Category: Live Transport

EU: MEP’s Attempt To Deliver A Death Sentence for Nature and the Environment. Would You Expect Anything Else From the Gutless ?

The European Parliament in Strasbourg - Multimedia Centre

WAV Comment: We hope that by their actions against the call for change by humble EU citizens; as well as causing a death sentence for nature with their ‘extinction machine’ approach; MEPs are directing themselves very well into making ‘their place’ another ‘extinction machine’.  ‘Normal’ people (such as EU citizens) will only take so much, and like the fellow (ex EU) citizens of the UK; it will not be long before other EU nations see sense and decide that they can do better by going it alone and walking away from the useless calamity named Members of the European Parliament (MEP).  Like the UK having left; this will mean that there are no longer MEPs representing their member state.  By its own internal actions, the EU is destroying itself due to sucking up to the lobbyists whilst ignoring the people; many (not all) gutless MEPs who wish to hide behind the EU ‘system’ and the untold damage it is doing to nature and the environment as a result.

Quote from the following article – “Earlier this year, 3,600 scientists called for an overhaul of the CAP, warning that it was a central driver of the biodiversity and climate emergencies as it funded practices that cause significant biodiversity loss, climate change, and soil, land and water degradation.

The new CAP document deletes “the need for farmers to have a tool for more sustainable use of nutrients”, Ms Bradley said, pointing out that agriculture is the biggest source of nitrate pollution in EU waters, responsible for dead zones and toxic algae”.

Death sentence on nature': MEPs accused of turning European agricultural  policy into 'extinction machine' | The Independent

Premium Photo | Hand holding tree. concept eco day

Article: The Independent; London.

‘Death sentence on nature’: MEPs accused of turning European agricultural policy into ‘extinction machine’

‘There are no reasons to spend a third of the EU budget on industrial agriculture which drives biodiversity loss and worsens the climate crisis,’ says critic

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/eu-agricultural-policy-cap-mep-vote-reform-farming-climate-change-extinction-b1226540.html

Members of the European Parliament have been accused signing “a death sentence” on nature, the climate and small farms after they rejected a series of eco-friendly reforms.

MEPs voted against proposals to cut subsidies for factory farming and to protect grasslands and peatlands – a major storage reservoir of greenhouse gases.

One critic said the vote on the EU agriculture reform package would bring extinction closer for many species after it failed to offer incentives for farmers to reduce their environmental impact.  

Saker Falcon (c) | Raptors bird, Pet birds, Beautiful birds

Above – Here today – EU gone tomorrow

BirdLife Europe said the politicians voted to make the policy “an extinction machine”, adding: “Nature has lost this battle.”

Now environmentalists are pressuring MEPs before a final vote by the full parliament tomorrow (Friday).

How EU farm subsidies are abused by oligarchs and populists

The votes on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), funded by nearly €400bn (£350bn), will shape farming in the block for the next seven years.

A deal by the largest groups in the European Parliament – the European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists & Democrats (S&D) and Renew Europe – involved lowering environmental conditions attached to the policy. And MEPs voted against an emissions-reduction target for agriculture of 30 per cent.

Harriet Bradley, an agriculture policy expert at BirdLife Europe, said the decisions meant the world was “one step closer to extinction for many species”.

She said perhaps “one of the most shocking and spiteful” votes to environment was that “in the unlikely event that agri ministries are queuing up to fund environmental schemes, they shall be prevented [from doing so] by maximum spends on environmental measures”.

A ban on converting grasslands in biodiversity-rich nature-protected areas was lifted, so more could be turned into maize fields, she reported.

The intensification of agriculture, including pesticide use, fuels carbon dioxide emissions and pollution, a key factor in nature destruction, including the decline of farmland birds and pollinators.

WWF accuses EU commission of ‘deliberately harming climate action’

Earlier this year, 3,600 scientists called for an overhaul of the CAP, warning that it was a central driver of the biodiversity and climate emergencies as it funded practices that cause significant biodiversity loss, climate change, and soil, land and water degradation.

The new CAP document deletes “the need for farmers to have a tool for more sustainable use of nutrients”, Ms Bradley said, pointing out that agriculture is the biggest source of nitrate pollution in EU waters, responsible for dead zones and toxic algae.

Ecoschemes will fund new spraying machines that could potentially cause damage if used to kill insects and weeds, she added.

“This is about how 400bn of taxpayers money is going to be spent in the make-or-break decade for #climate and #biodiversity,” she tweeted.

Greenpeace’s EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: MEPs have signed a death sentence for nature, climate and small farms, which will keep disappearing at an alarming rate. For over 60 years, European farm policy has been blind to farming’s impact on nature, rewarding farmers for producing more or expanding their farms.  

“The EU Parliament is wilfully continuing that destruction while scientists warn that farming must change to tackle the climate crisis and protect nature.”

Ecologist Carola Rackete tweeted: “There are no reasons at all to spend a third of the EU budget on industrial agriculture which drives biodiversity loss on land and worsens the climate crisis.”

A report earlier this week by the EU environment agency said unsustainable farming, forestry and the sprawl of urbanisation were degrading the health of Europe’s animals and natural habitats.

The report showed more than half of pollution pressure on biodiversity came from agricultural practices, stating the current CAP did not provide enough funding.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg tweeted: “No matter what the EU climate target for 2030 will be, reaching it with a business-as-usual common agricultural policy will be basically impossible. So the MEPs voting in favour of #FutureofCAP final vote tomorrow will be responsible for surrendering on our future.”

WWF accused politicians of being “in a state of complete denial about the biodiversity and climate crises”.

A European Parliament spokesman said: “There are nearly 2,000 votes on CAP reform this week to three separate reports addressing common market rules, national strategic plans and future financing.

“As with many issues, there are political forces pulling in both directions, so the end result is inevitably a compromise.  But this would represent a greener CAP than we currently have as it provides a number of incentives for farmers to produce more sustainably.”

A third of the budget would be for “green” initiatives, assistance to smaller farms and capping payments to large agri-businesses, he said.

Negotiations will take place over the coming weeks to hammer out a deal between the parliament and the European Council.

The EU Council said ministers had voted for financial support for eco-friendly farming; to increase rewards for farmers more committed to greening and to help smaller farmers embrace the green transition.

Regards Mark

Opportunity to Provide Expertise at the European Parliament - Interview  with Alexandre Mathis | INOMICS

21/10/20 – Big Breaking News from Peta. Egypt has Announced Plans to BAN Camel and Horse Rides Around the Giza Pyramids.

21/10/20 – Big breaking news from Peta.

Dear Mark,

We have fantastic news: after more than a year of pressure from PETA, our affiliates, and over 180,000 compassionate supporters –  Egypt has announced plans to ban camel and horse rides around the Giza pyramids.

Thank you for helping to make this happen!

Animal abuse has no place at Egypt’s majestic tourist destinations. The camels and horses used for rides around the Giza pyramids and in the archaeological areas are regularly beaten and forced to cart visitors around on their backs or in carriages in the blistering heat, without access to food, water, or shade.

While this plan doesn’t ban all animal rides across the country, soon, the camels and horses animals at Giza will be replaced by electric cars and buses, as recommended by PETA.

Now, let’s ask Greece to follow in Egypt’s footsteps and switch to animal-free transportation on Santorini.

Please join PETA in calling on the Greek prime minister and minister for agricultural development and food to ban cruel donkey and mule rides immediately:

https://secure.peta.org.uk/page/67583/action/1?utm_source=PETA%20UK::E-Mail&utm_medium=Alert&utm_campaign=1020::ent::PETA%20UK::E-Mail::Santorini%20Donkey::::aa%20em&ea.url.id=4963288&forwarded=true

Regards Mark

Spain: How much is enough? New evidence shows the suffering of animals exported from Spain to Middle East for slaughter.

How much is enough? New evidence shows the suffering of animals exported from Spain to Middle East for slaughter

The investigation carried out by Eurogroup for Animals’ members Animals International and Animal Welfare Foundation (AWF) in collaboration with Igualdad Animal and Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), reveals the suffering of Spanish animals exported to the Middle East. This is the umpteenth evidence showing the cruelty linked with this trade: Eurogroup for Animals urges the EU to bring an end to the needless suffering and to take a step toward meat/ carcasses only trade.

This summer more than 346,800 cattle and sheep have been exported from Spain to the Middle East and North Africa – just to be slaughtered. Libya, despite the ongoing conflict, remains one of the main importers of live animals from Spain, together with Lebanon, Algeria, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco being the main destinations. 

As shown by countless footage and images collected in the past 10 years by NGOs, EU animals exported to non-EU countries travel for many hours, even days, in critical conditions, and face brutal slaughter practices at arrival which are not even in line with the standards set by World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) to guarantee a minimum level of animal welfare at the time of slaughter.

The evidence collected in Spain by Animals International and AWF this summer, in collaboration with Igualdad Animal and CIWF, shows livestock consignments that should have never been approved because of the high temperatures exceeding the maximum range set by the Council Regulation 1/2005 (EU Transport Regulation) for the authorisation of such journeys.

Indeed, with more than 34 degrees at the port of Cartagena, the investigators recorded signs of heat stress in the animals that remained confined into the trucks for many hours before being loaded into the vessels. Scared and exhausted, the footage released today shows animals at the ports of Cartagena and Tarragona being moved with violent methods explicitly forbidden by the EU Transport Regulation (i.e  by lifting or dragging the animals by their heads, ears, legs or horns or manipulating them in a way that causes them unnecessary pain or suffering).

Some of these animals were also clearly unfit to travel as severely injured and for them the continuation of the journey should have never been allowed. In some cases, in a desperate attempt to escape, some animals fell into the sea without being noticed by the port operators and the authority appointed to ensure the welfare of the animals transported.

Eurogroup for Animals’ members documented for the first time ever the presence of Spanish animals in a Lebanese slaughterhouses, where untrained operators were filmed while putting their hands in the eyes of the animals to move them. Given the high volume of farmed animals exported to non-EU countries by Spain (Spain is the first and the second EU exporter of, respectively, cattle and sheep), it is likely that the same fate befell many other sentient beings departing from the Spanish ports. In 2019 the exports of live animals increased by 28% compared to 2018, that year 901,392 animals (cattle and sheep) were sent by sea. The first EU exporter for sheep is Romania.

Spain also imports calves from all over the EU to fatten them: these animals are very often unweaned and once fattened are slaughtered either in Spain or in Third Countries with practices that are not allowed by the Council Regulation 1099/2009 (EU Slaughter Regulation).

Read more at source

El Mundo

Australia: Coronavirus Outbreak on ‘Al Messilah’ Livestock Carrier at Fremantle Port Sees 24 MORE Crew Members Test Positive Within 24 Hours.

WAV Comment (Mark): 

Despite the overwhelming wishes of the Australian people to stop live exports; the government seems to ignore them and continue to bow and make excuses for support of the trade.  If I lived in Freemantle and heard this news I don’t think I would be very impressed with this situation.

Sems that the Health Minster and the WA Premier have now got a bit of a problem here.

The authorities want to ‘remove the ship so that it can be cleaned’ !

If Australia did not have the live animal export trade then there would be no (live export ship) crew infections; no risk to the people of Freemantle (Health Minister Roger Cook said authorities were working to get as many people as possible off the ship and into hotel quarantine) – so sick crew now being taken ashore into a hotel reduces the risk, does it ?

We say Karma to the government – sadly, people may die as a result of all this; livestock ship crew being taken ashore ? – increasing the chances of infection to other land based folk no doubt.  If the government has to keep on dreaming up excuses for the vile trade to continue; them let them dream up excuses for this new situation.

If the citizens of Australia don’t like it – then get them out !

You know how ‘Mr Coal’ failed you in the recent fires !

Further to our very recent post re Covid on a livestock ship docked in Freemantle:

It now seems to be getting much larger within a day – 24 crew now seem to have tested positive.

Source:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-19/another-24-cases-of-coronavirus-on-al-messilah-at-fremantle-port/12782686

Coronavirus outbreak on Al Messilah livestock carrier at Fremantle Port sees 24 more crew members test positive

Another 24 crew members on board a livestock carrier docked at Fremantle Port in Western Australia have tested positive for coronavirus, as a move to phase 5 of eased COVID-19 restrictions has again been delayed in the state.

Key points:

  • The 24 infected crew members remain on the Al Messilah in Fremantle
  • Authorities want to remove people from the ship so it can be cleaned
  • WA’s phase 5 restrictions have been delayed but there is relief for venues

One crew member from the Al Messilah ship had already been diagnosed and brought onshore to quarantine in a hotel.

The other 51 crew from a number of countries remain on the ship, which was scheduled to be loading stock but has now been delayed.

Health Minister Roger Cook said authorities were working to get as many people as possible off the ship and into hotel quarantine to allow for deep cleaning of the vessel.

WA Premier Mark McGowan said it was possible there could be “further positive results in coming days”.

“It is becoming clear that ships arriving with COVID-19 on board is one of the weakest links and the biggest risk to our way of life in Western Australia,” he said.

Mr McGowan demanded the Commonwealth “step up” and work with other jurisdictions on the issue, saying WA received around 30 vessels to its ports every day.

“We need a coordinated, international approach to this and we need our Federal Government to take international action,” he said.

Move to phase 5 restrictions delayed

WA’s tentative date to move to phase 5 of eased COVID-19 restrictions had been pencilled in to begin this weekend.

It would have seen the 2-square-metre-per-person rule abolished along with the 50 per cent capacity limit at major venues.

Mr McGowan said WA would extend phase 4 restrictions for now, but the 2-square-metre rule would be modified.

Regards Mark

Australia: Chances They (Governments) Take With Live Animal Exports – Crew Member from the ‘Al Messilah’ Livestock Carrier Docked in Fremantle Has Tested Positive for COVID-19.

On top of the new cases confirmed from tests overnight, Health Minister Roger Cook today confirmed a crew member from the Al Messilah livestock carrier docked in Fremantle has tested positive for COVID-19.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/deeply-concerning-pattern-covid-outbreaks-detected-in-two-livestock-ships-docked-off-wa-20201017-p5661p.html

https://thewest.com.au/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-crew-on-key-integrity-in-geraldton-and-al-messilah-ships-in-fremantle-infected-with-covid-19-ng-b881696059z

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-17/crew-member-on-bulk-carrier-in-geraldton-tested-for-covid-19/12777364

Regards Mark

England: ‘Banksy’ and Animal Rights.

 

WAV Comment – Banksy is a more than fabulous anonymous English street artist.  He has been known also for his involvement with animal rights.  True to form, below you can see a couple of his ‘projects’ in New York relating to live animal transport (one of our main issues), and the abuse of animals linked to the pet industry.

Banksy’s name and identity remain unconfirmed and the subject of speculation. In a 2003 interview with Simon Hattenstone of The Guardian,

Banksy is described as “white, 28, scruffy casual—jeans, T-shirt, a silver tooth, silver chain and silver earring. He looks like a cross between Jimmy Nail and Mike Skinner of the Streets.”

Banksy began as an artist at the age of 14, was expelled from school, and served time in prison for petty crime. According to Hattenstone, “anonymity is vital to him because graffiti is illegal”. For 10 years in the late 1990s, Banksy lived in Easton, Bristol, then moved to London around 2000.

He does all this and he stays anonymous. I think that’s great. These days everyone is trying to be famous. But he has anonymity.

 

Banksy loses art trademark battle with greeting card company in  'devastating' ruling | The Independent

Banksy's Latest Mural Is a Haunting Take on Air Pollution - EcoWatch

Confined, Banksy redecorates his bathroom with an exclusive work of art -  Sortiraparis.com

Banksy: Well Hung Lover

Banksy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pseudonymous England-based graffiti artist, political activist, and painter

Banksy is an anonymous England-based street artist, political activist, and film director, active since the 1990s. His satirical street art and subversive epigrams combine dark humour with graffiti executed in a distinctive stenciling technique. His works of political and social commentary have been featured on streets, walls, and bridges throughout the world. Banksy’s work grew out of the Bristol underground scene, which involved collaborations between artists and musicians. Banksy says that he was inspired by 3D, a graffiti artist and founding member of the musical group Massive Attack.[5]

Banksy displays his art on publicly visible surfaces such as walls and self-built physical prop pieces. Banksy no longer sells photographs or reproductions of his street graffiti, but his public “installations” are regularly resold, often even by removing the wall they were painted on. A small number of Banksy’s works are officially, non-publicly, sold through Pest Control. Banksy’s documentary film Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) made its debut at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. In January 2011, he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for the film. In 2014, he was awarded Person of the Year at the 2014 Webby Awards.[10]

Regards Mark

EU: The Tester – Will the European Parliament Listen to 94% of EU Citizens and Make the Future of CAP Animal Welfare-Friendly; or Not ?

WAV Comment – For Years we and many others have given the utter proof that animal welfare does not work in the EU at this current time. 20/10/20 will be a real tester of the EU and its Parliament to see what happens.

Will the voices of 94% of EU citizens who believe it is important to protect the welfare of farmed animals be heard and acted on ? – or will they be sidetracked and ignored ?

We will report on what happens after the date.

Regards Mark

Will the European Parliament make the Future of CAP animal welfare-friendly?

14 October 2020

On 20 October 2020, the European Parliament will vote on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2021-2027. With a lot at stake, MEPs will also vote on whether the new CAP will finally be able to deliver toward its objective of ‘promoting animal welfare’.

An overwhelming majority (94%) of EU citizens believe it is important to protect the welfare of farmed animals. Additionally,  in the most recent EU wide survey on European, Agriculture and the CAP in the latest Eurobarometer, citizens listed animal welfare as the second most important responsibility farmers should have in today’s society.

The reform of the CAP provides numerous opportunities to take into consideration these citizens’ demands on animal welfare. 

On 20/10/20, Members of the European Parliament will vote on what the future CAP will look like and whether animal welfare will be an integral part of the programme from 2021 to 2027.

Eurogroup for Animals and its members call on the MEPs’ support of improving enforcement of animal welfare legislation (conditionality measures), and promote best practices on farm animal welfare (in the newly created eco-schemes and under the in Pillar II listed measures for rural development plans). 

What is the CAP ?

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the first, biggest, and one of the few pieces of legislation entirely decided at the EU level. The CAP accounts for almost half of the EU’s entire budget – around 58 billion euros yearly. In paying European farmers in exchange for producing food in a certain way, the CAP determines which type of farming practices are likely to thrive in the EU. 

What we call the “CAP” is in fact a series of regulations: four regulations under the current CAP; reduced to three for the next CAP reform. The Regulation on Strategic Plans, which determines rules for payments to farmers (so called “Pillar I”) and the measures for rural development plans, which are essentially bonuses afforded to producers who undertake good practices (so-called “Pillar II”). The Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation relates to technical measures supporting production and consumption, such as promotional measures, regulation on denomination of food products, and all the measures actionable during crisis (surplus stocking for instance). Unlike the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation, the CMO regulation is not regulating payments, but technical measures to regulate the agri-food market. Finally, the Horizontal Regulation mostly provides for penalty measures. All three regulations have tremendous effects on the number of animals produced, and the ways in which they are treated.

Does the present CAP take animal welfare into account ?

Yes. The EU is the only  jurisdiction in the world to include an animal welfare component in its agricultural policy. This, more than the enactment of animal welfare legislation, contributes to the exceptionalism of the EU when it comes to the taking into account of  animal welfare in policies. The articulation between the CAP and animal welfare is instrumental to achieve the objectives set in EU animal welfare laws, since the CAP is  the one piece of legislation which most affects the lives of the seven billion farm animals raised and slaughtered each year in the EU.

Even though the CAP contains only a few provisions on animal welfare, these provisions affect greatly the treatment of farm animals in our union.

To understand the extent to which CAP and animal welfare intersects, it is important to know how it is structured. The CAP is divided into two main “pillars”, with:

  • Pillar I, which grants farmers subsidies in exchange for producing agricultural products: crops for human or animal consumption, and livestock. Under Pillar One, EU law requires that all farmers receiving payments should be submitted to additional inspection to ensure they comply with minimal legislation on animal welfare. A livestock producer who fails to comply with certain minimal requirements – such as providing enrichment materials for pigs – will receive a reduced amount of subsidies. This measure is popular among EU citizens, with 82% in favor of reducing subsidy payments for noncompliance (Eurobarometer, 2016). 
     
  • Pillar II provides additional funding for good practices that go beyond legal requirements. Member States have the possibility to offer a series of financial aids to those farmers who commit to improve animal welfare beyond legal requirements, by providing them support to help them transition to or maintain more humane production models. For example, to farmers who raise free range chickens. 

The CAP as. In fact, animal welfare requirements as an eligibility criterion for subsidies were included in the CAP in the early 2000s, but it wasn’t enough to prevent the proliferation of intensive farming. 

As a result, cruel practices are becoming increasingly common on European farms – in France, the UK, Poland and Spain, to name a few countries. The present CAP will expire in 2020 and a new one is being discussed in the European Parliament and Council. 

The EU’s subsidy scheme is in need of reform to ensure it meets our societies’ biggest challenges and expectations concerning our food system. Yet the reforms addressed so far are limited to the administrative intricacies of payment redistribution by the European Commission and the Member States: a shame, given the considerable effect the CAP has on animal welfare and its potential to improve food policies.

What are the limits to the inclusion of animal welfare into the CAP ?

Circling back to the compliance requirements on animal welfare under Pillar I, the CAP doesn’t cover all species – poultry welfare requirements are still excluded, for instance, despite the fact that there are two specific pieces of EU legislation imposing minimum welfare standards for laying hens and for broilers. Even for animals which are included in the CAP’s welfare provisions, compliance is not always guaranteed. For example, the EU Court of Auditors recently found that not all farms receiving money from Pillar I were being checked for adherence to the CAP’s welfare provisions, with some Member States’ inspection systems leaving farms – sometimes those most in risk of violations – outside their scope.

As for Pillar II, even though some Member States may have specifically chosen to fund animal welfare practices that go the extra mile, not all of them actually spent according to that express intention under the current CAP – 16 out of 28 Member States only, and for an amount totalling only 1.5% of the entire pillar. Secondly, while you would think if a farmer is getting Pillar II subsidies for the extra animal welfare measures, he or she would also be complying with the legal requirements of Pillar One, the EU Court of Auditors has revealed that this is not the case. Examples include farmers who are providing more space per pig than is required by EU law while not complying with minimal legal requirements in other areas, such as painful tail docking. An additional issue is that in listing the best practices they choose to fund under Pillar Two, Member States often incentivise those that are detrimental to animal welfare. Funding for modernisation could lead to the building of a state-of-the-art intensive farm, for example. 

In fact, the issue of animal welfare in the CAP goes beyond gaps in enforcement, and has more to do with the general objectives of the CAP itself. 

Since its creation in the early 1960s, the CAP has incentivised the increase in production of animal-based food products; first as a way to ensure EU’s food security, and more recently to gain global market share. By doing so, it has undermined an already weak animal welfare policy objective. At its current level, the CAP gives revenue to farmers for raising animals for consumption purposes to such an extent that animal agriculture accounts for 40% of the EU’s agricultural production, according to Eurostat’s Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery statistics from 2018. As a result, production methods have been further industrialised, making extreme confinement and painful mutilations the norm in EU animal agriculture. By incentivising the production of animals for food, the CAP also influences consumer patterns. Firstly, the more animals are produced for food, the more consumers will find animal products in supermarkets, and the cheaper those products will be. Secondly, to maintain consumption levels of animal products, certain intensive producers benefit from opportunities available under the CAP such as the EU’s marketing campaigns to promote and sell their products. For instance, certain Italian PDO pork producers have continued to benefit from these opportunities despite repeatedly violating minimal EU animal welfare standards. Similarly, the CAP gives privileged access to specific markets with programmes such as the EU “School Scheme,” providing milk to school kids across the EU, but also enabling producers to use European schools as a dumping ground for an overproduced commodity while influencing young Europeans’ food habits. 

What can MEP’s do to make sure the new CAP will be fairer for all; including animals

Not only has the CAP neglected to properly take animal sentience into account, it has led to a broken food system which fails animals, farmers, consumers and citizens alike. The CAP reform is a unique opportunity to reverse the trend of industrial farm animal production. To further the EU’s mandate to respect animal sentience, we must demand that the cruelest forms of animal exploitation must be ineligible for any type of public funding (subsidies and market measures), higher welfare systems rewarded and inspection systems in EU States strengthened throughout the Union. Only this would make the CAP consistent with the EU Treaty, and the EU a credible role model for animal welfare for the rest of the world.

The European Parliament, therefore, needs to (1) support enhanced conditionality on animal welfare; all directives on animal welfare should be included in conditionality, and conditionality should be extended to both pillars; (2) support funding to incentivise producers to transition towards more humane systems; under Pillar I with the newly-created eco-schemes; under Pillar II by making Animal Welfare Measure (“Measure 14”) mandatory in all national  rural development plan.

Regards Mark.

For those old fossils in the UK like me; you will know about Led Zepp.

Here is Planty with 29 Palms – a great track:

Ireland: Illegal Shipments of Calves From Rosslare Port.

There were plenty of livestock trucks at Rosslare Port yesterday evening boarding the Stena Line Horizon – you can hear the calves bawling, already hungry and tired. Over 24 hours with no feed is not only inhumane it is illegal

@StenaLine

@McConalogue

#BanLiveExport

In the immortal words of Jim Morrison of the doors. “The time for hesitation’s through. There’s no time to wallow in the mire. We can only lose….& our love become a funeral pyre”. #BanLiveExports it’s time to act, be brave & stand up to the bad guys once & for all.

UK: BBC news sheds light on UK calves exported to the Middle East.

BBC news sheds light on UK calves exported to the Middle East

8 October 2020

Animals International

Eurogroup for Animals’ member organisations, Animal Welfare Foundation (AWF) and Animals International, gathered footage this summer, which for the first time confirmed that UK calves exported to Spain, are often shipped to the Middle East for slaughter.

With segments on Radio 4’s Farming Today, BBC 2 News, and the BBC News Channel, the BBC has released evidence gathered over the summer by Eurogroup for Animals’ members Animals International and the AWF.

Despite the UK’s claim of not exporting animals for slaughter purposes and the active campaign carried out by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) to Ban Live Exports, the investigations carried out by Eurogroup for Animals’ members clearly show that it happens to UK animals to end up in Third Countries’ abattoirs.

Indeed, the footage shows that calves exported on long journeys from the UK (Northern Ireland) to Spain to be fattened for beef are often then exported on further journeys to the Middle East.

“We found animals with UK earring tags being slaughtered in Lebanon as well as a UK bull at the harbour in Cartagena (ES) ready to be loaded on a vessel headed for Libya”, said Gerit Weidinger, EU-Coordinator Animals International that for many years has investigated the awful conditions of the EU animals in Third Countries’ abattoirs. The footage published by BBC shows animals being thrown onto the floor and being dragged or suspended by their limbs while still conscious.

The UK currently exports some animals for breeding. Unweaned male calves are considered by-products of the dairy industry and their transport is particularly problematic because of the extremely fragile conditions of these young animals and their needs. AWF has been working on this issue for many years and restlessly reported about the animal welfare issues behind this trade. Only in 2019, the UK exported around 17,000 calves to Spain, the majority from Northern Ireland. Once reached Spain these animals are typically fattened on farms before being slaughtered or re-exported. In June this year,  AWF filmed a UK calf being moved outside of its pen and left to die. “The calf was suffering from a respiratory illness, which is common after long, stressful journeys with little food or milk replacement”.  

To avoid animal suffering and avoid the law being circumvented, it is key to stop any EU and UK export to non-EU countries

Read more at source

BBC

Regards Mark

UK: The Guardian (UK National Press) View on Animal Welfare: Keep It Up !

WAV Comment: The Guardian – UK national press – great as always.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/17/the-guardian-view-on-animal-welfare-keep-it-up

The Guardian view on animal welfare: keep it up

Hard-won protections for both humans and livestock are under threat – and worth fighting for.

Hunting, scientific experimentation, entertainment, the keeping of pets, farming, fishing, habitat destruction: there is no one story about the way that humans use animals – and cause them to suffer. So far, the UN reported this week, our collective efforts to protect wildlife globally have not succeeded. All 20 of the Aichi biodiversity targets agreed in Japan a decade ago have been missed.

But a gloomy big picture must not blind us to smaller, positive changes. In January, wild animals in circuses became illegal in Britain. Last month, the use of glue traps to catch birds was stopped by President Macron in France.

Historically, the UK has played an important part in the development of laws protecting animals. Along with Sweden, it led the way on welfare rules in Europe with an influential report, setting out “five freedoms” to which farm animals should be entitled, published in 1965. The freedoms were the space to turn around, lie down, stand up, stretch, and groom. Having been made law in the UK in 1990, a ban on rearing veal calves in crates became EU-wide in 2006. It was followed by a ban on crates for pregnant sows.

Yet this record, of which many British people are rightly proud, is now in danger. Despite committing in their 2019 manifesto to uphold the UK’s environmental, animal and food standards, Conservative ministers are now refusing to rule out allowing imports from countries, including the US, that have no federal animal welfare standards at all. Instead of a ban on meat or dairy produced under conditions that would be illegal here, the government proposes a dual-tariff system, under which goods that don’t meet domestic standards would be charged more on entry.

So far, chlorine-washed chicken has been the main bone of contention in the debate over the place of US agribusiness in the post-Brexit food system. The safety concerns surrounding the use of chlorine, as well as the antibiotics and hormones routinely fed to US farm animals to promote growth, and GM ingredients, are all serious issues. Dilution of hard-won protections against food poisoning and other health effects, and an increased risk of environmental damage, is not what the majority of Brexit supporters thought (or were told) that they were voting for when they chose to leave the EU.

But animal welfare is also an important factor. So is the regulatory framework governing the treatment of workers. While it must not be assumed that the giant animal factories in which US meat production is concentrated necessarily have lower hygiene and other standards than smaller or European farms, many experts believe that huge numbers of animals kept in close proximity represent a health hazard to humans, as well as causing suffering to both animals and workers.

There is no call for starry eyes. Current standards leave much to be desired. An EU inquiry into the flouting of livestock transport laws was announced in June. The shocking extent of poverty in the UK, after 10 years of austerity and in the middle of a pandemic, means that food price rises are a serious worry. But while this might make the prospect of cheaper food tempting, deregulation is not the answer.

Instead, we must keep fighting for a food system that balances human needs and tastes with values.

For wonderful John – a guy that always did more than his share:

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2019/04/25/england-another-terrible-loss-john-callaghan/

Regards Mark

Doing my bit at Dover harbour in the past – fighting live animal exports and the veal calf trade. We won eventually !!

Are they not worth fighting for ? – YES – every day of all those years in my opinion. They are mere babies.