Promoting the transport of meat rather than live animals and the use of mobile and local slaughterhouses, increasing transparency and harmonising meat labelling, and developing a method of pricing animal suffering to be integrated into the cost of transport and the price of meat: these are the ways in which the EU legislation on the transport of farm animals could be improved, as suggested by the EU Court of Auditors in an analysis document published on Monday 17 April.
The aim of this document is to contribute to the debate on animal transport in view of the forthcoming revision of the EU animal welfare regulations. This document is not an audit report. It is an analytical document, according to the Court of Auditors.
Other ideas put forward by the Court of Auditors include putting a monetary value on animal suffering during transport and incorporating this into the cost of transport and the price of meat. Another recommendation is to develop a method of pricing animal suffering to be integrated into the cost of transport and the price of meat and to exploit the potential of information technology and technological improvements to track all animal journeys, including on national territories.
The Court of Auditors suggests using cameras and sensors to measure and monitor animal welfare during transport and using digital tools to optimise the planning and logistics of animal transport.
The Court of Auditors is critical of compliance with the current legislation. It highlights that the European Commission has detected weaknesses in the implementation of the Animal Transport Regulation, in particular in the official controls carried out by Member States on journeys to third countries and the transport of unfit animals.
According to the auditors, there is no comprehensive centralised data on animal transport at EU level. In addition, differences in costs between Member States and the need to exploit economies of scale have led to specialisation in the livestock sector and concentration in the slaughtering sector, thereby favouring animal transport. Consumer preferences may also have an impact on the willingness of economic operators to move live animals.
Differences on transport limits. In summary, the Court of Auditors considers that the negative consequences of transport on animal welfare could be mitigated by limiting the number and duration of journeys, and by improving the conditions of transport of live animals.
“Transporting live animals over long distances can have negative effects on their welfare”, Eva Lindström, the member of the Court responsible for the analysis paper, told the press.
The Court did not clearly support a ban on journeys of more than 8 hours, as desired by some northern European countries and MEPs, but noted that one third of (intra-EU) transport journeys “exceed 8 hours” (see EUROPE 12995/12). It confirmed the divergence of Member States on this issue and considered that it was up to the politicians to take a decision.
Eva Lindström does not support a ban on exports of live animals to third countries that do not respect animal welfare rules. She acknowledged, however, that MEPs had discussed the issue extensively. “We do not have any recommendations or proposals in this regard”, she admitted.
Lindström stressed that mobile or small slaughterhouses should not be the only solution, but a “complementary possibility to reduce transport time”.
In addition, the Court of Auditors presented an interactive online dashboard that allows the media, researchers and the general public to make various comparisons (countries, animal species or economic value of movements).
See the analysis document: https://aeur.eu/f/6ch (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)