11 December 2023

Press Release

The long overdue proposal on animal transport is far from enough to protect the billions of animals transported each year, and fails to acknowledge several EFSA opinions on critical issues, presenting a missed opportunity by the European Commission (EC) to improve animal welfare.

Most notably, the proposal still allows for animals to be transported live to non-EU countries, on very long journeys, in which they are unable to benefit from the legal protection they receive in the EU. It is also deeply concerning that the proposed regulation allows for animals to be transported at sea, with no time limit, as, shockingly, sea journeys are exempted from any restriction on this. 

The text does not provide sufficient protection for vulnerable animals such as pregnant ones and unweaned calves. These animals are still going to be transported when they are in very vulnerable states such as late pregnancies, or too young to be able to find food for themselves, or endure incredibly stressful situations like long journeys.

The text does not provide for adequate measures to protect animals in extreme temperatures and humidities, nor does it provide measures on actions required in the case of disruptions. 

Another concern is that many animals are excluded from the new measures, including animals transported for scientific purposes, companion animals and aquatic ones, all of which should have legislation specific to their needs.

The proposal does have some positive aspects, notably, a commitment for real-time traceability for road journey times, updated space allowance and maximum journeys to up to nine hours, however this time limit only applies to animals being transported to slaughter. Animals transported for breeding and fattening can be transported for 42 hours over three days, a limit which is excessive and inconsistent with EFSA’s opinions. Moreover, ships flying “black flags” (severely sub-standard), which at the moment constitute 55% of the EU-approved livestock transport fleet, would no longer be allowed to operate. 

For the first time, the EC made reference to the transition to meat and carcasses, in the objectives of the Regulation. This is particularly timely, following a recent report which shows that switching to this type of export, as opposed to live transport, would not only benefit the animals, but could save up to 2.5 times the costs, and reduce environmental externalities.

Despite its commitment to come forward with a full set of regulations to improve animal welfare by the end of this year, the EC has now failed to publish the three other legislative proposals, most notably the Kept Animals Regulation (KAR), through which the phase out of cages was promised. 

Only updating the live transport rules, and publishing the new proposal on cats and dogs, leaves billions of animals at the mercy of outdated legislation, while it ignores the ask of millions of European citizens for better animal welfare.

This proposal comes only one week after the publication of a report that highlights how official records on live transport are often masked, and the suffering endured by billions of animals each year is much worse than imagined.

It is concerning that after such a long wait the European Commission comes forward with only one of the promised proposals, and one that lacks ambition and fails to protect the welfare of animals during transport, despite the ever-growing evidence of the immense suffering that they endure. The proposal evidently embraces a “business as usual approach” favouring economic benefits over the welfare of the animals. It is now time for the Council and the Parliament to truly reflect the wishes of EU citizens in the legislation.

Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals

Read the full proposal here.

Business case: the benefits of a carcass over a live animal tradeBusiness case: the benefits of a carcass over a live animal trade

9 November 2023

Report

Eurogroup for Animals commissioned Human Behaviour Change for Life (HBCL) to write this report: ‘Business case: the benefits of a carcass over a live animal trade’.

This document considers the business case for a change to the export of carcass meat instead of live animals from the European Union (EU) to third countries. It includes the current economic, environmental, and societal challenges and opportunities that these different approaches present.

The research provides a unique insight into the costs of the trade through the development and use of innovative modelling, frameworks, case studies and evidence-based approaches. It enables the consideration of how a move from live animal export towards a meat and carcass trade could be advantageous for the agricultural sector, the environment, and wider society.

BROWSE TO THIS PUBLICATION

A data dump of suffering: The EU’s long-distance trade in farm animals exposed

28 November 2023

Compassion in World Farming

Report

A cache of unpublished records obtained in summer 2023 reveals disturbing new evidence on the extent and nature of the EU’s trade in farm animals.

The data comprises official planning records relating to more than 180,000 consignments of animals, moving between EU countries and to non-EU countries between October 2021 – April 2023. It clearly shows that the rules for live transport are not robust or detailed enough to truly protect the welfare of animals in the sector.

A joint report by Eurogroup for Animals and Compassion in World Farming.

A data dump of suffering: The EU’s long-distance trade in farm animals exposed | Eurogroup for Animals

Regards Mark

MPs attempt to revive animal welfare measures – BBC News

Animal-loving backbench MPs are trying to breathe new life into welfare legislation quietly dropped by the government last year.

Plans to ban trophy hunting imports, live animal exports and crack down on puppy smuggling were included in the 2019 Conservative election manifesto.

Three MPs are now attempting to get some of these policies into law.

Labour’s John Spellar has launched a Private Members Bill (PMB) to ban hunting trophies.

Two Tory MPs – Selaine Saxby and Anna Firth – have launched separate PMBs to ban live animal exports and make pet abduction a criminal offence.

These two measures were originally included in the Kept Animals Bill, which was dropped by the government over fears it could be used to force a vote on hunting – a deeply divisive issue in the Conservative Party.

On Wednesday, Ms Saxby tabled a PMB to restrict the import of dogs, cats and ferrets to crack down on pet trade.

The RPSCA thanked Ms Saxby for “rescuing” the plans, which they say are crucial for ending puppy farming – where dogs often kept in terrible conditions which would be illegal in the UK, and used to breed multiple litters.

David Bowles, head of public affairs at the RSPCA, said: “Buying an imported puppy leaves new owners open to the very real risk that they are supporting cruel overseas puppy farming.

“We are delighted that Selaine Saxby’s Bill will give the UK government another opportunity to support an end to this cruel trade.”

Ms Firth introduced a PMB to specifically criminalise abducting cats, dogs, and other common pets.

PMBs rarely become law without the support of government, as they do not get the same amount of time dedicated to government businesses.The government has been under pressure to dedicate government time to fresh legislation to fulfil a manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies into Great Britain.

Every year, hunters from the UK travel abroad, often to southern Africa, and pay thousands of pounds to legally shoot animals, such as lions and elephants.

Under current rules, with the right paperwork, they can then bring trophies, such as stuffed heads or horns, back to the UK.

The measures had been expected in government legislation but ministers instead backed a PMB from Conservative MP Henry Smith during the last parliamentary session.

It passed the Commons comfortably, but ran out of time as its face opposition in the House of Lords.

Time for PMBs are allocated by a lottery – 20 MPs are randomly chosen for a chance to debate their bill on one of seven Fridays set aside for this purpose.

The top seven MPs get priority for these debating slots.

Julie Elliott, Labour MP for Sunderland Central, won the top spot in the ballot, giving her first priority. Her PMB seeks to level the banking sector’s competitive field by modernising rules that currently restrict building societies’ lending abilities.

Regards Mark

You bet they are under pressure ! – we will continue to make this an issue right up until election day – about 1 year max away.

The government has been under pressure to dedicate government time to fresh legislation to fulfil a manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies into Great Britain.

From Mark – there is a lot to absorb here from Reineke – I started to underline and bold main points; but almost ended by doing everything !! – thus I stopped. Bad news all round whatever, but what else would you expect from the EU ? – Regards Mark

Photo – PMAF (France)

1 December 2023

Opinion

Written by Reineke Hameleers

A revised Regulation on live animal transport, possibly together with rules on cat and dog breeding, is the only piece of updated legislation that will be put forward in this political term. This is at a time when we, and millions of European Citizens, fully expected the European Commission to deliver on its firm commitment to revise all animal welfare rules.

It is, therefore, all the more striking that the leaked Commission’s legislative proposal on the transport of animals is even less ambitious than we could have imagined.

The general tone is that ‘animal welfare is a common good, but business is business and as few obstacles as possible must be put in its way’. Perhaps the most evident proof is that the extremely controversial live exports to non-EU countries are here to stay, albeit with more restrictions, most notably on the vessels that can be authorised for sea consignments. There is even an explicit recognition that this is a lucrative sector and that someone else would profit from it if the EU decided to withdraw. 

The draft Regulation appears to ignore the European Court of Justice Ruling (C-424/13) establishing that animals must be protected according to EU legislation until their final destination, within or outside the EU territory. According to the new draft rules, the operators who should be reporting any animal welfare problems are the same people in charge of the animals during the journey. The same people who are profiting from the business. We can only imagine how eager these operators will be to report their own violations to the competent authorities.

For the rest, the alignment with the recommendations of the latest scientific opinions commissioned to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is inconsistent, and some of the requests of the Animal Transport Committee of the European Parliament (ANIT) have been disregarded. True, the leaked draft includes some positive elements, among which the most important are the proposed lower maximum journey times for most species, updated space allowances, compulsory real-time traceability of all road journeys, and the minimum age of five weeks for transporting unweaned calves. But, as is often the case, the devil is in the details, and those details are concerning. 

To start with a striking example, unweaned animals (calves, lambs, foals, etc.) are recognised as vulnerable but, thanks to a derogation, can still be transported for two consecutive 9h periods with a 1h period of rest in between (so 19h in total) if the trucks are equipped with specific feeding devices – whose effectiveness the Commission intends to “verify”. As if this weren’t enough, when the journey of unweaned calves is roll-on, roll-off (RORO, meaning that the trucks are partially transported by sea), the time spent at sea is not included in the total journey calculations – as if hunger, dehydration, and exhaustion in unweaned animals (and indeed, in all animals) were not time-dependent. This provision, which is so damaging it beggars belief, to all effects legitimises the Irish dairy calf export trade, which in 2022 involved 153.000 calves (for 2023, the numbers have already increased by 30,000 animals). Dairy calves are sent on 18h RORO crossings to be further transported to fattening or slaughter to international destinations. The current requirement to rest the animals for 12 hours after a long RORO crossing apparently disappeared from the new draft Regulation. Another favour to the industry in plain sight. There is also no real consideration for end-of-production (ie, cull) or pregnant animals, two additional vulnerable categories. 

Only animals that are fit for transport should start a journey. However, although fitness for transport is a prerequisite before an animal can be loaded (and it should be guaranteed for the entire journey), the proposal does not provide any concrete and species-specific ways to assess this fitness. EFSA had proposed a series of animal-based indicators in its last scientific opinions: for instance, severely lame poultry or poultry with open wounds/prolapses, broken legs or wings should not be transported. Similarly, severely lame cattle or cattle with pneumonia should be considered unfit for transport. The operators cannot make informed decisions without clear and species-specific indicators of reasons for excluding a vulnerable animal from starting a journey. The draft Regulation only mandates the use of (yet-to-be-defined) indicators at the destination, but this is insufficient to protect animal welfare for the whole journey. 

Other shortcomings concern the allowed minimum and maximum temperatures for transporting animals. Again, looking at the most recent EFSA recommendations, the proposed ranges of temperatures, particularly the maximum allowed ambient temperatures (30 degrees) for transports during the daytime, are inadequate to guarantee animal welfare. For farmed animals there is no mention of minimum and maximum allowed temperatures inside the trucks or containers, nor does the draft mention compulsory monitoring systems for microclimate inside the vehicles (again, ignoring EFSA’s recommendations). 

All the while, contingency plans, while mandatory, are not described in any detail, posing another hazard to animal welfare in case of traffic disruptions, extreme weather conditions, accidents, disease outbreaks, etc. Throughout the text of the new draft, there is a strong emphasis on the responsibility of organisers, drivers/transporters and staff at the final destination for the welfare of the animals in their care. This is also present in the current Regulation, and it begs the question of why commercial operators should denounce themselves to the competent authorities if their failure to enforce the Regulation leads to animal welfare problems.

Is it all doom and gloom, then? This proposal does have some progressive elements, particularly concerning the real-time traceability of each live animal consignment (which would become compulsory) and the recording of relevant data for enforcement purposes. Additionally, we welcome the proposal that ships flying “black flags” (severely sub-standard), which at the moment constitute 55% of the EU-approved livestock transport fleet, would no longer be allowed to operate. Only ships flying a white or grey flag (good or average performance) would be able to obtain the relevant authorisation certificates. The Commission intends to exercise more control over live animal transport data, but how the data will be used is still unknown, also because they will not be publicly available. The scope is extended to aquatic animals and recognises the most important aspects for their welfare, however, a delegated act will be required to introduce measurable and species-specific requirements, or there will be no impact on aquatic animals from the text in this draft. 

When it comes to companion animals (cats and dogs) the draft presents new species-specific criteria but some provisions are generic and vague. While it’s good to see that the minimum age has been set at 15 weeks, it’s astonishing that there is still no maximum journey time. This means that cats and dogs, even pregnant ones, can be transported for days and days, and the only requirement is to feed them “at least every 24 hours”. 

For animals transported for “scientific purposes”, the details remain again vague. There are limitations: only a proportion of these animals would benefit from such protection. The animals used in projects authorised under Directive 2010/63/EU would remain unprotected. Animals that are transported by air, as non-human primates that are imported to EU laboratories, and vulnerable animals, as for example certain genetically altered animals, and animals that have undergone surgery also seem to miss protection under this proposal.

Will animal welfare be substantially improved should this draft become legislation? From our analysis, the answer is no. 

Regards Mark