Day: January 19, 2024

General News, Live Transport, Vivisection

EU: What does the EU’s Transport Regulation proposal mean for animals used for scientific purposes?

19 January 2024

In December 2023, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on the protection of animals during transport. The proposal explicitly recognises that animals transported for scientific purposes are covered by the Regulation. However, the lack of species-specific provisions addressing crucial factors such as fitness for transport and journey times raises deep concerns.

Since the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, the European Commission has not taken specific actions concerning the welfare of animals transported for scientific purposes. Despite the stress, suffering, and elevated risk of injury that these animals may experience during transport, there has been a notable absence of measures to ensure their welfare. 

Data on the transport of animals used for scientific purposes to and within the EU has been scarce, with only minimal information available in EC and Member State reports on statistics.

The Commission’s proposal now explicitly includes the transport of animals used for scientific purposes within the scope of the Transport Regulation. The proposal acknowledges that “while a distinction can be made with regard to the purpose for which these animals are transported, their welfare should be guaranteed”.

However, the Commission continues to leave these animals unprotected, arguing that “due to the strict requirements on the quality of animals needed for research and testing”, and because “scientific procedures may require the use of animals that can potentially be considered unfit for transport according to this Regulation”, “it would be neither coherent nor acceptable to include them completely in the scope of this Regulation”.

In particular, species-specific provisions relating to fitness for transport, watering and feeding intervals, journey times, temperatures and rest periods, and the assessment and recording of conditions of animals on arrival do not apply to the transport of animals used for scientific purposes. These exemptions are particularly alarming in the context of animals transported over long distances. 

Regardless of the purpose for which animals are being transported, the needs and welfare concerns of a particular species remain the same. Whether they are categorised as farm animals, companion animals, or animals used for scientific purposes, individuals of the same species with comparable physiological conditions have common requirements in terms of journey times, resting periods, temperatures and access to water and food. The exception is made for vulnerable animals such as genetically altered animals, animals that have undergone surgery, animals that are disease ‘models’, pregnant animals, and lactating and newborn animals which require special provisions. 

Proper assessment and recording of the condition of animals on arrival is also missing. These aspects include elements such as the number of animals that died and any health or physical problems, including injuries that occurred during the transport, which are crucial to increase the traceability and transparency of transport operations, and to enable the enforcement of the Regulation.

The proposal also lacks provisions addressing the air transport of animals, including non-human primates. Most non-human primates used for scientific purposes in the EU are born outside of the EU, mainly in Africa and Asia, and imported. These animals suffer long journey times by air and by road in small crates that leave little room for the animals to even turn around. Travel times of up to 58 hours are not uncommon, and in some cases may exceed 70 hours. Directive 2010/63/EU recognises that an increase in transport times may negatively impact on the welfare of animals used for scientific purposes bred outside the EU. Animals transported by air may face different challenges, including extended waiting periods with restricted access to water and food, exposure to high temperatures, stress-inducing loading and unloading, and the risk of incorrect handling by untrained staff.

While we recognise the positive step forward in bringing the transport of animals used for scientific purposes within the scope of the revised Transport Regulation, we are deeply concerned by the limited protection proposed.

Eurogroup for Animals calls for the following amendments:

  • All provisions outlined in the Transport Regulation, including fitness for transport, watering and feeding intervals, journey times, temperatures, rest periods, and assessment and recording of conditions on arrival, must apply to the transport of animals used for scientific purposes, providing for certain exemptions where necessary;
  • Species-specific provisions must be included in Annexe I;
  • The needs of vulnerable animals must be addressed;
  • Appropriate provisions for animals transported by air must be included.

Regards Mark 

Environmental, General News, Hunting

Trophy hunting helps conservation? The industry’s biggest myths debunked.

18 January 2024

Four Paws

Despite the ever-growing biodiversity crisis, it is still legal to hunt endangered species for trophies, with elephants, rhinos, leopards, lions and polar bears often falling victim to this cruel practice.

The EU is the second largest importer of hunting trophies worldwide, with nearly 15,000 hunting trophies of individual animals imported between 2014 and 2018 alone. The industry often uses misguided messaging to justify their actions, but a new report, published by 30 NGOs from across Europe and Africa, scientifically addresses these myths. Here are just a few:

Myth: Trophy hunting helps in conservation efforts

Fact: It negatively impacts populations of endangered and protected species

Hunters often target large or strong animals, jeopardising the gene pool of a population and negatively affecting long-term survival. This also undermines efforts by local communities towards conservation and co-existence, as it normalises the killing of animals for personal pleasure.

Myth: It benefits local communities

Fact: For communities it is a lose-lose situation

The trophy hunting industry is riddled with corruption and mismanagement, maximising profits for hunting officials, hunting tour operators and government officials. Local communities benefit by as little as USD 0.30 and USD 5.90 per capita per year, depending on the country. Often, hunting fees do not even reach local communities.

For most communities, trophy hunting is a lose-lose situation. They lose their wildlife to the rifle of foreign hunters, and fail to profit from the money produced by this deadly business. Trophy hunting not only exploits wildlife and nature, but also robs local communities of their heritage and future existence.

Nick Clark, Wildlife Programme Leader, Eurogroup for Animals

Myth: Trophy hunting prevents poaching

Fact: Poaching and illegal practices are rampant in hunting areas

Evidence shows high poaching incidents in hunting areas, leading to depleted animal populations. This has been especially evident in the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, the largest

hunting area in Africa, where approximately 55,000 elephants were poached between 2007 and

2014, leading to a population decline of 80 %. In some instances, animals migrate from protected areas to reoccupy empty territories in hunting areas, only to end up victims of trophy hunting.

Myth: Trophy hunting reduces human-animal conflicts

Fact: Trophy hunting exacerbates conflicts between humans and animals

Trophy hunters often target large and more mature males, which often disrupts social dynamics, exacerbating conflict with people. As an example, elephants from populations that have been subject to illegal hunting over a period of time often become more responsive towards humans, and may express aggressive behaviour. Hunting can also encourage predators to venture more frequently into human settlements, preying on farm animals as an easily available food source.

There is increased opposition to trophy hunting from the public, member states and NGOs.

The European Parliament has called for an import ban on trophies from protected species, and Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Finland have already implemented, or are in the process of, import restrictions. 81% of citizens from major European trophy importing countries oppose the practice and call for an import ban.

Regards Mark