WRITTEN QUESTION E-0898/02 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. Export of live cattle to third countries.
Date: 2002-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, Middle East, North Africa, animal welfare, export (EU), export refund, live animal, transport of animals

C 277 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Under Article 280 of the EC Treaty Member States are required to take steps to protect the financial
interests of the Community. It is up to them to set up the customs services that they deem necessary to
collect own resources efficiently. There are therefore no rules at Community level specifying the number of
customs officials or control bodies necessary for surveillance of the borders.

According to information from the Austrian customs authorities,
officials responsible for controls on goods and collection of customs duties.

in 2001 Austria had 4 200 customs

In the customs administrations of other Member States manpower stands at about 91 000, to which
should be added the staff belonging to other bodies or institutions also working in the customs field. The
number of staff varies according to local circumstances and tasks carried out under Part 3, Title I of the EC
Treaty, and Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. What the Member States need to do, with the help
of the Commission through the Customs 2002 Programme, is to provide staff with adequate computerised
infrastructure, better training and modern control techniques, in particular risk analysis.

The Commission, as the authorising body for revenue, carries out controls,
including on-the-spot
inspections. It reports to the budgetary authority at regular intervals on the functioning of the inspection
arrangements for traditional own resources under Article 18(3) of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
the
1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of
Communities’ own resources (1).

The Commission is not in a position to evaluate any possible injury to the EU as a result of customs
staffing levels.

(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.

(2002/C 277 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0898/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Export of live cattle to third countries

(4 April 2002)

Three hundred thousand live cattle are exported each year from EU countries to the Middle East and North
Africa. This cruel trade is subsidised by the EU through export refunds to traders. These refunds cost
European taxpayers € 60 to 100 million per year.

Given that the European Parliament has twice (October and November 2001) voted for an end to the
payment of these subsidies, can the Commission give any information about what action it has taken
towards dismantling this system?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Community is a traditional exporter of breeding cattle to a significant number of third countries.
Those animals are destined in particular for improving or maintaining the milk production in those
countries.

The vast majority of complaints the Commission receives deal with the export of slaughter cattle. Most of
the cases that were reported highlight the handling of animals, in particular at places of transhipment, or
at arrival in the country of destination and at slaughter.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/103

As far as the conditions of transport are concerned, the Commission should reach the highest possible
standard in order to ensure that the welfare conditions are fully implemented and controlled. In this
respect the Commission is in the process of reinforcing the conditions for the granting of the export
refund. The strengthening of these conditions is specifically aiming at eliminating the unacceptable
circumstances of the cases that were reported.

The Commission will also undertake new initiatives in the light of the opinion adopted on 11 March 2002
by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. The scientific opinion addresses a
number of important issues such as travelling times and space allowances. The future proposal of the
Commission in this field will aim to improve the welfare conditions of all transported animals but with a
particular attention for the ones transported over long distances.

The Commission has however not the power to impose the European standards on animal transport,
husbandry and slaughter within the purchasing countries. Cultural, religious, as well as economic
conditions lead to fundamental differences in the way these countries produce meat.

Moreover, competitors in international trade, such as Australia, have today operational vessels that can
transport 25 000 cattle in one journey and towards any destination. Since bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) occurred in 1996, Egypt turned its purchases of slaughter cattle towards Australia.
More than 200 000 heads of cattle are imported yearly in Egypt and come from this exporting country.

Despite its limited margin of manoeuvre, the Commission has constantly pursued, in the context of the
World Trade Organisation (WTO), its efforts to obtain acceptance of welfare principles in the international
context. The Commission will continue to work in this direction during the next round of negotiations.

it is important to decide on this matter taking into consideration all aspects,
For the Commission,
including the position of its farmers, among which an important number depend on trade, and in
particular on export.

Therefore, any decision must strike the right balance between all these different aspects. One of the
consequences of the policy followed is that the export refunds for live slaughter cattle have already been
reduced substantially during recent years (in 1995 the rate was € 78,5 per 100 kilogram (kg); today this
rate equals € 41 per 100 kg; i.e. a reduction by 48 %).

The Commission’s approach as regards export of cattle is aiming to limit subsidisation to the level of what
is strictly necessary, bearing in mind the request made by the Parliament to end, as soon as possible, the
payment of export refunds for slaughter cattle and to seek the establishment of binding international
guidelines governing the treatment of live animals during long-distance transport.

(2002/C 277 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0901/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: Environmental impact of the N-430 road in Extremadura, Spain

The execution of the project to build the Puerto Pena D Puerto de los Carneros section of the N-430 road
from Badajoz to Valencia is having an extremely serious impact on the environment in Extremadura. The
project constitutes an infringement of the Directive on wild birds (Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1)) since
it affects the special protection area ‘Orellana dam and Sierra de Pela’ and the habitats of the following
species: griffon vulture, black stork, Egyptian vulture, Bonelli’s eagle, peregrine falcon, eagle owl, etc. The
project also infringes the habitats Directive, in particular because it affects the site of scientific interest
‘Sierra de El Escorial’ and a large number of habitats classified as being of Community interest in Annex I
of Directive 92/43/EEC (2). The Spanish lynx (individual examples in la Sierra de El Escorial) and the otter
(a stable population beneath the rocks of Puerto Pena), species mentioned in Annex II of the Directive, will
also be affected by the project.