Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2004)532 - Humane trapping standards for certain animal species - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2004)532 - Humane trapping standards for certain animal species. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2004)532  |
| date | 30-07-2004 |
Contents
In 1998, the Community decided to conclude two international agreements for the purpose of establishing humane trapping standards at an international level.
The first agreement was concluded with Canada and the Russian Federation and was approved by Council Decision 98/142/EC of 26 January 1998 i (hereinafter: the Agreement).
The second one concerns the United States of America and has the form of an agreed minute. This was approved by Council Decision 98/487/EC of 13 July 1998 i.
At present, the commitments and obligations arising from these engagements have to be implemented by the Community.
For reasons of clarity references will hereinafter only be made to the Agreement as it is the most detailed act. Nevertheless, the agreement with the USA is substantially similar to the one concluded with the Russian Federation and Canada.
The Agreement has been inspired by the desire to agree on international humane trapping standards as well as to avoid trade disputes with the main international fur exporters.
The Agreement has been applied provisionally between the Community and Canada since June 1999, pending its entry into force which requires ratification by the Russian Federation.
The Agreement on international humane trapping standards consists of 17 Articles and 4 Annexes. The objectives of the Agreement are to establish standards on humane trapping methods, to improve communication and co-operation between the Parties for the implementation and development of these standards and facilitate trade of furs and traps between the Parties. The aim of the humane trapping standards is to ensure a sufficient level of welfare of trapped animals, and to further improve this welfare.
With regard to the present proposal, the following observations can be made concerning the Agreement.
According to the Agreement, the Parties are obliged to prohibit within the agreed timetable the use of all restraining and killing traps which do not meet the humane trapping standards for the 19 i animal species i listed in the Annex I of the Agreement.
Therefore the trapping methods used must be tested according to the specified standards to ensure a sufficient level of welfare of trapped animals. Consequently appropriate processes for certifying tested traps must be established. The Agreement applies to all killing and restraining mechanical capturing devices (traps) used for the trapping of the 19 wild terrestrial or semi-aquatic mammals listed for the purpose of wildlife management including pest control, obtaining fur, skin or meat and for the capture of mammals for conservation.
The key obligations for the Parties are laid down in Article 7 of the Agreement. This Article requires that appropriate processes for certifying traps in accordance with the standards are established and the competent authorities ensure that the trapping methods used in their territories are in accordance with the standards. The agreed timetable in Annex I indicates the deadlines by which these obligations must be met. Accordingly, the Parties must ensure that trapping methods for restraining animals are tested to demonstrate their conformity with the humane trapping standards and certified within three to five years after the entry into force of the Agreement, depending on the testing priorities and availability of testing facilities. For trapping methods designed to kill, the deadline is five years after the entry into force of the Agreement. The use of uncertified traps must be prohibited within three years after the end of the above periods.
The Parties to the Agreement must promote research on the ongoing development of the Standards and re-evaluate and update Annex I to the Agreement. The Agreement obliges the Parties to improve scientific knowledge for evaluating the welfare of trapped animals (e.g. particular measurements to be studied). Accordingly, each Party must promote further research for the following species: Ondatra zibethicus (muskrat)-European Community, Procyon lotor-Canada, Martes zibellina- Russian Federation. The Commission has fulfilled this obligation by commissioning a study on muskrats. The final report was submitted in June 2003 and provides information on the assessment of the behaviour and physiological parameters (e.g. heart rate) of trapped muskrats.
The four Annexes to the Agreement contain the humane trapping standards, the list of animal species concerned, the implementation schedule, guidelines for the testing of traps and for research on the ongoing development of trapping methods, research programmes to improve the scope of the standards, provisions for an arbitration body and the declarations of Parties.
The 'Declaration by the European Community' states that the Community 'will not take any measure implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 during the time reasonably needed for the other Parties to ratify the Agreement and, after ratification, as long as the Agreement remains in force and is applied according to its provisions'.
A study i was carried out on behalf of the Commission on how the obligations of the Agreement are already implemented through existing legislation in the Member States. According to the information received, animals are usually trapped in the Member States for reasons of pest control or because they destroy crops, damage property, carry diseases, threaten game or cause flooding. In 4 Member States some species are also occasionally trapped for their fur. Generally speaking the Member States have not yet adjusted their legislation to implement the Agreement. The existing national legislation varies from Member State to Member State in relation to trapping at national and/or regional level. A harmonisation of legislation is therefore necessary so that the Community will be able to fulfil its international obligations under the Agreement.
Stakeholders, experts and NGO's have been consulted. Their opinions concerning amongst others the testing of trapping methods and the certification procedure have been taken into account in this proposal. However, it was not considered appropriate to agree to requests for the establishment of centralised Community testing facilities or Community funding of trap testing.
In the Community, the use of all leghold traps is prohibited by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards i. This prohibition is to be found in its Article 2.
Moreover, Article 3 i of that Regulation prohibits the importations into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of 13 specifically mentioned wild animal species. Such importations are, however, permitted from third countries that, in their legislation or administrative provisions, prohibit the use of leghold traps and from third countries that, with regard to these 13 animal species, impose the application of internationally agreed humane trapping standards.
The Agreement (in particular Article 5) permits the Community to maintain this general prohibition. Thus, even after adoption of the new Directive, the use of all leghold traps, even those that are in conformity with the humane trapping standards, will remain prohibited within the Community.
In practice, the new Directive will therefore only apply to traps other than leghold traps that producers want to be considered as 'humane'. Moreover, with regard to other animal species than the 19 mentioned in the Annexes to the Agreement, the use of traps, other than leghold traps, that do not comply with the humane trapping standards will remain possible, if they are in conformity with other Community legislation.
The proposal implements the environmental part of the Agreement and is limited in scope and content to what is necessary to ensure that the European Community meets its international obligations by ensuring that the agreed humane trapping standards are respected.
The proposal does not intend to harmonise all technical requirements in relation to the marketing or the placing on the market of traps. The proposal only intends to ban the use of 'inhumane' traps used for catching animals belonging to the listed species.
The trade related parts of the Agreement concerning the promotion of international trade in fur products made from furs coming from trapped animals belonging to the species covered by the Agreement will be assured by an amendment to the Annex to Regulation (EEC) N°3254/91 whereby the number of wild animal species covered will be extended from
13 to 19.
Legal Basis and Recitals
It is proposed to implement the Agreement via a directive. This approach is in line with the proportionality principle. It provides for the necessary flexibility to accommodate different situations and enable existing national and regional provisions in the Member States to be adjusted more readily. Moreover, most obligations in the Agreement are drafted in a flexible way and are more suitable for inclusion in a directive than in a regulation.
Article 175 has been chosen as the legal base for this proposal on the grounds that the Directive aims to play an essential role in the protection and conservation of species of wild fauna by providing a sufficient level of protection of the welfare of trapped animals. The purpose of the proposal at issue is to implement within the Community internationally agreed humane trapping standards in order to contribute to, promote and increase animal welfare and species protection through avoiding unnecessary distress and pain to the trapped animal.
The purpose of this Directive is not to deprive Member States of the power to maintain or and adopt more stringent measures concerning trapping and hunting, in the future. As an example, Member States could be willing to apply the humane trapping standards to other animal species than the 19 mentioned.
Therefore, Article 175 constitutes the appropriate legal basis since it allows Member States to adopt stricter rules on the basis of Article 176 on the condition that such rules are compatible with the Treaty and, more in particular, with its rules concerning the free movement of goods.
Article 1 of the proposal concerns the subject matter and scope. Accordingly, the Directive establishes humane trapping standards, requirements for trapping methods, technical provisions for the testing of trapping methods and the certification of traps for trapping certain wild animal species and concerns traps used for the trapping of the wild mammals listed in Annex I for the purposes of wildlife management, pest control, capture of mammals for conservation and obtaining fur, skin or meat.
Article 2 of the proposal defines the relevant terms used in the enacting part.
Article 3 of the proposal requires Member States to designate competent authorities for the purpose of implementation of the Directive.
Article 4 of the proposal sets out the conditions for the general use of traps. After the date of 1 January 2009 only certified traps may be put into use to trap the 19 animal species listed. Moreover, it establishes the principle that the use of traps certified in third countries will be allowed in the Community.
Article 5 imposes upon the Member States to ensure that, as from 1 January 2012, no trapping methods are used that are not in conformity with the humane trapping standards. In its paragraphs 2 and 3 the criteria for humane restraining and killing trapping methods are specified.
In Article 6 the derogations to the general obligations in Articles 4 i and 5 are regrouped. Thus, derogations may be granted on a case-by-case basis for defined purposes such as the interests of public health and safety; protection of public and private property; research, education, repopulation, reintroduction, breeding and the protection of fauna and flora, as well as to allow the use of traditional wooden traps essential for preserving cultural heritage of indigenous communities. Also, the use of a trap can be admitted on a temporary basis while awaiting the results of research into replacement traps. Finally, Member States may allow individuals to construct and use traps which comply with designs approved by the competent authorities. These traps constructed by individuals are meant to be simple home-made traps for private use. Consequently, as the certification system and all the testing requirements for an industrial manufacturer cannot be applied for practical reasons, if a Member State wants to allow the use of such traps, the competent authority will have to approve the general design of those traps and to make the appropriate disposition within the framework of its enforcement system. It is not possible at this stage to define the appropriate design for all home-made traps. However, the competent authority should check these traps against the established humane trapping standards without going formally through the testing and certification procedures.
Article 7 of the proposal deals with certification of traps where the traps and the trapping methods have been tested to demonstrate their conformity with the humane trapping standards. This means that Member States shall ensure that only traps and trapping methods that have been tested and demonstrate their conformity with the humane trapping standards are certified. For these traps, the competent authorities of the Member States have the responsibility to deliver a standard certification document, as appropriate, containing specific conditions and restrictions regarding the use of the traps concerned.
As a standard certification document will contribute to a better harmonisation of procedures concerning certification and facilitate mutual recognition, a standard certification document will be elaborated on the basis of Article 14.
Article 8 of the proposal requires Member States to ensure that trappers are competent and have proper knowledge or receive training.
Article 9 of the proposal dealing with manufacturers provides that Member States must require manufacturers to identify certified traps and provide instructions for their appropriate setting, safe operation and maintenance.
Article 10 of the proposal requires that Member States promote and encourage research in relation to improvement and extension of the humane trapping standards with the aim to improve the welfare of the trapped animals. This does not take away the responsibility of the Commission to also encourage such research.
Article 11 of the proposal contains a standard penalty provision.
Article 12 of the proposal requires communication of information between the Commission and the Member States. Member States must also ensure that the necessary steps are taken to make the public aware of the measures pursuant to the Directive.
Article 13 of the proposal indicates that the Commission should be assisted by the Committee established by Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating the trade therein i, acting in a regulatory capacity. Its purpose is to assist in the implementation of the Directive and to agree on technical amendments to the Annexes of the Directive. It is proposed that scientific and technical information in relation to the standards and testing in the Annexes should be reviewed by the Committee. The Committee is also expected to give opinions on certification and research to improve the standards. It shall also assist in the preparation of the meetings of the Joint Management Committee of the Agreement.
Article 14 of the proposal outlines implementing measures and amendments requiring the Commission in accordance with the Committee procedure to lay down conditions and criteria for notifications, communication of information and for the drawing up of a standard certification document. Moreover, it is provided that, where necessary, the Commission shall amend the Annexes to the Directive in accordance with the Committee procedure.
Article 15 of the proposal establishes that Member States may maintain and apply more stringent provisions.
Article 16 of the proposal contains provisions for transposition. It sets out the deadline, which is 31 December 2005.
Article 17 of the proposal contains the entry in force provision.
Article 18 of the proposal states contains the standard clause concerning addressees.
The 4 Annexes to the proposal contain the list of animal species concerned (Annex I), the humane trapping standards (Annex II), technical provisions for the testing of trapping methods (Annex III) and research related details (Annex IV).
With regard to the impact assessment process, the Commission during the adoption of its legislative and work programme for 2003, in November 2002, decided not to include this proposal in the list of proposals having to undergo an extended impact assessment. It should furthermore be noted that the impact assessment is generally used as a tool to improve the quality and coherence of the policy development process. However, in this case, the Council has already concluded the Agreement and accepted the proposed policy. Taking into account the above-mentioned points, no specific impact assessment was made.
This Directive has no financial consequences for the budget of the Community. However, economic impacts arise from the demands of the Agreement on testing and certification of the traps. Moreover, the cost of the replacement of traps that are not certified could also be an important element. There are inherent difficulties predicting costs, as the cost will vary depending on the target species. For example field-testing of a trap method for a common species is less time consuming, and thus less costly, than for a more trap-shy species. The rough estimate is that the testing of one trapping method according to the standards for one animal species could cost between 30.000-100.000 Euro depending on the trap type and the type and nature of the animal species concerned.
Given the relatively modest costs it is proposed to leave the allocation of costs to the Member States. Concerning cost allocation there are a variety of options for the Member States, each with advantages and disadvantages. Trap manufacturers, Member States and trap users could pay the costs. Requiring manufacturers to pay is likely to limit the range of traps submitted for testing to widely used traps where manufacturers can be reasonably sure of recovering costs. They could be less humane than other newly developed traps. As a result, it is possible that there would be no certified traps for certain species and an improvement of traps towards the most humane traps could not be guaranteed. If trapping can not take place, other means such as poisoning could be used for pest control which causes suffering to the animals and can have negative effects on the environment. Further possible impacts as a result of non-trapping could result in the loss of biodiversity and damage caused by floods (muskrat control). The proposal leaves enough flexibility with respect to the testing of trapping methods and certification of traps to avoid such potentially negative impacts. However, it may be necessary to review funding mechanisms in the light of the experience with the implementation of the Directive.