The longest journey: how best to cut inhumane suffering of EU’s animals?

Date: 19/02/04

DAVID Byrne has received more than a few video nasties in his mailbox.

Usually filmed in secret, these depict the gruesome suffering that animals endure in substandard abattoirs, at markets and during transportation in crowded vehicles.

It is not unknown for diehard carnivores to be converted to the ranks of "meat is murder" vegetarian militants upon viewing such images.

Not Byrne, however. As well as making no secret that he relishes tucking into a juicy steak, the European commissioner in charge of animal welfare is not impressed with what he perceives as a lack of political nous on the part of the anti-cruelty groups.

"They serve a useful purpose. They raise public consciousness on these issues and make sure they are at the centre of the debate.

"I would not for one moment criticize their passion and commitment. But I wish sometimes they would focus that passion on reaching an achievable outcome."

Last year, animal welfare activists voiced displeasure with a proposal Byrne tabled on the transport of livestock. Along with recommending new rules about increasing the minimum space for animals during transport, it stated that they must not be subjected to journeys of more than nine hours at a stretch.

Once those nine hours have elapsed, the animals must be "rested" for 12 hours before the journey can continue. They would not be taken off the vehicle during the rest period due to scientific advice that loading and unloading animals increases their stress levels.

The animal welfare lobby is urging instead that the total journey from farm to slaughterhouse should under no circumstances be longer than eight hours, with no possibility for extension. Byrne believes that suggestion would not get the required qualified majority vote (QMV) from EU governments to become law.

At least four member states - Spain, Italy, France and Ireland, who have together 31 votes, with 26 necessary to block a decision - have indicated they are implacably opposed to so restrictive a limit.

Nevertheless, the Irish EU presidency has pledged it will do its utmost to secure a deal on this key animal welfare dossier during its six-month term. The item is on the agenda for the April meeting of the Union's Council of farm ministers and, according to Byrne, Dublin is working on securing an agreement "with gusto".

"There are widely diverging views on this issue; it breaks down very nearly 50/50 [between EU governments] in the Council, so it makes QMV very difficult to achieve."

The Irish commissioner believes the animal welfare lobby has concentrated too much on the animal journey time and lost sight of the benefits of this "enforcement of legislation".

"Failure to comply with the legislation will mean that transporters are struck off, that they can't drive any more. These are serious sanctions. Maybe if the animal welfare movement looked at it from that point of view, rather than the narrow issue of eight hours, they might see more benefits.

"There has been a sterile focus on eight hours. It will not be reduced to eight hours. So the animal welfare lobby might as well be banging their heads off a stone wall for all the benefits it will have. Perpetually arguing for an eight-hour maximum, when it's well-known that 50% of member states are against it - it's never going to happen."

The commissioner also warns he is not impressed with receiving thousands of emails on this subject.

"There was a time here when I was getting more emails on the animal welfare issue than any other issue. And I've got a lot of emails relating to this animal transport issue.

"But the number of emails I get, that are word for word, the same email - that doesn't impress me. The fact that I get thousands of emails saying the same thing doesn't put forward the argument any further."

Sonja van Tichelen, director of the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, which has run a major campaign on live transports, disagrees vehemently with Byrne's assertion that it was wrong to isolate the travel-time issue.

She points out that a 2002 report from the Commission's own scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare stated that "journeys should be as short as possible".

According to van Tichelen, it is incumbent on anti-cruelty groups to hold the EU institutions accountable to a protocol contained in the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, which states that the Union's laws and policies should pay "full regard to animal welfare".

"Our role is to be extremely critical, to ensure the Commission honours what is in the legislation," she says. "In this case, the Commission has not followed the scientific advice of its own committee on short journeys. The question then is, is it in line with its obligations under the protocol?

"We would advise Mr Byrne to consider the results of the scientific report, which shows that the journey time is the key element."

Despite this spat between legislator and lobbyists, both sides regard a major international conference on animal welfare in Paris next week (23-25 February) as a positive step in pushing the issue onto policymakers' radar screens.

The conference is being hosted by the World Organization for Animal Health, which is known by its French name OIE. Formed in 1924, the OIE is currently a 166-country grouping, normally devoted to monitoring animal diseases.

In delivering one of the conference's opening addresses, Byrne is due to stress the EU's commitment towards achieving global standards on animal welfare.

Hopes that the World Trade Organization (WTO) would examine animal welfare issues in international commerce were dashed in 1999, when the Seattle ministerial meeting collapsed amid violent street protests.

While it was agreed at the subsequent Doha WTO conference in 2001 that these issues ought to be discussed as part of the round of negotiations on agricultural trade, the collapse of last September's ministerial in Cancún creates much uncertainty.

So too does the reluctance of poorer nations in the WTO to contemplate animal protection measures that would be costly to implement.

"Developing countries say that animal welfare is a luxury that you in the EU can pursue," says Byrne.

"But in developing countries, the focus is on keeping the food on the table of their own citizens. That's not an unreasonable point to make. But there are other countries in the world that we do trade with. They are aware that the EU wants to pursue this with some vigour. And there are 166 members in the OIE, who have signed up to a resolution that animal welfare deserves to be considered as part of the development of ethical standards.

"So we need to start the debate."

Nevertheless, the commissioner acknowledges that the Union's resources for dealing with animal welfare are limited. The Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), now located in an Irish rural area called Grange, has just four inspectors tasked with monitoring whether animal welfare standards are being complied with across a Union that will soon encompass 25 countries.

"We do a lot on a shoestring here in the Commission, though people don't always realize that's the case," says Byrne. "I will be calling on the next Commission to upgrade the resources of the FVO, because their inspectors have an extraordinary job to do. And they have to do it with punctilious fairness."

While it is primarily a matter for national authorities to ensure that EU laws are being complied with, the Commission can start infringement proceedings against those that fail to make the grade.

A list obtained by this newspaper indicates that most proceedings undertaken have been against member states who have not met their legal requirement of informing Brussels if they have placed EU laws in this field on their national statute books.

Separately, "letters of formal notice" have been sent to Italy and Belgium for badly applying existing EU rules on live transports. (The issuing of such letters is the first step in a procedure that can ultimately lead to a case being heard in the European Court of Justice.)

Commissioner Byrne has come under fire from activists for not yet telling them if he will take action against Greece; the group Compassion in World Farming last year released a video showing animals being killed in Greek abattoirs without first being stunned.

For his part, the qualified barrister says that mounting a successful legal challenge in the animal welfare field is fraught. "Even if you do prove it [abuse of animals], it's open to the authorities to say this was a one-off situation, not a regular practice. But the mechanisms we are now putting in place [on live transports] will give us more muscle and give the member states more muscle as well."

In general terms, the EU's scope for improving animal welfare standards is limited. Since his appointment in 1999, Byrne has sponsored new legislation that would ban the keeping of hens in battery cases from 2012 and the rearing of sows in stalls from 2006. His officials are also drafting a new proposal on the rearing of broiler hens, which is scheduled to be published this summer.

Yet the Amsterdam Treaty prohibits the Commission from interfering in traditions that are tied up with regional heritage, culture or religious rites. As a result, Byrne is powerless to act against bullfights and the "blood fiestas" in Spain, where goats, allegedly representing Satan, are hurled from churches, and chickens are decapitated with bare hands.

Asked if he agrees such activities are barbaric, Byrne says: "I have all kinds of private views about all kinds of things. But my job here as commissioner is to work within the confines of the treaty. I like to feel passionate about things I can do something about."

The European community is split on the issue of travel times for slaughterhouse-bound animals. In an interview David Byrne, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, explains why he thinks the animal rights lobbyists have missed the point.