We are reserving our GATT options. This was all Canadian officials were willing to say to the High North News concerning the EU import ban on wild animal furs. They are trying out their final options through negotiations, while apparently waiting for the GATT to become the WTO (World Trade Organisation) on Jan 1, 1995. The WTO involves a more efficient trap for countries not wishing to follow the rules of international trade

Our trappers can’t do without the European market. It has existed for 400 years. Europe is the main market for furs from the wild. The designs also come from Europe. says Canadian government spokesman, Bryan Roberts. The importance of the fur trade for rural Canada, and for the indigenous peoples in particular, makes it seem doubtful that Canada will just sit quietly and watch the EU market close. The EU has passed a ban on all import of the skins of 13 species, both wild and farmed, from countries that have not banned the use of the leghold trap. The ban will come into effect on January 1, 1996. Today, a country violating GATT rules can quite simply ignore a GATT Panel ruling. If the verdict is to attain status as a formal GATT decision, it must be supported by all countries that are party to GATT, over 100 countries altogether. The WTO turns this condition upside down, landing it back on its feet again. In the WTO, unanimity is required to reject a ruling by the WTO dispute settlement panel. The WTO dispute solutions procedure also lays down a strict schedule for dealing with conflicts. Therefore, Canada can safely wait until the new year before asking the WTO panel to look into the EU import restrictions on furs.

Animal welfare organisations in Europe claim in a report that once agreed to, WTO will ... permit wide-ranging sanctions against any contracting party refusing to accept the outcome of the dispute procedures.

No Good Answers
The first step in the GATT dispute settlement procedure is consultation between the conflicting parties. As part of this, Canada has posed 20 questions to the EU Commission on the background for the EU fur regulations, three of them concerning its GATT legality. The EU has answered all but these three. The EU officials have told us that these are excellent questions, very challenging to answer, Canadian government spokesman Bryan Roberts told the High North News. Translated into plain language: We know you are right, we have no good answers. It was not possible to answer them without the EU incriminating itself, without proving that we are right, Roberts added. Canada asked how restrictions on trade based on process and production methods can be consistent with EU obligations under the GATT. No answer. Canada asked for an explanation on how a unilateral measure allegedly designed to promote the conservation of wild fauna outside a countries jurisdiction is justified under the GATT. No answer. Many of the species on the EU import ban list are not to be found in Europe.

None Endangered
Nor did the answers actually received by the Canadians provide any satisfaction: To give you one example: They say that one of the reasons behind the regulations is conservation, but when you ask them why they picked these 13 species, none of which are endangered, they say that non-target species that might be endangered could be trapped. Again, they are not able to point out any species where this is in fact a problem. And what makes their answer even more ridiculous is that the leghold trap is more selective than other types of traps in that you can release non-target species, normally unharmed. Their answers are proving that they are not concerned about conservation. said Roberts. He also points out that the EU is not able to answer whether a substitute to the leghold trap will be more humane or not. The EU admits that the EU Commission has no survey of research on humane traps, and that there are no EU regulations regarding the traps that will still be in legal use. The reason why leghold traps have been singled out is public opinion, explained Willem Wijnstekers, responsible EU Commission bureaucrat, to the High North News.

As Humane as Possible
Roberts claims that Canada has taken seriously signals from the EU indicating that consumers are concerned about the animal welfare aspect of trapping: We have initiated a process toward assuring that trapping is as humane as possible. This is an evolutionary process where we are all the time advancing in knowledge and technology. At national basis we have been working on the development of the traps, education of the trappers and the improvment of regulations. At the international level we initiated the ISO (International Standardisation Organisation) process which should develop humane standards for traps. The EU is participating in the process, but is not willing to allow its opinion of leghold traps, and its fur import regulations, be influenced by the outcome. Roberts is of the opinion that the EU fur trade regulations are contradictory to their stated goal, animal welfare: Many of the species will become pests and be culled - like the muskrat in the Netherlands. But then there will be no market influencing the animal welfare standard of the killing.

We would like to settle the conflict with the EU out of court, says Roberts. The Canadians place their hopes in a change of EU Environment Commissioner. The new Commissioner from January 1, 1995 will be Rit Bjerregaard. Owing to its relationship to Greenland, Denmark is expected to show a greater understanding for the needs and rights of indigenous peoples, and for the role of trapping in wildlife management. We have had some encouraging verbal signals from the EU saying that they are taking the GATT arguments seriously and that they might change the regulations. But cosmetic change is not enough. Our claims are that the market must remain open, and that the EU should enter an international agreement on what is humane, says Roberts.