Category: General News

Environmental, General News

European Commission to ban beef, soy and palm oil imports linked to deforestation.

 

European Commission to ban beef, soy and palm oil imports linked to deforestation

20 September 2021

The European Commission will propose in the next months a piece of legislation aiming at banning imports of certain products linked to deforestation. Eurogroup for Animals welcomes the initiative, but calls on the Commission to avoid any loopholes that would defeat the purpose of the legislation.

In a bid to minimise the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market, the European Commission will propose by December 2021 a piece of legislation that would encompass product-specific due diligence requirements, and a prohibition of placing deforestation-related commodities on the EU market. This legislation should complement other EU initiatives aiming at further embedding sustainability into corporate governance, such as the upcoming proposals on Due Diligence and non-financial reporting.

The scope will be limited to products with “the highest global contribution to deforestation” such as palm oil, wood, cocoa, coffee, beef and soy. The legislation would apply to all origins, “without geographical indication”, but it would create a system categorising countries into “low, standard and high risks of deforestation”, with simplified due diligence duties for low risk countries, and enhanced scrutiny for high risk ones.

The proposal is interesting for animals in regions of the world where intensive animal agriculture or economic activities fuels deforestation. For instance, by banning imports of palm oil linked to deforestation, the habitats of wild animals such as orangutans and gibbons could be better preserved. Also, the welfare of farmed animals used in intensive productions could be improved, as intensive animal agriculture – which fuels deforestation as requiring crop feed – would be dissuaded. If Mercosur countries are categorised as “high risk countries” – two of the main products responsible for deforestation in Mercosur are beef and soy for animal feed – the legislation could possibly ban or restrict the imports of these products into the EU.

Eurogroup for Animals welcomes this initiative as producers intending to export to the EU would be incentivised to switch to more sustainable food production systems. However, the upcoming legislation must avoid loopholes that would defeat its purpose. For instance, the scope of the legislation needs to be improved as some products that are currently left out contribute to deforestation. Pig and poultry meat are for now excluded, but these animals are most often fed with soy, which largely contributes to deforestation. Avoiding this “distortion” is all the more important as some trade partners of the EU, such as Ukraine, exports significant quantities of poultry meat to the EU under the EU-Ukraine FTA. This means that Ukraine – biggest supplier of poultry meat of the EU – could feed the chicken from which the meat it exports derive with soy linked to deforestation that would be banned in the EU.

The geographical scope of the legislation must include other ecosystems in addition to forests, as the EU’s consumption of beef, soy and palm oil is linked to the destruction of other ecosystems such as grasslands, wetlands, and savannahs. The categorisation system of “low, standard and high risks of deforestation” could open the way for goods which have been produced on illegally deforested land, to be ‘green washed’ through a “low standard” country. 

Considering that agriculture-driven deforestation is permanent (whereas lands that suffer from deforestation caused by fires may regenerate), there is urgency for the EU to uphold its sustainable agenda. The EU must adopt this legislation before the ratification of any FTA with Mercosur. Mercosur is already the largest supplier of beef to the EU,  accounting for 73% of total EU beef imports. If the EU-Mercosur trade deal was implemented as it stands, imports of beef would increase between 30% and 64%. The Ambec report – the impact study commissioned by the French government – concluded that, as it stands, the EU-Mercosur agreement would generate an extra 25% of deforestation in the Amazon in the six years following its entry into force.

Regards Mark

 

General News

Animal abuse on social media: making money from misery

SMACC- Report 2021

A recent report by SMACC (Social Media Animal Cruelty Coalition) documents how animal cruelty is being promoted.

Videos on the social media platforms TikTok, YouTube and Facebook were analyzed for 13 months.

Perhaps the most amazing revelation is that the approximately 5,480 individual videos that were documented were viewed a total of 5,347,809,262 times at the time the report was written.
89.2% of them were hosted on Youtube because they are easier to find there.

In one of the many staged animal rescue videos on YouTube, a dark tiger python wraps around a gibbon.
The great ape is freed by a man who appears at the scene with a video camera, apparently “by chance”.

This staggering number is associated with extreme agony for the animals concerned – and the platforms that host such content have benefited by millions, according to the report.
The data clearly confirm that online content that is cruel to animals is a major global problem.

The five most commonly shown animal species were birds of various species, dogs and cats, wildlife, snakes, and primates.

Social Media Animal Cruelty Coalition (SMACC)

In 2020, founded the Asia for Animals (AfA) network – SMACC – to answer the hundreds of inquiries its member organizations have received.

The main SMACC organizations include: Action for Primates, AnimalsAsia Foundation, Humane Society International, PETA Asia and World Animal Protection.

E-mails and phone calls described horrific animal cruelty to organizations, including the burial of live animals, the mistreatment of companion animals, the setting on fire and the recent fake rescue videos – all posted freely on social media.

According to the SMACC report, the videos found on social media platforms showed animals being drowned, broken limbs, and even how mothers were killed and their babies stolen from them.

The report states that “animals have become silent victims of the hunt for clicks and advertising dollars as videos promoting, encouraging, and benefiting from their abuse become rampant”.

Hunt

The hunting videos regularly feature foxes, hundreds of species of birds and wild boar, as well as animal fights.

Of the 5,480 videos that were recorded, 2,634 were assigned to the topic of “hunting”. These videos often show protracted deaths, extreme suffering, and both legal and illegal hunting methods used by the hunters.

The availability of thousands of hunting videos on social media platforms encourages this cruelty.
It is actively encouraged and normalized while the activity is being sold as “fun and exciting” and at an extreme cost to the wildlife.

The report quotes Nick Stewart, World Animal Protection’s Global Head of Wildlife Campaigns, as saying, “Wild animals are not props, toys, or entertainers; they are sentient beings with a right to life.”

Adam Parascandola of Humane Society International said, “The devastating data uncovered by this research only scratches the surface to reveal the shocking levels of animal cruelty on social media.”

Fake Animal Rescue Videos

Continue reading “Animal abuse on social media: making money from misery” →

General News

Tattoos for animals is cruelty to animals

Text: Together for the Animals (“Gemeinsam für die Tiere”)

In the past you were considered a criminal with a tattoo, but today you are often looked at wrong if you don’t wear one.
But what is common to all people who have the color in the flesh?

They do it voluntarily and accept the associated pain for their little work of art.
Forcing a person to have a tattoo or forcing them to tattoo is coercion, mutilation and grievous bodily harm. And of course punishable!

WHY NOT ALSO IN ANIMALS?
A new trend is emerging among mindless pet owners: Tattoos for Animals.
They have their pigs, dogs, cats etc. decorated with painful pictures.
An animal does not even want a tattoo, nor has it consented to the pain associated with it.

No animal voluntarily lets a needle penetrate its flesh thousands and thousands of times until the injected color forms an image determined by the animal owner.
So it happens with coercion and violence, whereby both the animal keeper and the “artist” can be described as perpetrators.
It’s not a fashion trend, it’s just pure cruelty to animals.

Giving an animal pain for no good reason is against the law: For example, the administrative courts in Germany and Austria have decided – Ergo, it is illegal and must be severely punished, apart from the fact that it is morally reprehensible.

The passage “justified reason” in the legal text can be disputed because, strictly speaking, there is never a justifying reason for violence against other living beings.

We strictly reject this form of alleged art.
Tattoos are for people who get it done of their own free will, but never for animals.
There must be international action here and an offense punished accordingly, for animal keepers and tattooists.

Prison sentences and a lifetime prohibition of practicing the craft of tattooing seem to us only more than fair.
Leave tattoos where they belong: under human skin !!!

Please also all of you sign this petition against this cruel cruelty to animals, the animals will thank you:
https://www.change.org/p/government-stop-animal-tattooing-4c84b801-2bba-4d54-b195-cde4005a4729

And I mean…There are countless photos circulating on the Internet showing dogs and cats with tattoos and nose rings.
How does one get this perverse idea to do something like this to his pet?

Who says animals would agree to wear tattoos? 
There is no question that something like this is reprehensible for ethical reasons and that it is animal cruelty to do such a thing to an animal, because tattooing is pretty painful.

In some countries and after years of pressure from animal rights activists, tattooing or piercing of animals is already banned

In Mexico, for example, animal rights activists campaigned for a ban on tattoos and piercings on animals.
After this pressure, a new draft law should prohibit tattooing on pets for aesthetic reasons and punish the tattooing or piercing of animals with the equivalent of more than 1,000 euros.
The environmental protection commission of the Congress of Mexico City had already unanimously approved the new ban.

In Germany and Austria it is forbidden to have animals tattooed for aesthetic reasons and to cause them pain for no reason.

In New York there has even been an official ban since this year. According to the law, pets are no longer allowed to be tattooed or pierced.
“It’s cruelty to animals, it’s that simple,” said Andrew Cuomo, ex-governor of New York.

In the twenty-first century, after years of fighting over a ban on docking ears and tail for aesthetic reasons, we are still forced to look at shameful photos like these that are still circulating on the internet.
It’s not cool, it’s not aesthetics, it’s a degradation of animal dignity and a cruelty to animals that gets under the skin.

My best regards to all, Venus

Environmental, General News

Environmental Articles To Read.

 

 

Climate change: UN warning over nations’ climate plans

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58600723

US and EU pledge 30% cut in methane emissions to limit global heating

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/17/us-and-eu-pledge-30-cut-in-methane-emissions-to-limit-global-heating

Hole in the ozone layer that develops annually is ‘rather larger than usual’ this year – and is currently bigger than Antarctica, scientists say

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10001063/Ozone-layer-Hole-develops-annually-larger-usual-year-scientists-say.html

Regards Mark

Farm Animals, General News, Uncategorized

EU subsidies and aquaculture – the weakened link.

Photo – Artur Rydzewsk

EU subsidies and aquaculture – the weakened link

13 September 2021

Opinion

Over 1 billion fish are being raised on fish farms in the EU at any one time. These are undomesticated species quite new to being captive in production systems, which are often highly intensive and are themselves new technologies undergoing development. 

While European aquaculture doesn’t have the transparency mechanisms to measure or report welfare conditions and outcomes, mortality rates of 15% to 20% are reported in cage farming in the mediterranean and in third countries that report mortality figures, and the Commission found very limited uptake of the effective stunning technologies commercially available for several fish species.

EU aquaculture and animal welfare policies are pursuing fish welfare objectives, while a new regime governing EU financial support to fisheries and aquaculture has weakened the links between EU investment and EU policy objectives. 

National aquaculture strategies and the implementation of EU financial support mechanisms need a smooth and coordinated implementation by Member States for subsidies to operate in support of policy initiatives and realise improvements in fish welfare. 

When compared to terrestrial farm animals, scientists, producers, policy makers and animal advocates alike were late to understanding fishes’ needs and applying animal welfare approaches to fish in aquaculture. Some milestones were:

  • 2005 the Council of Europe adopted guidelines for fish welfare during farming
  • 2008 EFSA scientific opinion on fish sentience
  • 2009 EFSA scientific opinion on welfare during husbandry and slaughter
  • 2009 The OIE adopted standards for fish welfare during transport and at slaughter
  • 2020 EU Platform on Animal Welfare adopts fish welfare guidelines

With the many EU and external research projects in the intervening years, we now have a wealth of knowledge for practical implementation. Initiatives from sector organisations, third party certifiers, and policymakers seek to apply knowledge to provide a better life and death for farmed fish, improve product quality and resource efficiency, and better meet consumers’ expectations.

In May 2021 the European Commission published its new aquaculture strategy until 2030 which includes fish welfare priorities including developing best practice codes and guidelines, setting validated indicators, providing training, and supporting a transition to lower-trophic species. 

The Farm to Fork Strategy previously committed the EU’s aquaculture policy to being a part of its animal welfare initiatives, and in August 2021 the inception impact assessment of the revision of all EU farm animal welfare legislation included specific options for fish welfare.

The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) 2021 – 2027 regulation seeks to simplify Member States’ administration and programming. One approach to simplification is to only reference high level Union priorities such as sustainable economies and communities, and to maintain weaker links between national and EU aquaculture policies. Opening up the fund for investments to meet legal obligations has also weakened the incentive to invest it now in policy areas marked as important next priorities. This is where the link between the spending of EU funds and the delivery of EU policy is weakened. 

Maintained from the previous regulation is the requirement that financial support is consistent with Member States’ own multiannual national strategic plans, and those plans must themselves use the EU’s aquaculture strategy as their basis. However there is no real requirement that national priorities contribute to specific EU objectives, or even that Member States update their national plans now. Then the EU’s aquaculture strategy is referenced as a more complete set of policy priorities, but there is less impetus for Member States to direct financial support for the delivery of EU policy priorities.

Aquaculture is not an area of exclusive EU competence and Member States operate national policies and licensing regimes specific to their varied geographical and market contexts. Member States should take the fish welfare objectives from the EU’s aquaculture strategy as priorities in their national strategies in support of the moves to advance animal welfare in aquaculture.

The Commission funds aquaculture research and facilitates Member States’ coordination of aquaculture policies, and it needs to do more to provide substance and cohesion for its aquaculture priorities. It needs to look beyond the small portion of the EMFAF that it controls directly and to activate mechanisms in other policy areas including animal welfare. 

Animal welfare policy could consolidate knowledge into implementable indicators and guidelines through a dedicated Animal Welfare Reference Centre.  The Commission could mandate EFSA to provide the necessary knowledge, since its last opinion on fish welfare was more than ten years ago. 

The alternative path is that intensive aquaculture systems continue to evolve without accounting for the needs of the animals. Aquaculture takes the production and reputational losses that are seen with intensive terrestrial agriculture systems, and the fish continue to suffer unnecessarily.

The EU has identified the right fish welfare policy priorities, and they are aligned with voluntary measures being taken widely in the market. The new EU financial support regime (EMFAF) has weakened the explicit links between EU financial support and specific EU aquaculture policy objectives, but Member States can take up the common EU priorities and the Commission should use other mechanisms to provide the necessary resources and cohesion.

 Op-ed by Douglas Waley, Fish Welfare Programme Leader at Eurogroup for Animals

Regards Mark

Environmental, General News, Hunting

Even locals outraged as 1400 dolphins die in Faroese hunt.

Even locals outraged as 1400 dolphins die in Faroese hunt

There has been widespread condemnation after over 1400 Atlantic white-sided dolphins were killed in the Faroe Islands last weekend, believed to be the largest number of dolphins ever killed in the country.

Much of the criticism has come from within the country where usually there is a strong defence of the hunts, which are portrayed by locals as a long-standing tradition providing a necessary supplement to their diet.

The dolphins were herded into a bay on the island of Eysturoy on Sunday after being encountered far out to sea. Even though the hunt was sanctioned by local authorities, it appears there was confusion over the number of dolphins being driven to shore with first estimates putting the number at around 200.

As a result, local reports suggest there were not enough people on the beach to kill the dolphins when it became apparent how many there actually were. The process took several hours as dolphins were left in a distressed state while their fellow pod members were killed with knives.

The meat from the hunt is traditionally distributed to local people but with so many dolphins killed, there are concerns that much of it may have to be discarded.

Find out more about whaling in the Faroe Islands

Even locals outraged as 1400 dolphins die in Faroese hunt – Whale and Dolphin Conservation (whales.org)

Regards Mark

Environmental, General News, Hunting

UK Wrongdoing: Challenge to badger cull due as Bern Convention Bureau considers alleged breach case.

WAV Comment – No final news yet, but we will report as soon as we know.

Regards Mark

Challenge to badger cull due as Bern Convention Bureau considers alleged breach case

13 September 2021

Press Release

Complaint alleges UK Govt in breach of international wildlife treaty obligations after failing to consider cull impact on badger population

A coalition of animal protection groups will have their complaint against the UK Government, alleging a breach of an international wildlife treaty, considered by the Bern Convention as its Bureau meets this week (15 and 16 September). 

The Bern Convention, to which the UK has been a signatory since 1982, aims to ensure the conservation and protection of Europe’s wildlife, and regulates the exploitation of species listed in Appendix III, which includes badgers.

Badger Trust, Born Free Foundation, and Eurogroup for Animals allege that the UK Government’s ongoing badger culling policy places it in clear contravention of its commitments under the Convention. Their complaint challenges whether the UK Government has adequately considered the impact of mass culling of badgers on the badger population and wider biodiversity, and whether there has been any significant disease control benefits to justify the culls. 

The consideration comes just a week after the UK Government announced that badger culling will be ramped up in 2021, with seven new licences issued expanding the cull area and setting maximum kill quotas that could see the highest numbers of badgers killed in a single year since culling began. There are now 61 areas with active cull licences, covering counties from Cornwall to Cumbria, and up to 75,930 badgers could be killed in 2021 – taking the total since the cull began to well over 200,000.

Britain is home to more than 25% of the European badger population. However, with more than 140,000 badgers killed under licence since the cull policy started in 2013, and with culling set to continue until 2025 under recently confirmed UK Government plans, that population is coming under severe pressure. The case was put on “standby” by the Bern Convention in 2020, with a request for further information, the first time a complaint made against the UK Government’s badger culling policy had not been dismissed at the initial stage. 

That the UK government continues to hand out new cull licences not only lays bare claims made by British ministers to be champions for animal welfare, but only serves to showcase a bewildering level of cognitive dissonance. No evidence whatsoever supports the ongoing culls in England, which is why, I suspect, no such evidence demonstrating a disease control benefit has been produced by the British government. We now rely on the other parties to the Convention to hold the UK government to account. England’s badgers — Europe’s badgers — cannot continue to be sacrificed for domestic political expediency.

Reineke Hameleers, CEO of Eurogroup for Animals

Whilst we are grateful that our complaint is at last being reviewed, it has been two years since we initially submitted our complaint in 2019. In that time another over 76,000 badgers have been killed under this failed approach to controlling bovine Tuberculosis – a respiratory disease in cattle that starts and ends with cattle. The latest licences for 2021 alone could take the same amount again, and the cull is set to run to 2025 – so we have years and years of further culling ahead. The impact on the badger population is unknown, and seemingly inconsequential to the UK Government who claim it is coming to an end, but in reality this senseless slaughter continues. We hope for a positive outcome from the Bern Bureau, and a brighter future for Britain’s badgers.

Adam Laidlaw, Executive Director of Badger Trust

The UK Government has hailed its badger culling policy a success. However, after eight years of culling which has seen the destruction of more than 140,000 badgers, representing perhaps a quarter of the UK badger population, evidence for significant disease control benefits among cattle herds in cull areas is lacking, and the Government’s woeful efforts to estimate and monitor targeted badger populations are failing to guarantee their eventual recovery. In spite of this, the Government has issued licences for 2021 which could see a further 75,930 badgers killed. We urge the Bern Convention to take action that will help to bring this inhumane, ineffective, unscientific and unnecessary slaughter of a native, protected wild animal to a permanent end.

Dr Mark Jones, veterinarian and Head of Policy at the Born Free Foundation

ENDS


Notes
A briefing on the complaint can be viewed here.

Final information relating to the complaint was submitted by Badger Trust, Born Free, and Eurogroup for Animals, in July in advance of the meeting this week. 

The original complaint lodged with the Bern Convention in 2019 can be found here.  

Time Out – Enjoy !

Regards Mark