WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/03 by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Proposed new livestock transport regulations.
Date: 2003-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal welfare, cost analysis, farm income, impact study, length of journey, protection of animals, technical regulations, transport company, transport of animals, veterinary inspection, veterinary legislation

C 78 E/574

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

1.

Has the Commission yet received the results from the Chinese authorities?

If not, what further steps has the Commission taken in this regard over the past six months to obtain

2.
the results concerned?

3. What action is the Commission taking to enforce the application of the correct tariffs at the earliest
possible time?

(1) See page 27.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission took the action to which the Honourable Member refers as a result of the matter being
it has not contacted the
raised with the Commission by the European industry in 2002. However,
Commission again since January 2003 when China introduced new tariffs.

No reference was made to the issue by the Member States consulted for the purpose of identifying the EU’s
priorities in trade with China, in particular as regards China’s implementation of its commitments to the
World Trade Organisation.

In view of the above and the many priority trade issues facing European businesses in China, the
Commission has not prioritised this question.

The Commission would be grateful for any further details which the Honourable Member can provide in
order to raise the matter again with the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has been informed that this matter is in fact a priority for Japan, whose industry has
apparently suffered more than the EU’s from the system of specific duties introduced by China.

(2004/C 78 E/0608)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3523/03

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Proposed new livestock transport regulations

1. Were the Commission officials responsible for drafting the proposed new livestock transport
regulations trained in animal husbandry, practical livestock handling or veterinary science?

2.
Does the Commission accept that the reduction of maximum journey times for livestock from
14 hours to 9 hours with a mandatory 12-hour rest period will, in fact, significantly extend journey times
and therefore add to stress of travelling animals? On what scientific evidence are these recommendations
based?

Has the Commission carried out a cost analysis to ascertain the additional headage cost per animal

3.
that the new regulations will incur and which will have to be paid by farmers?

Has the Commission analysed the likely impact on jobs in terms of existing hauliers who may go out

4.
of business rather than attempt to meet the new regulatory standards?

5.

How does the Commission intend water to be made available to livestock in floats?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/575

If water is to be accessed via teats or nipples, how does the Commission intend to train farm animals

6.
in the use of such devices?

Does the Commission accept that the provision of continuous supplies of food and water during
is inconsistent with the public health requirement of presenting only clean livestock for

7.
transport
slaughter?

On what scientific evidence is the proposal for space allowances during transport of livestock based?
8.
Does the Commission accept that increased space allowances as proposed can lead to serious injuries
amongst livestock and can dangerously de-stabilise vehicles, creating a potential road hazard?

Can the Commission provide scientific evidence which justifies a one-size-fits-all livestock transport
9.
regulation applicable to all 25 Member States, regardless of whether they are in more temperate northern
climates or hot, southern climates?

10. Will the Commission list the number of successful prosecutions for breaches of existing livestock
transport regulations in each of the 15 existing Member States, on a country-by-country basis, during
2002?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The elaboration of the Commission proposal (1) on the protection of animals during transport was
1.
coordinated by the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection that is competent for animal
welfare issues. All the required expertise from outside and inside the Commission was ensured during the
process of drafting.

2.
The Commission proposal takes into account several elements including the opinion of the Scientific
Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Scahaw) of March 2002. Travelling time limits as
recommended by scientists have been developed taking into account the Union’s social
legislation for
drivers. The resulting travel sequences were adopted by the Commission in order to facilitate enforcement
and improve controls without extending the presently required journey durations.

3.
The Commission has estimated that there will be minimal cost implications for journeys of less than
nine hours. These journeys constitute the great majority of all animal movements (nearly 90 %). As for
long distance journeys, the additional costs potentially introduced by the proposal are expected to be
partially compensated by direct economical returns such as low mortality and better meat quality.

Experience shows that long distance transportation is an important factor for the welfare of the
4.
animals and requires appropriate standards. The Commission is of the opinion that such a type of journey
should be reserved only to transporters that are able to ensure sufficient guarantees in this regard. As a
consequence haulier associations have been consulted during the elaboration of
the proposal. The
Commission has been supported by these organizations in developing its initiative in order to achieve
higher qualification for the category.

5. and 6.
Requirements for water supply are provided for long distance journeys for transport by road,
rail or sea containers (2). These lorries or containers shall be equipped with automatic drinking equipment
and water tanks equipped with a specified capacity so as to allow sufficient autonomy for the transporter
to decide the appropriate time for watering the animals including when they are loaded on to a vessel. For
dedicated livestock vessels the proposal (3) requires fresh water storage or production facilities adapted to
the animals transported. Provision for feed is only required for journeys exceeding 24 hours. According to
scientists, animals fasting longer would be seriously affected in their welfare.

C 78 E/576

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The proposed rules on animal transport are in line with the most recent requirements in the field of

7.
public health and food safety.

The starting point of the Commission proposal for space allowances is the opinion of the Scahaw

8.
which recommended substantial increase of the space allowances.

9.
Great variations in climatic conditions that could occur during long distance transportation (such as
the ones from the United Kingdom to Greece during summertime) are proved to affect the welfare of the
animals in the vehicles. The Scahaw issued an opinion in 1999 on Standards for the Microclimate inside
Animal Transport Road Vehicles. The opinion is reflected in the ventilation and temperature requirements
for long distance journeys adopted in the proposal. The panel on animal health and animal welfare of the
European Food Security Authority (EFSA) is currently carrying out an evaluation on whether the opinion
of 1999 needs updating on the basis of new scientific knowledge.

10.
Based on Article 8 of Directive 91/628/EEC (4) Member States shall provide to the Commission
every year the number of inspections carried out on the protection of animals during transport. Such
reports shall include details on infringements but not on the number of successful prosecutions. As for
infringements a table providing data declared by each Member State in 2001 is being sent to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat. However, the Commission in 2000 reported to the
Council and to the Parliament (5) the difficulty of interpreting this information since no harmonised
methodology is provided in the current Community legislation. The Commission proposal aims to remedy
this deficiency.

(1) COM(2003) 425 final.
(2) Chapter VI of Annex I to the proposal.
(3) Chapter IV of Annex I to the proposal.
(4) Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending

Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(5) COM(2000) 809 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0609)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3527/03

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject: Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2003 on rural development: support for less-favoured areas

In paragraph 77 of its Special Report 4/2003 (1), the Court of Auditors of the EC states, inter alia, that the
Commission should perform an in-depth review of the existing classifications of all the less-favoured areas.
In its reply the Commission states, inter alia, that the evaluation of the existing programmes will yield new
information for use in a review.

1.
On the basis of the new information obtained by means of monitoring and evaluation, has the
Commission concluded that the existing classifications of less-favoured areas are no longer valid and that
overcompensation therefore needs to be prevented or is inevitable in the existing programmes?

2.
If the Commission can confirm this, what corrective action has it now taken? If the Commission
denies that the classifications are invalid, can it provide the requisite information for this and can it
explicitly state that the existing classifications are valid and can be applied accurately so that the possibility
of overcompensation may reasonably be deemed to be ruled out?

Does

the Commission now have a clear and workable definition of

3.
the phenomenon of
overcompensation, as this concept is not defined in Directive 75/268/EEC (2) or Regulation 1257/1999 (3)
or in ancillary legislation?