Relevant Matter
Public policy or programme
Public Policy Area
EU Affairs
Period
1 Jan, 2019 to 30 Apr, 2019
Specific Details
Council Regulation No 1/2005 on the Protection of Animals during Transport within and outside the EU
Intended results
To make our European Parliament representatives aware of the IFA position in advance of the Plenary Vote re the implementation of the Regulation
To communicate that we fully support the EPP amendments and reject those proposed by GUE/NGL/ALDE/EFDD and ENF.
To highlight that the EU has some of the highest animal welfare standards worldwide. Particularly, EU animal welfare legislation sets minimum standards aiming to improve the quality of animals’ lives, while also meeting citizens’ expectations and market demands; allowing, also, the Member States to adopt stricter rules if they match the legislation. The base must be always EU legislation, but nowadays Member States have measures that match and sometimes EU standards.
To highlight that in recent years, fitness guides for transport, have been developed by COPA/COGECA along with Eurogroup for Animals and the UECBV, in order to help transporters and farmers to recognize and ensure animals are fit for transport. They are complementary to the “Guides to Good and Better Practice for animals transported within Europe and to third countries for slaughter, fattening and breeding”, developed by the European Commission.
Re proposal in the Report about slaughtering in the nearest facility and incentivising local solutions, we do not agree with the solution proposed (building new local and evenly distributed slaughterhouses closer to farms, allowing in-farm slaughtering, mobile slaughterhouses…) in order to reduce transport time, the important issue is not the transport, but the conditions of this transport, where the animal welfare must be always ensured.
That applying these kind of “local measures” go against the Free Market options established in the EU Treaties and force the farmer to have only one client, one slaughterhouse. With this, the farmer would lose the possibility of negotiate and would be always subject to the behest of the slaughterhouse. This is more a commercial issue than one of animal welfare.
That mobile slaugtherhouses is a measure that has already been proven to be inefficient and one where it would be difficult to assess food safety, residues management, carry out official inspections for technical, sanitary and economic issues.
Re: increasing the frequency of controls, this measure should be implemented only after a carefully analysis of the situation in order to assess its actual need. Controls should be well structured and organized and minimized while maintaining effectiveness, so they will not unnecessarily increase the transportation time or waiting time of the animals.
Sanctions must be applied in all cases of malpractice but we believe that increasing them, can have a detrimental effect on the markets.
Regarding demands on having enough headroom available in the trucks and the vessels; as it is reflected in Article 30 of the Report we encourage the Member States to comply with Regulation 1/2005 with the minimum space requirements (Chapter VII, Annex I) and ensuring that internal height of transport vehicles meets minimum standards, and not to authorize vehicles or vessels that do not comply with the provisions of the Regulation.
Re stop points, especially in animals transported live, the sanitary status of these facilities where animals are unloaded is not always known ahead of time, and this should be something guaranteed in any case; if not, alternatives should be found for this. The key point is avoiding unnecessary spread of diseases.
IFA is supportive in the case where any deficiencies emerge in the application of the current legislation, requirements should be established to improve compliance. IFA also advocates for the verification and identification of instances demonstrating lack of compliance and if it does happen whether it is an isolated case or if it is happening similarly across all the Member States, in order that an improved solution can be sought.
Name of person primarily responsible for lobbying on this activity
Liam MacHale IFA Director Brussels
Did any Designated Public Official(DPO) or former Designated Public Official(DPO) carry out lobbying activities on your behalf in relation to this return? You must include yourself, and answer Yes, if you are a current DPO or a DPO at any time in the past. (What is a Designated Public Official?)
No
Did you manage or direct a grassroots campaign?
No
Was this lobbying done on behalf of a client?
No
Lobbying activity
The following activities occurred for this specific Subject Matter Area.
Designated public officials lobbied
The following DPOs were lobbied during this return period on this specific Subject Matter Area. These DPOs were involved in at least one of the Lobbying Activities listed above, but not necessarily all of them.
As returns are specific to a Subject Matter Area the above Lobbying Activities may be associated with multiple returns.
Lynn Boylan
MEP (European Parliament)
Nessa Childers
MEP (European Parliament)
Brian Hayes
MEP (European Parliament)
Matt Carthy
MEP (European Parliament)
Luke "Ming" Flanagan
MEP (European Parliament)
Marian Harkin
MEP (European Parliament)
Liadh Ní Riada
MEP (European Parliament)
Brian Crowley
MEP (European Parliament)
Deirdre Clune
MEP (European Parliament)
Seán Kelly
MEP (European Parliament)
Mairead McGuinness
MEP (European Parliament)