Can EU reconcile market demands with high standards of animal welfare?

Date: 19/02/04

A balanced, common-sense approach must be adopted to avoid red tape, writes Albert Jan Maat

EVERY year some three-and-a-half million cattle, 12 million pigs, four million sheep and goats and 200,000 horses, ponies and donkeys are traded within the European Union.

On the one hand, the transporting of animals is part of the process of agricultural production in the context of the single market. Their movement is made necessary by an unequal distribution of resources and demand. Furthermore, the prices of farm animals and their meat have been under pressure for a number of years. As a result, the cost price of the final product is the deciding factor that determines to a large extent the trade flows of meat and animals.

When certain conditions are met, animal transportation can take place in a way that respects the welfare of the animals concerned. In some cases, however, intolerable practices have come to light. In its November 2001 resolution, the European Parliament highlighted the lack of correct implementation of the relevant European rules and called upon the Commission to present a new legislative proposal, including tighter rules and better controls. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which affected the UK, Ireland, France and the Netherlands in 2001 has added to the urgency, as the disease was spread via so-called staging posts, where animals are rested for 24 hours before continuing on long-distance journeys.

The Commission presented its proposals last year. They turned out to be highly contentious - especially as concerns the duration of transport, space allowances and travelling conditions (ventilation, etc). The Commission sets no maximum limit for the total duration of a journey, but stipulates that after nine hours of transport animals must be rested for twelve hours in the vehicle. Staging posts are abolished with a view to avoiding the spread of contagious diseases. Space requirements are determined according to the species and length of the journey and would result in 40% more space for pigs, 32% more for sheep and 16% more for cattle.

As the Parliament's rapporteur on this issue, I am in broad agreement with the Commission's proposals, although I do question whether the formula for calculating journey and resting times would be workable in practice. Personally, I cannot see how animals being taken on an 11-hour journey would really be better off stopping after nine hours, then resting for 12 hours before continuing for another two hours and so spending a total of 23 hours in the vehicle.

With my report, to be presented in the Parliament's agriculture committee today (19 February), I am seeking to promote a more balanced, common-sense approach. I believe that it is necessary to encourage the slaughter of animals within the region where they have been raised, in order to improve animal welfare and lower the risk of spreading diseases. We know that most breaches of welfare legislation concern animals that are intended for slaughter.

I am therefore proposing a maximum limit on the transport of animals for slaughter of nine hours or 500km, in line with the demands of the Parliament's 2001 resolution. Exemptions should, however, be granted for islands and sparsely populated regions, without their own abattoirs.

Animals not destined for slaughter may travel further, but under stricter criteria than those applicable to journeys of less than nine hours.

In line with the existing legislation for lorry drivers, different journey times are proposed for lorries with more than one driver. I strongly believe that operators from third countries transporting animals into or out of the EU should apply the same rules and regulations as European carriers.

We should be proud of the fact that the European Union applies and enforces the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. This is part of our common values and tradition, which puts the health and well-being of animals at the centre of our approach to agriculture. But at the same time we must also avoid unnecessary red tape, which would harm European agriculture. This is the balanced approach I am seeking in my report.

• Dutch MEP Albert Jan Maat of the EPP-ED is vice-chairman of the European Parliament's committee on agriculture and rural development.

The European Commission's decision not to impose a maximum journey time is "very disappointing", argues Patricia McKenna

AS MAHATMA Ghandi said, how we treat our animals is the mark of a civilized society. We are a civilised society and the laws governing how we transport animals across Europe should reflect this. Surely any attempt to reform the rules on how animals are transported should include a limit on journey times. Unfortunately, the proposals coming from the European Commission do not do this.

Every year, millions of farm animals travel long distances, to be slaughtered or further fattened. These journeys can take anything up to four days. The animals often suffer greatly from extreme heat in the summer, overcrowding, lack of water, poor ventilation and stress caused by the long journeys. Concerns have been raised in many quarters, including the European Commission's own scientific committee on animal health and welfare. In their March 2002 report, the committee concluded: "Journeys should be as short as possible."

The Commission's proposal not to place any overall limit on journey times, but instead to allow animals to be transported for nine hours then rested for 12 hours, in a cycle that can be repeated indefinitely, is very disappointing.

Parliament adopted a report in 2001 calling for an overall limit of eight hours or 500km, to be placed on journeys for slaughter or fattening. The difference between the Parliament's report and the Commission's proposal is not just a difference of eight or nine hours. It is the principle of having a journey limit.

Last June, 333 MEPs signed a written declaration supporting the call for a maximum journey time of eight hours. Animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm of rearing. Not only would this make long journeys unnecessary, it would also provide economic benefits where the slaughtering takes place.

The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe has said that animals should be fattened on or near the farm of birth. The Eurogroup for animal welfare is calling for a maximum overall limit of eight hours or 500 km on journeys to slaughter or for further fattening. A derogation should be provided for remote areas.

The Commission has proposed that rest should be taken in the vehicle. This means animals enduring hot, cramped conditions in a stationary truck, where experience shows it is difficult to water them and impossible to clean out manure. For this period to be considered "rest", animals must be unloaded.

Contrary to the Commission proposal, rest must be provided at an authorized location, otherwise it is impossible to monitor compliance and to provide veterinary checks that animals remain healthy and fit for transport.

If the Council adopts an overall limit of eight hours or 500km, animals will not need rest during their journey. However, if longer journeys are permitted (as they will be at least for breeding animals), then rest will be needed. The EU still exports on average 250,000 live cattle per year to the Middle East and north Africa. The long journeys, together with the brutal unloading and slaughter methods in the Middle East, make this a very cruel trade.

It is also heavily subsidized. Export refunds of some €60 million per year are paid out to encourage exports of live cattle to third countries. In January 2003, the Commission adopted a regulation ending export refunds on cattle being exported for slaughter, but subsidies are still paid on cattle going to Egypt or Lebanon. As nearly all EU cattle exported for slaughter go to Lebanon, the Commission's regulation has done virtually nothing to improve matters. The Parliament called for an end to all export refunds on live cattle being exported for slaughter to third countries in 2001.

Whatever legislation is finally adopted, it is essential that the rules are enforced. This year, the Food and Veterinary Office will devote only 10% of its work programme to controls on animal welfare - a tiny percentage when one considers that this has to cover the whole of the EU.

• Irish Green MEP Patricia McKenna is rapporteur on live animal transport for the European Parliament's environment committee.

Two MEPs discuss how best to balance civilised animal husbandry with agricultural production concerns.

• Primary Source