WRITTEN QUESTION E-0901/04 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. The treatment of animals in livestock markets.
Date: 2004-03-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU Member State, animal welfare, infringement procedure (EU), protection of animals

C 88 E/716

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

format of

the Sudan peace talks under

Experience in other conflicts has shown that it is often not a single ‘honest broker’, but the joint and
coordinated involvement of the most important external stake-holders which makes a difference. The
present
IGAD auspices corresponds to this concept of
comprehensive stake-holder involvement, and it has yielded significant results. The present structure of
the peace process also foresees two phases, the first involving the two main belligerents and concluding
with a global agreement, and the second involving all relevant political and social actors of the Sudan in a
process of constitutional review and gradual democratisation. The second phase would take place during
the six and a half year transition period.

No external involvement can be a substitute for the genuine willingness of the parties to achieve a peaceful
settlement. The frequent stalemates in the Sudan peace process sometimes raise doubts about the existence
of the necessary commitment to peace of the two main belligerents, the Government of the Sudan and the
SPLM/A. The interested external actors will have to work with patience and apply sustained and measured
pressure in order to move the negotiations forward.

The Commission is financially and politically supporting the IGAD peace process as well as the
Verification and Monitoring Team, i.e. the mechanism established to monitor the cessation of hostilities
(EUR 1,5 million from the Rapid Reaction Mechanism (RRM)). It is also considering supporting, through
the RRM, the organisation of cease-fire talks among the belligerents of Darfur, Western Sudan, where a
major armed conflict broke out early in 2003, initially in the shadow of the long-standing conflict in
Southern Sudan, but recently escalating to the point where it has become the second most serious
humanitarian crisis in the Horn and East Africa.

Development cooperation with the Sudan has been suspended since 1990, following the ‘coup d’Etat’
and the deterioration of the political and human rights situation. The resumption of cooperation is
foreseen if and when a peace agreement is signed between the Government of the Sudan and the SPLM/A.
However, preparatory activities are ongoing financed from various budget lines and in the framework of
the ‘Humanitarian Plus’ Programme (EUR 18 million). Furthermore, two programme documents have been
finalised, one for Rehabilitation and Capacity Building (EUR 52 million, 6th European Development Fund
(EDF)) and another one financed from Stabex (EUR 191 million) with a focus on food security. These
programmes, together with the 9th EDF allocation (EUR 135 million A envelope, EUR 20 million B
envelope), represent the ‘peace dividend’ that will be made available to the Sudan when a comprehensive
peace agreement is signed and implemented.

(1) Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement and Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army.

(2004/C 88 E/0736)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0901/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: The treatment of animals in livestock markets

Could the Commission please advise what infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the Treaty have
been initiated against Member States with regard to inadequate implementation of EU legal provisions on
animal welfare?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The treatment of animals in livestock markets is only governed by Community Law currently in force to
the extent that it falls within Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of
animals during transport (1) as amended by Directive 95/29/EC (2).

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/717

Transport of the animals to, and unloading them at, the market would be covered if the journey to the
market was more than 50 kilometres but once the animals pass out of the control of the transporter the
Directive does not deal with their situation until loading for the journey from the market commences.

in
The Commission’s proposal for a new Regulation on the protection of transported animals aims,
particular, to extend the protection afforded by Community Law to animals at markets. Personnel handling
animals at markets would have to receive the necessary training. Livestock market operators would be
responsible for ensuring that the welfare of the animals was respected during their stay at the market
including during loading and unloading. Market operators would also be responsible for the introduction
and monitoring of the appropriate procedures to ensure respect of the relevant rules on their premises.

Infringement proceedings were opened against Belgium in the year 2000 in connection (inter alia) with
serious animal welfare deficiencies in relation to loading and unloading of animals at a livestock market.

Following further incidents, Belgium modified its legislation and adopted strict enforcement procedures
including prosecution of those alleged to be responsible for some of the incidents. Following reports of the
Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), which indicated an improved situation, the Commission
subsequently decided not to proceed further with the infringement action.

Other incidents concerning alleged mistreatment of animals in markets in some other Member States have
also been brought to the attention of the Commission in recent years but following the intervention of the
Commission’s services, action was in most cases taken to improve the situation. It was not considered
necessary to open infringement proceedings in relation to these incidents.

In relation to the Commission’s general position on initiation of infringement proceedings in relation to
breaches of Community animal welfare legislation, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer given
to written question E-2884/02 of Mr Erik Meijer on 20 November 2002 (3).

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
(3) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0737)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Israeli nuclear arms

Can the Commission outline its position on Israel’s failure to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and
the lack of scrutiny by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, IAEA, of Israel’s nuclear programme?

What steps are the Commission and Member States taking to create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

Signature of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is on a voluntary basis.

The EU Strategy against the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, adopted in December 2003,
reflects the very high priority the Union puts on multilateral non-proliferation and disarmament Treaties
and Conventions. One specific action of the Strategy refers to a diplomatic démarche to foster adherence,
compliance and universalisation of Treaties and Conventions. The EU and the Commission use every
opportunity to recall to Israel the importance of confidence building at regional level.