Optimism over deal on animal trapping

Date: 12/09/1996

By Michael Mann

HOPES are rising that the EU will reach agreement on “humane” fur trapping standards with Canada, the US and Russia before the end of the autumn.

A second round of negotiations between officials, based on technical papers drawn up by scientific experts over the past few months, are due to end this evening (12 September), with a third and final round scheduled for early October.

The outcome of the discussions will determine what form of legislation the Union introduces to ensure that no furs from animals caught using unnecessarily cruel methods are imported across its borders.

Whichever way it turns, however, the Commission seems destined to attract the wrath of at least one group in what has become an almost impossibly complex conundrum.

Much of the problem stems from a lack of clarity about exactly who is leading the debate.

Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and a number of environment ministers have made clear their distaste for the import of furs from animals caught in devices such as the jaw-type leghold trap.

But Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan has stressed the need to ensure that legislation does not leave the Union open to a challenge at the World Trade Organisation.

At the same time, the Commission and Council of Ministers are locked in a bitter dispute with the Parliament, which is seeking to strengthen a vaguely-worded proposal to ensure that a ban on furs caught in countries using “inhumane” trapping methods is introduced by the start of next year.

The Parliament's legal affairs committee last week recommended taking the Commission to court for allegedly failing in its legal duty to implement the ban as originally intended at the start of 1996.

A final decision on whether to proceed with the case rests with Parliament President Klaus Hänsch.

Further intrigue has been added by Commission officials' threats to take the Netherlands to court for bringing the ban into force unilaterally.

Canadian officials are, however, confident that the groundwork laid by the technical working groups will prepare the way for a political agreement this autumn between the four main countries involved.

But nobody is taking anything for granted.

Still outstanding is any consensus on what constitutes “humane” standards. The North Americans also maintain that while the western Europeans have concentrated their attention on leghold traps and the fur trade, they have failed to mention the thousands of animals killed every year in the EU under pest control programmes.

Legislation originally agreed by the Union in 1991 would have banned fur imports from a number of countries where leghold traps were still in use. The US and Canada claimed that this would threaten the very existence of the industry and a number of indigenous peoples still reliant on the trade, and argued the EU's approach did not discriminate enough between different practices used for different species.

Agreement on humane standards would still require the Commission to come forward with legislation to fill a legal void.

New laws would as likely as not fall well short of the blanket-style approach envisaged in 1991.

They could be based on the revised proposal unveiled late last year, which did not tie the Union to any firm timetables and attracted the anger of MEPs.

At its June plenary, the Parliament adopted amendments which seek to force the adoption of the ban by the start of next year.

Parliament officials are aware that, as the proposal falls under the cooperation procedure, there is little they can do if the Commission and Council oppose their amendments - but they are determined to put up a fight.

They also admit that the Commission could counter threats of legal action on the grounds of “failure to act” by pointing to the new proposal it put forward just before Christmas.