Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing humane trapping standards for certain animal species’(COM(2004) 532 final — 2004/0183(COD))
Date: 2004-12-16
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: hunting regulations, international agreement, protection of animal life

C 157/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council introducing humane trapping standards for certain animal
species’

(COM(2004) 532 final — 2004/0183(COD))

(2005/C 157/11)

On 14 September 2004, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 16 November 2004. The rapporteur was Mr
Donnelly.

At its 413th plenary session of 15 and 16 December 2004 (meeting of 16 December), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 60 votes to one, with 6 abstentions.

I. Introduction

1. The leg-hold trap regulation

In its Opinion of 1990 (2) the EESC, while stressing the impor-
tance of achieving consistency on this issue, not only supported
a European ban on leghold traps, but also proposed an interna-
tional ban for them.

1.1
In 1989, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution
calling for a ban on leghold traps in the EU and on furs and fur
products derived from countries using leghold traps.

2. The Agreement

As a response, the Commission submitted a Proposal for Regu-
lation on the issue, which was adopted by the by Council in
1991 (1). The Regulation bans the use of leghold traps in the
EU from 1 January 1995 and the import of pelts from 13
named species from third countries unless one of the following
conditions are met:

Following the Community leghold trap legislation, the
2.1
need of establishing trapping standards at international
level
became prominent. An agreement was negotiated between the
EU, Canada, Russia and the US. However only Canada, Russia
and the EU signed it. The US could not become a Party to this
Agreement given that competence in this field is decentralized
within the US domestic system. However, the US agreed in
implementing a weaker version of the Agreement.

— Adequate administrative or legislative provisions in force to

prohibit the use of leghold traps or

2.2
The Agreement was negotiated in order to prevent a
possible European import ban on fur products from animal
trapped in the wild from countries that had not banned leghold
traps.

— The trapping methods used for the 13 species mentioned
(Annex I of the EU Regulation) would meet internationally
agreed humane trapping standards

1.2
It is worth noting that the European Parliament in its
opinion called for a ban on the sale of leghold traps and for a
phasing out of furs and fur products derived from animals
trapped with leghold traps. This opinion has not been taken
into account by the Council in its deliberation in 1991.

1.3
Although the use of leghold traps has been banned in
the EU since 1995, this has not been the case in countries
exporting fur products derived from animals trapped with
leghold traps.

2.3
In the European Parliament's opinion, the Agreement
was totally inadequate and ineffective and should have been
rejected and instead an import ban on fur and fur products
originated from wildlife animals listed into the Agreement
should have been introduced.

2.4
The Agreement prescribes certain standards, which must
be respected when animals are trapped. It was ratified by the
trapping standards
European Community in 1997. The
included in the Agreement reflected standards already existing
in Russia, Canada and the US. The inclusion of
the term
‘humane’ was very controversial, given that these standards are
based on the acceptance of high level of suffering for the
trapped animals.

(1) Council Regulation 3254/91, OJ L 308, 9/11/1991

(2) Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the importa-

tion of certain furs, OJ C 168 of 10.7.1990, page 32

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/71

2.5
Scientific opinions (including the one from the Commis-
sion's Scientific and Veterinary Committee) confirmed that the
humane trapping methods included into the Agreement did not
exclude unacceptable levels of suffering.

The Scientific Committee stressed that

the essential
2.6
criteria to be used in judging the degree of humaneness were
the time taken to render the animal insensible to pain and the
amount of pain and stress caused to the animal during this
period. The Committee concluded that
to be considered
‘humane’ a killing trap should render an animal insensible to
pain instantaneously, or at least within a few seconds. The
Agreement set instead a maximum time limit of 5 minutes and
therefore the term ‘humane’ was considered inappropriate.

The Committee also concluded that

2.7
the injury scale
included into the Agreement had no valid scientific basis in
comparison with other well-established methods of assessing
poor welfare.

2.8
Presently the EU and Canada have ratified the Agree-
ment, but Russia has not yet ratified it. For this reason the
Agreement's enforcement is still pending. However, Canada and
the EU agreed to in any case implement the provisions of the
agreement during the pending period.

3. Gist of the Commission Proposal

The Commission Proposal for a Directive introducing
3.1
humane trapping standards for certain animal species (1) aims
at transposing the Agreement on humane trapping standards
into Community legislation, as foreseen by Council Decision
98/142/EC and 98/487/EC.

The Proposal applies to 19 wild species (5 of which live

3.2
in the EU), as defined in Annex 1.

The Proposal sets some obligations and requirements
3.3
concerning trapping methods, use of traps, trappers, research,
penalties and certification. The text also includes a large series
of possible derogations, and two annexes (Annex II and III)
relating to humane trapping standards and testing of trapping
methods.

(1) COM(2004) 532 final

3.4
The Proposal highlights that Member States can be
allowed to implement stringent legislation on the issue and the
1991 EU regulation banning the use of leghold trap remains in
force. The implementation and enforcement falls under the
competence of the Member States and their competent authori-
ties. No Community budget line is included into the Proposal,
Member States will therefore allocate financial resources for
covering the costs involved.

II. Comments

4. The use of the term ‘humane trapping standards’

In the EESC's view, the use of the term ‘humane’ (2) in
4.1
the Proposal
‘trapping
is questionable. Article 2 defines
methods’ but it does not include a definition of ‘humane trap-
ping standards’. In fact the Agreement's text (which inspires the
Proposal) recognizes in its Preamble the absence of interna-
tional
the word
‘humane’ with those standards which would ‘ensure a sufficient
level of welfare of trapped animals’.

trapping standards, and generally relates

At the time of the negotiation of the Agreement, the
4.2
the Commission (3)
Scientific and Veterinary Committee of
commented that the standards indicated in the text could not
be defined as ‘humane’ (as already stressed before), given that
the maximum time allowed to render the animal insensible to
pain was far beyond the acceptable length (instantaneous
death). Particular emphasis was put on drowning traps as it
was estimated that semi-aquatic mammals trapped underwater
may take up to 15 minutes to die.

The Committee therefore recommends that the word
4.3
‘humane’ be replaced by an alternative and more appropriate
term in the text of the final EU legislation, at least until the
trapping standards meet the requirements described above.

(2) In February 1994 the Working Committee established under ISO
(International Standardization Organization)
to discuss humane
trapping standards, decided to remove the word ‘humane’ from the
title of the standards. At this meeting it was agreed to remove all
references to ‘humane’ or ‘humaneness’. An agreement on trapping
standards could not be reached under ISO. During ISO negotiations,
European vets highlighted that anything longer that 15 seconds to
kill an animal is not to be defined as humane killing and clearly no
submersion traps could be considered. These points, among others,
have not been considered when drafting the final text of the Agree-
ment.
The Opinion of the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European
Commission (1994) concluded that to be considered ‘humane’ a
killing trap should render the animal insensible to pain instanta-
neously, and that more attention should be paid also to the design
of traps, in order to take account of the behaviour of non-target
species, to avoid their capture or injury. The Committee concluded
that the proposed injury scale, having no scientific basis, is unaccep-
table as a measure of humaneness.

(3) Opinion from the Scientific Committee established under CITES
regulation, 1995; Scientific Committee Opinion, DG Agriculture,
1994.

C 157/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.6.2005

5. Traps

5.1
The Proposal covers two types of traps: killing traps and
restraining traps. In relation to killing traps, the standards set in
the Proposal clearly do not meet the scientific standards agreed
upon by the Community, which recommend instantaneous
death or a maximally tolerable threshold time of 30 seconds
before death. In relation to restraining traps (traps used for
catching animals alive) the Proposal does not provide specifica-
tions relating to the traps nor definitions of the purposes of the
restraint of the animals. In addition, the Proposal does not set
any welfare standards in the case of killing of restrained
animals. This means that if an animal is caught in a restraining
trap and killed afterwards, the killing method d is not regu-
lated.

7.2
Given the difficulty in applying an effective monitoring
and enforcement system in the wild, where the trapping takes
place, the derogations proposed (except for those indicated
above) by the Commission would only help undermine trans-
parency and accountability among Parties of the Agreement.

8. Trappers

The proposal foresees that a system of authorizations
8.1
and training for trappers should be put in place. However,
licensing is not covered and control on trapping methods used
by trappers is mainly inapplicable, given that it would have to
be performed in the wild. The EESC recommends that a strict
system of licensing leading to be harmonized at Community
level be set up.

Furthermore, the Proposal does not ensure that authorised trap-
ping methods would not accidentally kill or restrain untargeted
this risk is
species. Trapping standards should ensure that
reduced to the lowest possible level.

9. Certification

6. Testing

foresees

The Proposal

technical provisions

6.1
the
testing of trapping methods, which do not exclude the use of
live animals. For both compound and field-testing minimum
requirements are laid down. Furthermore, tests performed by a
Party to the Agreement can be recognised by the other Parties.

for

6.2
However, for results to be valid, tests must be performed
under the same conditions as those in which the traps are
destined to be used. Therefore parameters based on the results
of compound tests cannot be used for evaluating the welfare of
animals living in the wild. For the above reasons testing on
animals should not be applicable at all and only the already
available computer simulation tests should be considered.

The Commission's Proposal delegates to the Members
9.1
States the certification of
the trapping methods used and
prescribes the mutual recognition of this certification among
Member states.

Although this system could be implemented well in the EU, an
international certification system should also be set up. In fact,
a standard certification system as well as a traceability system
should be introduced among the Parties of the Agreement. This
system would contribute to ensure transparency and effective
implementation of the Agreement.

10. Sanctions

10.1
The Commission's Proposal refers to possible applica-
tion of administrative sanctions in case of infringement of the
legislation. However, given that some EU member States apply
criminal law in case of violation of animal welfare legislation,
the EESC recommends that sanctions be imposed according to
national systems.

7. Derogations

11. Conclusions

The Proposal lists a large spectrum of possible deroga-
7.1
tions that, if implemented, could fully undermine the scope of
the Proposal itself. The EESC believes that derogations relating
to public safety and to human and animal health should be
allowed. In this case, public authorities should immediately
inform and ask the advise of the operators working on the
territory (e.g. farmers) where such problems take place.
The EESC has some reservations with regard to the other
proposed derogations.

11.1
The EESC thinks that the humane trapping standards
included in the Proposal are not to be defined as humane, as
they just reflect standards indicated by the Agreement. The
Agreement's standards have been evaluated as lower than
in EU legislation. The
existing animal welfare standards
Committee therefore recommends replacing the word humane
with a more appropriate term in the final text of the legisla-
tion.

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/73

11.2
In relation to traps, the EESC feels that only instanta-
neous killing traps should be considered and the scope of the
use of restraining traps should be specified. Furthermore, where
the restrained animals are killed, the killing method should, as
far as possible, be regulated according to animal welfare legisla-
tion.

It is the EESC's view that drowning trap should be
11.3
forbidden as the Scientific and Veterinary Committee of the
Commission concluded they are a cruel killing method because
it involves a slow suffocation underwater for the animal.

The EESC notes that even though the Proposal indi-
11.4
cates provisions for testing of traps, there is no scientific basis
for applying to wild animals parameters based on results from
tests performed in a compound environment. The EESC there-
fore recommends to not use any animals for testing and to
instead use the already available computer simulation.

11.5
The EESC thinks that most of the derogations included
in the proposal could, in some cases, allow actors involved in
the issue to fully escape the application of the legislation, and
therefore recommends that
the competent authorities grant
derogations based on public safety, and human and animal
health. This aspect is important in light of the fact that controls
and monitoring are difficult to apply in the wild.

Brussels, 16 December 2004.

11.6
In the EESC's view, a transparent system of licensing of
trappers should be put in place in the EU. The Proposal fully
delegates to the Member States' authorities the establishment of
training and authorization requirements for trappers. The EESC
fears that this will
lead to an un-harmonized system, which
would not guarantee implementation of the welfare standards
in the EU.

11.7
The EESC believes that an effective certification and
traceability system should be implemented among Parties of
the Agreement to ensure effective implementation.

The EESC recommends

11.8
sanctions be applied
according to national animal welfare legislation in case of
infringement of the proposed legislation.

that

11.9
The EESC recommends that the timetable of imple-
mentation of the provisions foreseen in the Proposal should be
stricter. According to the Proposal, traps should conform to the
proposed standards as from 2009 and trapping methods as
from 2012. The EESC feels that all provisions should be imple-
mented as soon as possible.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND