data  after  extreme 
stimulations (e.g., a challenge test with adrenocorticotrophic  hormone) should 
also be collected. 

5.5.2.4.  All  biological  samples  should  be  taken  and  stored  according  to  the  best 

knowledge to ensure conservation before analysis. 

5.5.2.5.  Analytical methods used should be validated. 

5.5.2.6. 

For killing traps, when neurological  examinations using reflexes  (such as pain 
or eyes) are performed in combination with the measurement of an EEG and/or 
VERs  or  SERs,  they  should  be  done  by  an  expert,  to  provide  relevant 
information  concerning the consciousness of the animal or the effectiveness  of 
the killing technique. 

5.5.2.7.  When the animals are not unconscious and insensible within the time described 

in the test protocol, they should be killed in a humane way. 

5.5.3. 

Injuries and pathology 

5.5.3.1. 

Each  test  animal  should  be  carefully  examined  so  as  to  assess  any  injury. 
Radiographic examination should be conducted to confirm possible  fractures. 

5.5.3.2. 

Further  detailed  pathological  examination  of  dead  animals  should  be  carried 
out.  Post-mortem  examination  should  be  performed  in  accordance  with 
accepted veterinary examination practices by an experienced veterinarian. 

n-

5.5.3.3. 

The  affected  organs  and/or regions  should  be  examined  macroscopically," and 

*  histologically if appropriate. 

5.6. 

REPORT 

5.6.1. 

The study report should contain all relevant information about the experimental 
design, materials and methods, and results, in particular : 

a) 

b) 
c) 
d) 
e) 
f) 
g) 

h) 
i) 

j) 
k) 
1) 
m) 
n) 

the  technical  description  of  the  trap  design  including  construction 
material; 
manufacturers' instructions for use; 
the description of the test situation; 
weather conditions, in particular temperature and snow depth; 
the test personnel; 
the number of animals and traps tested; 
the  total  number  of  captured  target  and  non-target  animals  of  each 
species,  and  their  relative  abundance  expressed  as  rare,  common  or 
abundant in that area; 
selectivity; 
details of any evidence that the trap was activated and injured an animal 
that was not caught; 
behavioral observations; 
values of each physiologicaLparameters measured and methodologies; 
description of injuries and post mortem examinations; 
time to loss of consciousness and sensibility; and 
statistical analyses. 

\r 

SIDE LETTER 

Dear 

As  you  know,  representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  European 
Commission  today  signed  an  Agreed  Minute  related  to  humane  trapping  standards. 
With respect to that Agreed Minute, Î am pleased to inform you of the following. 

As reflected  in the Agreed Minute, authority to  regulate traps  and trapping methods 
for  the  taking  in  the  United  States  of  terrestrial  or  semi-aquatic  mammals  resides 
primarily in the  State and tribal  authorities.  As a result  of  our  discussions  on these 
issues, representatives of the competent  authorities in the United  States have advised 
that they have intensified their efforts to identify more humane traps and already a  fifty 
state  initiative,  in  co-operation  with  several  Federal  agencies,  has  begun  to  develop 
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for traps and trapping methods. 

Best  Management  Practices  involve  a  practice  or  combination  of  practices  that  are 
identified  to  be  the  most  effective  and  practicable  (technically,  economically  and 
socially)  means  to  reduce  or  prevent  problems  associated  with  an  activity. 
Representatives  of the  competent  authorities  in the  United  States have  advised  that 
BMPs  for  traps  and  trapping  methods  will  be  based  upon  the  latest  technical  and 
scientific information and data. 

Representatives  of the  competent  authorities  in  the  United  States  have  advised  that 
Best Management Practices for traps and trapping methods in the United States will be 
developed based upon the Standards annexed to the Agreed Minute.  I am particularly 
pleased to inform you that the program that is being undertaken by the U.S. competent 
authorities is not limited to the nineteen species listed in the Standards annexed to the 
Agreed  Minute,  but  is  being  applied  to  the  additional  ten  fur-bearing  species 
commercially trapped in the United  States.  These species are the mink, red fox, gray 
fox,  arctic  fox,  swift  fox,  nutria,  opposum,  skunk,  bassarisk,  and  wolverine.  This 
constitutes  an important  further  step  undertaken  by the  competent  authorities  in the 
United  States  designed  to  improve  animal welfare,  a  step which we believe  has not 
been matched by any other country or in any international agreement. 

Additionally,  representatives  of the  competent  authorities  in  the  United  States  have 
indicated that, pursuant to the Standards annexed to the Agreed Minute, with respect 
to  the Mustela ermina and  the  Ondatra  zibethicus,  the  use  of  all jaw-type  leghold 
restraining traps  is being phased  out within four  years of the entry into  force  of the 
Agreement  on  Humane  Trapping  Standards  between  Canada,  the  European 
Community  and  the  Russian  Federation.  These  two  species  encompass  over  2.2 
million animals trapped every year in the United States and represent typically 50% of 
all animals listed in the Standards trapped annually in this country. 

/9 

With respect  to  the  trapping  of  other  species  described  in the  Standards,  the  above-
referenced  authorities  have  advised  that,  pursuant  to  the  Standards  annexed  to  the 
Agreed Minute, the use of conventional  steel-jawed  leghold  restraining traps is being 
phased  out  within  six  years  of  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Agreement  on  Humane 
Trapping  Standards  between  Canada,  the  European  Community  and  the  Russian 
Federation. 

I trust that the foregoing provides sufficient  clarification with respect to the situation in 
the  United  States.  The  competent  authorities  in  the  United  States  anticipate  and 
welcome continued cooperation in this area with the European Commission and other 
interested parties. 

Sincerely 

cA^ 

SIDE LETTER 

Dear 

As you know, our delegations recently completed negotiation of an Agreed Minute on 
humane trapping standards.  I am writing this letter to memorialize an understanding 
we  reached  on  the  meaning  and  application  of  the  Agreed  Minute  and  its  attached 
Standards. 

Paragraph 6 of the Agreed Minute provides that "the United States of America and the 
European Community recogmze that nothing in this Understanding affects  their rights 
and  obligations  under  the  Marrakesh  Agreement  establishing  the  World  Trade 
Organization."  In the course of developing this language we decided that  it was not 
necessary to add to the end of this paragraph the phrase "nor constitutes a waiver of 
any  such rights" and  that  neither  government  would  cite  such  noninclusion  in  any 
dispute or proceeding that might relate to this paragraph. 

If you concur in the statement described above, I would appreciate your  confirmation 
in a letter of reply.  Thank you for your continuing attention to this matter. 

Sincerely 

d/ 

SIDE LETTER 

Dear 

Thank you for your letter memorializing the understanding we reached on the meaning 
and application of the Agreed Minute and its attached Standards. 

In response to it, we would like to confirm that in the course of developing the 
language of Paragraph 6 of the Agreed Minute, we decided that it was not necessary to 
add to the end of this paragraph the phrase "nor constitutes a waiver of any such 
rights"  and that neither government would cite such noninclusion in any dispute or 
proceeding that might relate to this paragraph. 

Sincerely 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 726  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

11  14 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-97-743-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-29811-5 

Office  for  Official  Publications  of the European  Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg 

A3