Traps deal attacked

Although MEPs voted 162 to 17 in June against the EU's new deal with Canada and Russia, EU ministers went ahead and signed the…

Although MEPs voted 162 to 17 in June against the EU's new deal with Canada and Russia, EU ministers went ahead and signed the agreement on July 22nd, 1997. MEPs were unhappy that the agreement, which is designed to cut back on the use of cruel animal traps, left too many loopholes. Under its terms, some kinds of leghold traps will be banned within two to four years, while other kinds of leghold traps will continue to be used for eight years or indefinitely if they comply with the new standards.

Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan stated that the agreement was "a major step forward for animal welfare" and that there was "no cause for anyone to be defensive about the achievement". The Canadian International Trade Minister Sergio Marchi concurred, calling the accord "an excellent resolution to a long-standing trade irritant between Canada and the EU".

MEPs complained that the agreement gave priority to the EU's commercial interests over animal welfare. Anita Pollock (UK, PES) lamented the "sad and sorry saga of the leghold trap". She argued that the agreement was "an inadequate and inoperable stitch-up which was so full of holes that a pack of polar bears could rampage through it. It does not achieve an end to animal cruelty through the use of leghold traps. In fact, it allows their use for at least another four years. We have approval of traps which take five minutes to kill and still catch at least 20 per cent of nontarget species."

Mrs Pollock was supported by Michael Elliott (London West, PES) who lambasted the "substantial derogations that have been accepted, the lack of convincing enforcement measures, the lack of sanctions for non-compliance, which all cast doubt on whether the small commitments made by Russia and Canada will in reality achieve anything".