International Agreement in the form of an Agreed Minute between the European Community and the United States of America on humane trapping standards - Standards for the humane trapping of specified terrestrial and semi- aquatic mammals
Date: 1997-12-18
Institutions: European Community, United States
Subjects: United States, agreement (EU), animal welfare, bilateral agreement, hides and furskins industry, hunting, hunting regulations, international standard, protection of animals

L 219/26

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

7. 8. 98

AGREED MINUTE

1.

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

2. The European Community and the United States of America 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 terres-
trial or semi-aquatic mammals.

4. The European Community and the United States of America intend to encourage and
support research, development, monitoring and training programs by their respective author-
ities 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.

5. The European Community and the United States of America further intend to encourage
their competent authorities to monitor and report on progress towards implementation of the
standards annexed to this understanding.

6. The European Community and the United States of America recognise that nothing in this
understanding affects their rights and obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement estab-
lishing the World Trade Organisation.

7. 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 under-
standing 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
the European

mean the Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards between Canada,
Community and the Russian Federation.

7. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 219/27

Done at Brussels this eighteenth day of December 1997, in duplicate, in the English language.

For the
European Community

For the United States
of America

L 219/28

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

7. 8. 98

ANNEX

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

PART I: THE STANDARDS

1.

1.1.

AIMS, PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE STANDARDS

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 require-
ments 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)

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

(b) for killing traps: the time to unconsciousness and insensibility and the maintenance of this

state until death of the animal.

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)
improving the welfare of animals trapped in restraining traps during the period of restraint;
(b) 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.

7. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 219/29

2.2.

Parameters

2.2.1.

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.

2.2.2.

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.

Behavioural indicators recognised as indicators of poor welfare in trapped wild animals are:

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

(b) excessive immobility and unresponsiveness.

2.3.2.

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

(a)

fracture;

(b)

joint luxation proximal to the carpus or tarsus;

(c) severance of a tendon or ligament;

(d) major periosteal abrasion;

(e) severe external haemorrhage or haemorrhage into an internal cavity;

(f) major skeletal muscle degeneration;

(g) limb ischemia;

(h) fracture of a permanent tooth exposing pulp cavity;

(i) ocular damage including corneal laceration;

(j)

spinal cord injury;

(k) severe internal organ damage;

(l) myocardial degeneration;

(m) amputation;

(n) death.

2.4.

Thresholds

A restraining trapping method would meet the Standards if:

(a)

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

(b) 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.

Unconsciousness and insensibility must be monitored by checking corneal and palpebral reflexes
or any other scientifically proven suitable substitute parameter (1).

(1) In cases where further tests are necessary to determine if the trapping method meets the standards, additional electro-

encephalogram (EEG), visual evoked response (VER), and sound evoked response (SER) measurements may be made.

L 219/30

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

7. 8. 98

3.3.

Indicators and time limits

Time limit to loss of corneal
and palpebral reflexes

Species

45 seconds

120 seconds

Mustela erminea

Martes americana
Martes zibellina
Martes martes

300 seconds (1)

all other species set out in paragraph 4.1.

(1) The committee will evaluate the time limit at the three-year review referred to in Article 9(b), where data
warrant such action, to adapt the time limit requirement on a species-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.

3.4.

Thresholds

A killing trapping method would meet the Standards if:

(a)

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

(b) at least 80 per cent of these animals are unconscious and insensible within the time limit, and

remain in this state until death.

PART II: LIST OF SPECIES AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

4.

LIST OF SPECIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLE-
MENTATION 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 pennanti
Martes zibellina
Martes martes
Meles meles
Mustela erminea
Nyctereutes procyonoides
Ondatra zibethicus
Procyon lotor
Taxidea taxus

Additional species will be included in the future as appropriate.

7. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 219/31

4.2.

Implementation schedule (1)

4.2.1.

Trapping methods are tested to demonstrate their conformity with these Standards by the com-
petent authorities within:

(a)

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

(b) for killing trapping methods, five years after the entry into force of the Agreement.

4.2.2. 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.

4.2.3.

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 authorized 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 author-
ities 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 with 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 commu-

nities.

Where implementing this paragraph, prior written notification of such derogations, along with
their reasons and conditions, should be given by the European Community or the United States. 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 European Community or the United
States of America.

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 fulfil the require-
ments 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
Organisation for Standardisation, 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 pro-
cedures 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.

(1) Authority to regulate traps and trapping methods for the taking in the United States of the specified terrestrial or semi-

aquatic mammals resides primarily in the state and tribal authorities.

L 219/32

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

7. 8. 98

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 physio-
logical parameters. Killing traps should be tested in a compound, in particular to identify uncon-
sciousness.

5.1.5.

In the field tests, traps should be checked daily.

5.1.6.

The effectiveness of the 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.

5.2.2.

5.2.3.

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

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 behavior. 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 prac-
tice. 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
different habitats where different 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 uncon-
sciousness 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 interpreta-
tion 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.

7. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 219/33

5.5.

Observations

5.5.1.

Behavior

5.5.1.1. Behavioral observations should be made by a trained person, particularly in reference to the know-

ledge of the ethology of the species.

5.5.1.2. Aversiveness can be assessed by trapping the animal

in a readily recognised situation, then

re-exposing the animal to the trap in the appropriate situation and evaluating its behavior.

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, espe-

cially 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 evalu-
ated. Control data from animals kept elsewhere in good conditions and for different activities, base-
line 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.

5.5.3.3. The affected organs or/and 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)

the technical description of the trap design including construction material;

(b) manufacturers’ instructions for use;

(c)

the description of the test situation;

(d) weather conditions, in particular temperature and snow depth;

(e)

(f)

(g)

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;

L 219/34

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

7. 8. 98

(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)

selectivity;
details of any evidence that the trap was activated and injured an animal that was not caught;
behavioral observations;
values of each physiological parameter measured and methodologies;
description of injuries and post-mortem examinations;
time to loss of consciousness and sensibility; and
statistical analyses.

7. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 219/35

Side letter

Brussels, 18 December 1997.

Dear . . .,

As you know, representatives of the European Community and the United States of America
today signed an Agreed Minute related to humane trapping standards. With respect to that
Agreed Minute, I 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 com-
petent 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 cooperation with several Fed-
eral 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 manage-
ment 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 programme that is being undertaken by the US 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, grey 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 rep-
resent typically 50 % of all animals listed in the standards trapped annually in this country.

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 Euro-
pean 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 Community and other interested parties.

Sincerely,

Donald B. KURSCH
Chargé d’affaires a.i.

L 219/36

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

7. 8. 98

Side letter

Brussels, 18 December 1997

Dear . . .,

As you know, our delegations recently completed negotiation of an Agreed Minute on humane
trapping standards. I am writing this letter to memorialise 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 recognise that nothing in this understanding affects their rights and obligations
under the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation’. 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 non-inclusion 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
or reply. Thank you for your continuing attention to this matter.

Sincerely

Donald B. KURSCH
Chargé d’affaires a.i.

7. 8. 98

‹

EN

‹

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 219/37

Side letter

Brussels, 18 December 1997

Dear . . .,

Thank you for your letter memorialising 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 para-
graph 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 non-inclusion in any dispute or proceeding that might relate to this paragraph.

Sincerely

Johannes Friedrich BESELER
Director-General of the Directorate-General
for External Economic Relations
of the Commission of the European
Communities

Jean-Jacques KASEL
Ambassador,
Permanent Representative
of Luxembourg,
Chairman of the Permanent
Representatives Committee