As I was writing this, the case of the Express M was still fresh in my mind. The livestock vessel, constructed in 1983 and with a history of deficiencies, departed from Romania on 22 February with 2,400 cattle and 460 sheep destined for Haifa, Israel.
It encountered severe mechanical issues shortly after departure, leading to prolonged delays.
As a result of these problems and human errors, a journey that should have spanned six days lasted 15 days instead. The conditions of the animals on arrival were deplorable, with reports describing them as caked in manure, many affected by nasal discharge. This umpteenth incident, which prompted us to send an open letter to Commissioner Oliver Várhehly, provides more evidence, if ever it was needed, that the trade in live animals is inherently problematic and cannot simply be improved by enforcing or slightly changing existing regulations.
Recurring tragedies highlight systemic flaws in the live export industry.
Countless investigations and eyewitness accounts demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is impossible to guarantee animal welfare when live animals are transported over long distances, particularly if the final destination is extra-EU.
Too many factors play against animal protection: from extreme temperatures to unforeseen circumstances that can prolong a journey beyond what is tolerable by the animals (see the case of the Express M, but also the episode of the 69 pregnant heifers from Germany stuck at the Turkish border due to an administrative glitch), to the inherent vulnerability of young, pregnant, or cull animals, all of which are regularly transported over long distances.
We are currently deep into the deliberations on the European Commission’s proposal for a revised Regulation on animal transport and what we have seen so far does not bode well for animal welfare.
If we exclude a few positive measures, in their report of three weeks ago MEPs Tilly Metz and Daniel Buda couldn’t come to an agreement and consequently focused primarily on improving enforcement, which is clearly insufficient to address the structural problems discussed above. Work will continue over the summer months and the final committee vote will take place in October.
I want to take this opportunity to remind all MEPs of why the current legislative proposal, already far from ambitious, urgently needs to be improved.
We are calling for a series of important science-backed legislative changes with the potential to achieve a real positive impact on affected animals. In no particular order, and without entering into too much technical detail, the revised regulation should include:
Category or species-specific temperature ranges outside which animals cannot be transported. Live animals should only be transported at +5 to +25 degrees Celsius as measured inside the compartments for the whole duration of the journey. The Temperature Humidity Index, which affects thermoregulation, should also be taken into account. We propose stricter thresholds for vulnerable animals.
Significantly lower and species-specific maximum journey times. Scientific evidence shows that the duration of transport is a risk factor for compromised animal welfare. We advocate for a maximum of 8h, with a lower threshold of 4h for vulnerable animals and animals transported in crates (e.g., rabbits, chickens).
A ban on the export of live animals towards non-EU countries, where their welfare cannot be checked; additionally, a ban on the transport of unweaned animals (i.e., animals that are not yet able to eat and drink independently of their mothers), as experience shows that it is impossible to satisfy their feeding requirements on moving vehicles.
Stricter rules on sea transport, including the seaworthiness of the vessels used, the presence of a veterinarian with each consignment, and, crucially, the inclusion of time at sea in the total journey time.
I should stress that, incredibly and inexplicably, the current proposal excludes time at sea from the calculation of the total journey time, which has no scientific basis.
Detailed species-specific provisions for the transport of equines, companion animals, vertebrate finfish, fertilised eggs, decapod crustaceans, cephalopods, wild animals, and animals used for scientific purposes.
In its present version, the draft legislative proposal fails to seriously address any of these aspects, which to a large extent determine the degree to which minimum standards of animal welfare can be maintained during transport.
For as long as we continue to transport live animals, we at least owe it to them to adopt the best available practices to prevent suffering.
Going forward, we envision a future in which trade in meat and carcasses has replaced the live animal trade.
For this reason, we are urging MEPs to at a very minimum make two crucial improvements to the proposal: introduce an action plan for a transition to a trade in meat and carcasses, and lay down a 5-year review clause after this updated regulation is adopted.
Reineke Hameleers is the CEO of Eurogroup for Animals, the animal protection lobby group that seeks to improve animal welfare standards. The association represents animal protection organisations across the 27 EU member states and several other countries.
Reineke Hameleers is the CEO of Eurogroup for Animals, the animal protection lobby group that seeks to improve animal welfare standards. The association represents animal protection organisations across the 27 EU member states and several other countries.