Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'the transport of live animals for slaughter` (98/C 64/12)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to its decision of 17 September 1997, under the fourth paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion on the transport of live animals for slaughter and to entrust its preparation to Commission 2 - Spatial Planning, Agriculture, Hunting, Fisheries, Forestry, Marine Environment and Upland Areas;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 2 on 15 October 1997 (CdR 269/97 rev.) (rapporteur: Mr Koczur),

adopted the following opinion by a unanimous vote at its 20th plenary session on 19 and 20 November 1997 (meeting of 20 November).

1. Introduction

1.1. In local communities and regions across the European Union, people are concerned and deeply anxious about reports and debates on the practice of transporting live animals both within the EU, and from the EU to the countries of the Middle East.

1.2. The European Parliament, the Commission and the Council are, at the moment, considering a number of different initiatives on animal welfare and the transport of live animals.

1.3. On 2 July, the European Parliament Committee on Transport and Tourism adopted a report on the transport of horses and other live animals.

1.4. In May, the Agricultural Council adopted a Regulation on Community criteria for staging points and on the adaptation of the route plan; the following month, it agreed on additional provisions for road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on journeys lasting longer than eight hours.

1.5. The Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated a protocol on animal welfare into the EC Treaty. It states that 'in formulating and implementing the Community's agriculture, transport, internal market and research policies, the Community and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.`

1.6. Moreover, in April, the Commission tabled a proposal amending the Regulation on the common organization of the market in beef, designed to make the granting of export refunds dependent on compliance with Community animal welfare standards. The European Parliament issued its opinion on this issue in October.

2. Committee of the Regions' interest

2.1. The Committee of the Regions, which represents regional and local authorities and populations, feels duty-bound to raise and debate the issue of live animal shipments.

2.2. Local and regional authorities are affected by the transport of live animals in many ways:

- National arrangements in some countries give regional and local authorities responsibility for adopting, monitoring and controlling animal welfare provisions.

- Some regional and local authorities provide the infrastructure needed for caring for live animal shipments.

- In some regions intensive livestock farming is practised for sale within the European Union and to non-EU countries.

- Other regions are not self-sufficient and rely on imports.

- The geographical position of some regional and local authorities means that animal shipments pass through their territory.

- The isolation of the peripheral regions means that animal shipments from those regions are understandably longer than those from the central regions.

- Some regional and local authorities with harbour facilities or border crossings are affected by exports to countries outside the Union.

- Suitable slaughtering and refrigeration facilities in regions and local communities can reduce the number of live animal shipments.

3. The transport of live animals - the problem

3.1. Why transport live animals for slaughter?

3.2. The transport of productive livestock and breeding animals must be looked at separately. This opinion deals with the transport of live animals for slaughter.

3.3. There is a great demand from many countries, including the Middle East and North Africa for live beef cattle and sheep. The reasons for this are manifold:

- high demand for fresh meat;

- use of indigenous slaughterhouse facilities;

- utilization of slaughter by-products (skin, offal);

- inadequate meat transport, refrigeration and storage capacity;

- need to comply with religious slaughter rituals.

3.4. In some non-Union countries, considerably higher levies are imposed on imported meat than on live animals.

3.5. The decline in livestock production in central and eastern Europe has meant that non-EU countries which had formerly acquired their livestock there now have to buy more from the European Union to meet demand.

3.6. Some outlying regions of the European Union are keen to use their slaughterhouse capacity to the full.

3.7. Animal welfare dictates that it would always be best to slaughter an animal close to its place of origin and then transport the carcass to its final destination. That said, however, the conflicting interests of individual Member States make it impossible to reach any kind of consensus on the issue. The crux of the matter is therefore to keep the transport of live animals to a minimum while at the same time improving transport conditions.

4. The European Directive on the protection of animals during transport (95/29/EC)

4.1. In June 1995, the Council of Agriculture Ministers adopted Directive 95/29/EC () amending Directive 91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport. This directive enjoined Member States to bring into force the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions by 31 December 1996. The directive deals with travelling times, rest periods, qualifications required of transporters, loading density, feeding, watering and monitoring.

4.2. The Commission was obliged to submit proposals to the Council by 31 December 1995 for standards with which means of transport must comply. After a considerable delay, the Commission eventually met this obligation in July 1997.

4.3. The Council committed itself to laying down by 30 June 1996 the Community criteria to be met by staging points with regard to infrastructure and to the feeding, watering, loading, unloading and, where necessary, housing of certain types of animal. The Council fulfilled this obligation a year later than planned in May 1997.

5. Problems

5.1. Non-existent implementing regulations and late transposition

The Commission was very late in submitting proposals on minimum standards for certain staging points and on motor vehicles and their trailers.

5.2. Only seven Member States met the 1 January 1997 deadline for transposing the animal transport directive. The Commission has announced infringement proceedings against Member States which do not meet their obligations on time. In some individual Member States the directive has also been interpreted in different ways.

6. Monitoring

The relevant authorities in the Member States are responsible for monitoring transport conditions. The European Union's scope for action in this field is limited. Infringements have been brought to light by spot checks.

7. Export refunds for shipments to countries outside the European Union

7.1. Refunds are paid on the basis of the common market organizations; their purpose is to offset price differentials between the Community and the world market. Operators can thus trade on the world market, where prices are lower than in the EU. Refund levels are a crucial factor in the transport of live animals.

7.2. In accordance with the provisions of the common market organizations, export refund levels may be differentiated according to country of destination. In the beef sector, exports of live cattle and refrigerated meat are divided into various subsections. For example, live cattle are divided up according to weight, sex and whether they are pure-bred breeding cattle. In the case of refrigerated meat, the classifications include the different stages in carcass dissection and the resulting cuts of meat.

7.3. As things stand, no export refunds are paid for the export of live pigs and sheep. In the poultry meat sector, export refunds are granted for day-old chicks and different types of poultry meat products. The refund level varies according to product and destination.

7.4. The percentage of shipments of live cattle and calves going to non-EU countries is 78,4 %, a figure much higher than the figure within the EU (17,5 %). If the number of animals transported live is to be reduced, steps must be taken to prevent the level of export refunds from becoming an incentive to such practices.

8. Concerns of the Committee of the Regions

8.1. The directive on animal transport must be transposed and applied more strictly than in the past. Compliance with the criteria for transporting live animals as laid down in the directive depends on whether checks are carried out and abuses are punished. The competent authorities should ensure that the requisite checks are carried out.

8.2. Stringent sanctions should accompany any non-compliance with the transport provisions; repeated infringements, for example, should lead to the withdrawal of export licences; serious violations should deny offenders the right to receive assistance.

8.3. The amendment of the directive on the organization of the market in beef put forward by the Commission and the proposed decision on minimum standards for certain staging points should be transposed without delay.

8.4. Export refunds are to be paid only on compliance with Community animal welfare provisions, particularly on the protection of animals during transport.

8.5. The export of meat and meat products should be preferred over that of live animals.

8.6. Consideration should be given to ways of boosting the export of meat and meat products to countries outside the European Union (for example, slaughtering according to Islamic tradition or grants to acquire refrigeration equipment).

8.7. Agreements should be reached with the importing countries outside the Community in which the latter undertake to treat animals humanely.

Brussels, 20 November 1997.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.