15 Amendments of Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS related to 2012/2031(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas all action designed to ensure the protection and welfare of animals should be based on the principle that animals are sentient beings whose specific needs should be taken into account, and also that the protection of animals in the 21st century is an expincresasion of humanity and a challenge facing European civilisation and cultureng demand in many countries and especially in the European Union;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the transport of animals is necessary for economic reasons, whilsyet at the same time givingit could give rise to an increase in the financial costs of animal production, which arwould be borne on the one hand by farmers and breeders, and on the other hand by consumers;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the transport of animals may gives rise to additional social and environmental costs (increased road traffic, additional CO2 emissions);
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location, provided that financial factors make this viable, is important for the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable development;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Expresses concern that the data from the Member States contained in the Report, without any possibility of exact verification, may not fully reflect the actual state of affairs with regard to the transport of animals because of the differing methods and control mechanisms used in individual Member States;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that in relation to the weak and ineffectualimprovable system of monitoring compliance with the conditions of animal transport in Member States it seems expedient to consider the creation, in Member States, of specialised monitoring institutes that would monitor compliance with provisions governing the protection and welfare of animals, including conditions for the transport of animals;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the Commission Report does not contain a full evaluation of all the economic, social and environmental costs of animal 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, with all stakeholders involved;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Expresses disappointment that the Commission has not 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 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. BelieGivesn that given that the Regulation has not fulfilled its aim of limitingthe current market trend clearly indicates the need for the transport of animals, EU policy on the matter should be reviewed and should be directed at two fundamental features: on the one hand, supporting local processing, small local slaughterhouses and local meat processing plants, based on the supply of animals for slaughter from the immediate vicinity; and on the other hand, to bolster the welfare conditions of animals in the transport of live animals;
Amendment 168 #
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, provided that the rules on animal welfare are complied with; highlights that the Commission’s report makes special mention in its conclusions, in agreement with the opinion of EFSA, that ‘it appears that parts of the Regulation are not fully in line with the current knowledge’; for this reason, it is important to underline the need to consider the latest scientific knowledge in preparing regulations on animal welfare. It highlights that in the EFSA opinion document (DOC. EFSA 2011:9(1):1966, (125 pp.)) that other aspects come into play in the welfare of animals aside from the duration of the journey, such as proper loading and unloading, as well as the design of the vehicles;
Amendment 191 #
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 results of the surveys carried out by the Commission may therefore not fully reflectust be analysed precisely to understand the actual state of affairs;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. In view of the situation described above, calls on the Commission to develop an objective and reliable system for evaluating the welfare of animals during transport, based on scientific criteria;
Amendment 241 #
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 bein the present difficulties ing used only to a limited extenting such systems in Member States for the purposes of monitoring the transport of animals;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. ICalls 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 the Commission to evaluate the differences of interpretation of the Regulation among the various Member States, and to evaluate the possibility of’ amendments to the Regulation so as to eliminate the possibility of it being interpreted arbitrarily;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is concerned that certain Member States are prepared to tolerate blatant infringement of the provisions of the Regulation, such as the acceptance of transport schedules which are impossible to fulfil;