The EU Court of Auditors revealed weaknesses in the compliance with certain livestock welfare rules on Wednesday 14 November.
The report which it published on Wednesday refers to weaknesses in some countries in the application of regulations regarding the routine tail docking of pigs, during transport (compliance with rules on long-distance transport and the transport of unfit animals) and at slaughter (use of the derogation for slaughter without stunning and inadequate stunning procedures), the report states.
As regards the use of the derogation for slaughter without stunning, "there is a risk of excessive use of the derogation to rationalise the production process", criticised the Court Member responsible for this report, Janusz Wojciechowski.
The audit found that the European Commission's actions to enforce standards in the Member States "have been successful in important areas", most notably on the group housing of sows, as well as the ban on unenriched cages that do not allow laying hens to express their natural behaviour.
Some examples are given of the delay in implementing some of the Commission's recommendations: in France (long-distance transport), Romania (effective sanctions requested for non-compliance with legislation) and Italy (forced moulting in laying hen holdings).
The Court found good practices with regard to Member States' official control systems (to ensure the correct application of animal welfare standards), but also weaknesses, particularly with regard to: - the targeting of inspections, in particular in the area of the transport of live animals (e.g. the inspections on roads in Poland do not have access to the TRACES system); - the exclusion of certain holdings from official inspections (in Italy and Romania).
Other remarks from the Court: - Member States have generally put in place appropriate mechanisms for cross-compliance checks on animal welfare (but the cross-compliance penalties applied by Paying Agencies were not proportionate to the seriousness of the irregularities); - the promotion of animal welfare is a rural development priority objective for the 2014-2020 period, but the 'welfare' measure was not widely used.
The Court concludes that EU actions in the field of animal welfare have improved compliance with animal welfare requirements and have encouraged the application of higher standards, with a clear positive impact on animal welfare. However, some weaknesses remain. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)