Brittan defends leghold trap deal

Date: 12/06/1997

By Michael Mann

TRADE Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan warned this week that it was crucial - both for animal welfare and the EU's international credibility - that member states accept the deal on humane trapping standards he had painstakingly negotiated with Canada and Russia.

Speaking just days before EU environment ministers are due to decide the issue, Brittan told European Voice: “The deal means a major improvement in animal welfare which would not be achieved by a ban on the import of furs from the countries concerned.”

The Commissioner accepted that the agreement to be presented to ministers next Friday (20 June) was “not one that secures absolutely every objective one could possibly think of”.

But he said that, as a first step, it represented a substantial improvement and would achieve considerably more than an import ban.

“If you had a ban, any belief this would lead to a sudden acceptance of all the things the animal welfare people want is mistaken,” he insisted.

The Commissioner said the deal not only ensured improved trapping norms outside the EU, but also introduced for the first time humane standards for the hundreds of thousands of animals trapped as pests each year in the Union itself.

Brittan confessed that he would have preferred a deal guaranteeing a shorter killing time than the 300-second limit written into the draft, but stressed that the time-limit should be viewed in the context of the overall compromise.

“The agreement foresees that this 300-second limit should be reviewed within three years in order to be lowered to 180 seconds,” he said, adding that traps which kill animals more quickly needed to be more powerful and could pose dangers for trappers and members of the public.

Brittan considered that the immediate phase-out of leghold traps was a major success, and pointed to the tightening of the deal after environment ministers expressed concerns about the initial draft last December.

“Any trap which does not reach the standards for humaneness will be banned.

That is the main principle which has eluded us for many years in international negotiations: a definition of what the standards should be,” he said.

He also argued that a major factor in securing agreement was the pressure imposed on Canada and Russia by the threat of a ban. In this, he says, the regulation agreed in 1991 has fulfilled its purpose.

“The regulation did not say there should be a ban, unless there was no agreement on standards. Its purpose was not to ban the fur trade but to bring pressure to reach an agreement,” he said.

Brittan rejected MEPs' charges that the Commission had reneged on its duty to implement the 1991 agreement earlier, saying: “We are complying completely with the proper procedures and there is no question of there being any shadow of impropriety.”

Apart from the bad feeling an import ban would cause, Brittan believes that rejection of the deal would leave the Union open to attack in the World Trade Organisation. It would also expose the EU to accusations of hypocrisy, given its opposition to extra-territorial legislation such as the US Helms-Burton law.

Negotiations are continuing with the US, which has so far proved unwilling to sanction the unconditional phase-out of leghold traps. “Our strategy has been to conclude a deal with the Canadians and Russians because we think that will make it easier to secure a deal with the Americans,” explained Brittan.

But for now, the Commission's main task is to persuade environment ministers to accept the first two texts next week. With officials predicting the outcome will depend largely on the 'chemistry' in the meeting, the appointment of radical Green Dominique Voynet as the new French environment minister could play a decisive role.

Meanwhile, MEPs are keeping up the pressure on ministers to reject the agreement, with a report drawn up by Portuguese Liberal MEP Carlos Pimenta claiming that it is completely inadequate. He says it will allow leghold traps to continue being used for another four years, while “legitimising” some forms of this trap as humane, and claims the standards fail to take adequate account of physiological suffering.

He also says substantial derogations “cast doubt on whether even the small commitments made by Russia and Canada will produce much in reality”.