33 Amendments of Pilar AYUSO related to 2012/2031(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s report on the impact of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which concludes that the Regulation has had beneficial effects as regards the welfare of animals during transport, but that severome animal welfare problems persist1; regrets that this report ignores preamble, as a consequence of the shortcomings in the implementation of the regulation, because of differences in the interpretation thereof; recalls Recital 5 of the Regulation, which states that ‘for reasons of animal welfare the transport of animals over long journeys should be limited as far as possible’;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets the fact that the report ignorNotes the EFSA recommendation ton developing strategies to, when possible, reduce the volume of transport and the long-distance transport of animals for slaughter and cut journey times, in order to diminish the risk of transport- associated disease outbreaks2;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the transport of animals is necessary for economic reasons, whilst at the same time giving rise to an increase in the financial costs of animal production, which are borne on the both for taking them to slaughter and for supplying regions that produce insufficient live animals, while also ensuring that the populatione hand by farmers and breeders, and on the other hand by consumerss an adequate supply of meat products, as an essential part of a balanced diet;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that reducing the volume of transport by transporting carcasses instead of live animals would have a positive impact onit would be necessary to study the advantages of transporting carcasses as compared to live animals in order to determine which of the two types of transport is more beneficial for the environment, with a view to reducing pollution, and improving the carbon footprint of the transport sector, and encouraging the development of; points out, in addition, the need to take into account the advantages and the disadvantages for local production and consumption;.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. NotesTakes the view that the provisions in the Regulation on transport time, resting time and space allowance are not based on a scientific opinion of SCAHAW or EFSA, but have been taken from the previous directive3; notes with regret that, despite clear conclusions from EFSA,should be based on the best scientific knowledge available; notes that parts of the Regulation are not in line with current scientific knowledge, especiallythe conclusions of EFSA’s most recent report, as regards transport of horses, space allowance and internal height of compartments, and that the report is not accompanied by any proposal;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas Regulation 1/2005 resulted in an improvement in the welfare of animals during transport, in addition to a rise in the costs incurred by transport companies, on account of the conditioning requirements for vehicles;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the transport of animals gives rise to additional social and environmental costs (increased road traffic, additional CO2 emissions)environmental costs (CO2 emissions) similar to any other activity related to freight transport;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products is not necessarily technically easier and financially more rational than the transport of live animals, and therefore better for the environment;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that Article 32 of the Regulation states that the Commission report shall take into account ‘scientific evidence on the welfare needs of animals’, and may be accompanied if necessary by appropriate legislative proposals concerning long journeys; calls on the Commission and the Council, therefore, to review Regulation 1/2005 in order to establish a maximum 8- hour limit for the journeys of animals transported for the purpose ofundertake more in-depth research on animal welfare, species by species, in order to obtain the scientific knowledge necessary for a possible future amendment of the regulation in the framework of the next animal welfare strategy that will beging slaughtered; in 2016.
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the transport of animals over significant distances increases the risk of transmission of animal and human diseasesdiseases only if animals are transported in poor sanitation conditions, an unusual occurance owing, among other reasons, to the economic losses caused as a result;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the transport of live animals is inspected, traced and subject to the strictest hygiene regulations;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas maintaining the principles of animal welfare may influences the quality of animal products and indirectly affects human health;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Requests the European Commission, in bilateral trade negotiations with third countries, to demand the implementation of the European Union’s animal welfare rules and to defend the internationalisation, within the framework of the World Trade Organisation, of the Community provisions on the subject.
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location is important forcould ideally help the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable development;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the Commission Report presenting the state of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which contains the conclusion that the Regulation has a positive, albeit insufficient, impact on the welfare of animals during transport, while believing that its application in the Member States must be improved;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Whereas European regulations on animal welfare must not give rise to distortions in the free trade of goods, or result in disproportionate financial costs, not forgetting the particular disadvantageous geographical situation of the peripheral and outermost regions;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out thatCalls on the Commission Report does not containto prepare a full evaluation of all the economic, social and environmental costs costs of European regulations on the welfare of animals during transport, limiting itself to taking into account the costs of hauliers, and therefore calls on the Commission to present a full evaluation of all the economic, environmental and social costs incurred by the transport of animals and to study whether the transport of animals has a higher cost compared against any other freight transport;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses disappointment thatCalls on the Commission has noto presented a full analysis supported by calculations of the effect of the costs of live animal transport on the price of meat products within the European Union, being satisfied with the thesis, unsupported by any proof, that transport companies were unable to transfer their costs onto any other entity in the social sector;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Further to the concerns described above, cCalls on the Commission to evaluate fully the influence of the increase in the costs of animal transport on the price of meat products in the European Union market;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that during the 2005-2009 reporting period the number of animals transported increased significantly: cattle by 8 %, pigs by 70 %, sheep by 3 %, and only with horses was there a decrease of 17 %. The aim set out in Recital 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, namely that ‘for reasons of animal welfare the transport of animals over long journeys, including animals for slaughter, should be limited to the greatest extent possible’ has therefore not been achieved;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that given that the Regulation has not fulfilled its aim of limiting the transport of animals, EU policy on the matter should be reviewed and should be directed atEU policy, insofar as possible, should supporting local processing, small local slaughterhouses and local meat processing plants, based on the supply of animals for slaughter from the immediate vicinity;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Insists on a reconsideration of the issue of limiting the transport time of animals destined for slaughter to eight hours, with some exceptions based on geographic conditions, and the option of longer transport of some animal species confirmed by scientific research results, proviAcknowledges Written Declaration 49/2011 of the European Parliament supporting an eight-hour limit for animals to be slaughtered, but recognises that such a demand is not scientifically based; considers that animal welfare during transport to a large extent depends on proper vehicle facilities and on the good handling of animals, as documented in the EFSA opinion of December 2010; nevertheless, asks the European Commission and the Member States to lay down guidelines for best practices to improve the correct implementation of Regulation (EC) N° 1/2005 and to reinforce control mechanisms in ordedr that the rules ono guarantee animal welfare; are complied with; sks Member States to introduce adequate and proportionate sanctions on the infringements to the Regulation;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes the improvement in the quality of animal transport, but; believes that the Commission findings referred to above are based on the results of surveys carried out among slaughterhouses and business and transport enterprises engaged in the transportation of live animals. The result; however, it calls ofn the surveys carried out by the Commission may therefore not fully reflect the actual state of affairsCommission to go further in its analysis of animal welfare during transport to obtain the most complete overall vision of the situation;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. In view of the situation described above, cCalls on the Commission to develop an objective and reliable system for evaluating the welfare of animals during transport, based on scientific principles;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that in view of the EFSA test results the transport time of horses should be greatly reduced, and that with regard to other farm animals, the requirement for such a reduction shcould be carefully consideredweighed, although it highlights that the EFSA is not considering any recommendation in this respect;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. States that the duration of transport has an effect on animal welfare, yet it recognises that other factors related to the conditions for preparing vehicles and the handling of animals have an even greater effect;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13a. Believes it necessary to continue to promote the education of hauliers in the handling of animals and calls on Member States to encourage training programmes, as obligatory under Regulation 1/2005;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Invites the European Commission, in bilateral trade agreements with third countries, to require them to comply with European regulations on animal welfare in their exports of cattle and meat products to the Community market;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 d (new)
Paragraph 13 d (new)
13d. Calls on the Commission to implement an extensive consumer information campaign on European regulations in terms of animal welfare, by continually informing of the changes being required of European producers for the purpose of giving a greater profile to their work and improving the added value of their productions;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the information on the introduction of a navigation system for monitoring the transport of animals, but is disappointed that this system is being used only to a limited extent in Member States for the purposes of monitoring the transport of animals due to the absence of technical harmonisation of the specific criteria for usage, for which reason it considers it imperative to bring about this harmonisation;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Commission to study the harmonisation of the inspection tools to enable the homogenisation of data collection, reduce administrative workloads and the unnecessary use of multiple onboard instruments;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is concerned that significant differences have arisen in individual Member States’ interpretation of the rules, since this threatens the aims of the Regulation and distorts competition; calls therefore on the Commission to introduce appropriate amendments to the Regulation so as to eliminate the possibility of it being interpreted arbitrarilyestablish general directives and best practice guidelines that enable a correct interpretation of the Regulation;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on Member States to improve their inspection work to guarantee proper compliance with the Regulations and to impose the appropriate sanctions for any infractions committed;