Activities of Thomas WAITZ related to 2020/2269(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Protection of animals during transport - Protection of animals during transport (Recommendation) (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the investigation of alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union
Amendments (52)
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24 a (new)
Citation 24 a (new)
— having regard to the European Commission’s Green Paper entitled ‘Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport: policy options for internalising the external costs of transport in the European Union’(COM(1995) 691),
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 24 b (new)
Citation 24 b (new)
— having regard to the European Commission's 2019 Handbook on the external costs of transport,
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 clearly states that ‘no person shall transport animals or cause animals to be transported in a way likely to cause injury or undue suffering to them’ and recital 5 that ‘for reasons of animal welfare the transport of animals over long journeys [...] should be limited as far as possible’;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas a number of reasons exist are used to justify for the movement of live animals, including marketing, fattening, slaughter, rearing and breeding; whereas the Farm-to-Fork strategy recognises the call for shorter supply chains and aims to enhance the resilience of local and regional supply chains, by reducing dependence on long-haul transportation; whereas a focus on small farms and regional networks of slaughterhouses is needed to achieve the Farm to Fork’s goals of a resilient, sustainable food system, affording decent living standards to farmers;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the Farm to Fork Strategy recognises the importance of a more healthy nutrition and promoting a more plant-based diet, reducing EU average intakes of red and processed meat, both to reduce the risk of life threatening diseases as well as the environmental impact of the food system;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
Ib. whereas according to EFSA scientific opinion from 2011 transport of animals is considered a major risk for the spread of infectious animal diseases in the EU1a; _________________ 1a https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pd f/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.1966
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the value of the intra-EU trade in live animals was EUR 8.6 billion in 2018, with bovine animals, pigs and poultry having the highest values; whereas the export of live animals represents around EUR 1.6 billion and provides around 60 000 direct jobs and 300 000 indirect jobs, especially in rural areas14 ; 14; whereas the overall trend characterising the meat processing industry in the EU is an increasing concentration in large companies and mass production, and a dramatic increase in live animals export, whereas the EU is now estimated to be responsible for over 80% of the global trade in live animals; whereas this concentration has been characterised by animal welfare, food safety and, on occasion, worker safety concerns; _________________ 14 At a Glance – ‘EU trade and transport of live animals’, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research, Members’ Research Service, 7 February 2020.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the limits and weaknesses of globalised and intricate food supply chains, and has shown that over- specialisation and export-based agriculture system leaves farmers and countries more vulnerable to trade restrictions;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)
Recital K b (new)
Kb. whereas according to the European Commission's commissioned research and data, the external costs of road transport in the EU amount to around 720 billion euros annually, including environmental pollution costs (GHG emissions, local air pollution, noise, energy production, habitat damage), congestion costs and road accident costs, of which around 170bn of those external costs are attributed to road freight1a; _________________ 1a CE Delft (2019), ‘Handbook on the External Costs of Transport. Version 2019’. All figures in this section exclude UK.
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that transport is stressful for animals and can have a potentialhas a negative impact on their health and welfare, and that EU should therefore implement principles of reducing, refining and replacing live transport as much as possible;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Concludes that many of the problems in animal transport originate from unclear requirements and the lack of clear definitions in the current regulation, leaving room for uneveninterpretation and unharmonised application of the rules and for, creating increased risks for animals, and for unfair competition amongundermining the level playing field for operators in the sector, leaving companies which abide by the rules facing unfair competition from those which do not;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the Commission fitness check of the EU legislation on the welfare of farmed animals proposed within the Farm to Fork Strategy, especially of the Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has mandated EFSA to assess the most recent scientific information available on the welfare of the main farm species during transport and on risks to their well-being; and the risk of spreading Antimicrobial Resistance(AMR) and other zoonotic diseases; highlights the lack of political leadership in the previous Commissions to properly enforce the Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and update the Regulation (EC) No 1/2005to correspond to the most recent scientific advice and opinions by EFSA;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Regrets the lack of cooperation by several Member States to fill in the questionnaire sent by ANIT Committee, which lead to missing data regarding possible infringements happening on the ground;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls attention to the numerousrecurring audits, reports and information from citizens, NGOs and audit reportpublic authorities on animal welfare problems during transport and non- compliance with the regulation, in particular concerning long journeys and transport to third countries, compromisingduring which the European Union’s obligation is repeatedly failing to ensure the protection of animal welfare during transport;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Acknowledges the letters sent by the Commission, in the framework of the Farm to Fork strategy, asking Member States to ensure immediate and full compliance with EU requirements, including on animal welfare during transport, and expressing its determination to take legal action in the event of systematic non-compliance; notes that no infringements proceedings have been opened by the Commission against any Member Stateregrets the lack of follow-up investigations resulting from the information provided by NGOs; regrets that no infringements proceedings have been opened by the Commission against any Member State, even when proof of repeated breaches have been reported by NGOs and citizens; recalls the Commission’s closure of 13 reported cases, with no action undertaken, despite FVO support for the case content;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the most frequently documented violations are linked to the lack of headroom, animals being unfit for transport, overcrowding, lack of water due to inappropriate watering devices or lack or water supply, transport during extreme temperatures and considerably prolonged journey duration;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Takes note of several reports of incorrect handling during animal loading and unloading, causing unnecessary stress and, great suffering; st, injuries and incresased mortality when it comes to particularly fragile species such as poultry or rabbits; stresses that proper animal handling results in shorter loading and unloading times, reduced weight loss, fewer injuries and wounds, and, ultimately, a better meat quality, a decrease in Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), and reduced health risks;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that according to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, the farmer, the driver and transport companies share equal responsibility for assessing whether animals are fit for transport, but that the division of responsibility is ill-defined in the regulation; notes that the most common breaches in this respect concern the transport of pregnant animals, animals more than 90 % of the way through gestation, which sometimes give birth on board, downers (with physiological weakness and/or wounds or a pathological condition), and animals with wounds or prolapses;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Highlights that relying solely on the voluntary uptake of guidelines1a on the protection of animals during transports, rather than updating legal provisions in order to fully implement those guideline standards, has proven insufficient to effectively protect animals during transport and has increased discrepancies between Member States and between companies; recalls that guidelines published by the Commission must be in line with and updated according to EFSA research and recommendations on animal welfare, as well as in line with the Regulation 1/2005; _________________ 1a http://www.animaltransportguides.eu/
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out with concern that the inspection and certification procedures for livestock vessels are not harmonised and lack mandatory inspection criteria, which is aggravated by the fact that the results of these procedures are not communicated between Member States, leading to the real possibility ofcases where a vessel that has been rejected in one Member State beingis approved in another; notes that there is evidence that the authorities in some Member States have approved and/or permitted the use of vessels which do not comply with the EU rules on animal welfare; notes that the majority of EU vessels are approved by Romania (47 vessels), followed by France (11 vessels);
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Takes note of the Commission’s findings that, with some exceptions, the systems in place for livestock vessel approval are insufficient to minimise the risks, mainly because the majority of the competent authorities inspecting livestock vessels do not have adequate procedures, or access to specific technical expertise, to verify vessels’ systems for water pumps, ventilation and drainage, all of which are critical for animal welfare during a journey on a livestock vessel and require sufficient controls; regrets that veterinary and maritime authorities usually work in an isolated way, when their knowledge and work are complementary for carrying proper checks of vessels;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Acknowledges the existence, in general, of well-developed national guidelines for the approval of livestock vehicles for road transport, but regrets that theya lack of harmonisation of these guidelines that are not always followed during the approval procedures, which keep them from being coherent and efficient;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Underlines that the insufficient definition of ‘place of destination’ creates significant loopholes, as in practice, it is difficult to distinguish between a real destination and a mere place of transfer, and as some journeys are sometimes approved with an obviously false final destination, such as a harbour;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Recalls that many livestock vessels are not primarily designed to transport animals and are poorly maintained, ageing, posing many risks for the safety of the animals during sea transport; reminds that, according to several NGOs, 54% of the vessels transporting animals from EU ports are licensed in countries black-listed in 2015 for poor performance under the Paris Memorandum of understanding (MoU), that are considered a high or very high risk in relation to maritime safety, and that only 24% of the listed vessels are flagged under the MoU white-list; considers that the risk of overloading such vessels with too many animals is significant;
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that, while under the current legislation, the submission of contingency plans in the event of emergencies is a legal requirement to obtain transporter authorisations for long journeys, this is not the caseimplemented for each journey and the possible specific needs thereof; observes with concern that few competent authorities, road transport, when contingency plans are available, they do not covers and transport organisers have feasible contingency plans to respond to emergency situations broad enough range of scenarios and only a few of them are actually feasible and able to respond to emergency situations; notes that the crew’s knowledge of contingency plans is not verified;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Regrets the fact that training of staff involved in the transport of animals as well as their loading and unloading varies in quality in different Member States; recalls that transporters themselves have highlighted that the minimum requirements for driver training are insufficient, and they have to organise staff training by themselves;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. THighlights the importance of widespread access to the TRACES system, for interested stakeholders, such as actors cooperating with the competent authorities during official controls; takes note of the modifications to TRACES in place since January 2020, allowing Member States to see all journeys of the transports they have authorised and all journeys stopping at control posts located in their country; notes that TRACES update is not enabling monitoring of journeys passing through Member States territories;
Amendment 356 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Notes that further improvements to data collection systems and to TRACES can be made in the current legislative framework, to help harmonise procedures between Member States’ competent authorities; recalls that the development of software for competent authorities to handle long and cross-border transports is still ongoing, but could, if applied EU- wide, largely harmonise clearance and the underlying plausibility check to verify route planning and weather conditions; reminds that any of the aspects to be monitored for the plausibility check can be digitalised or are already available in digitized form;
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Expresses concern that the Member States are not required to record data on the transport of animals directly exported from their territories to outside the EU in TRACES; expresses concern over the absence of EU-wide data collection of transport data, leading to a lack of data in Member States as well as the European Commission; regrets that the collected data in the Member states and in the TRACES system has not yet been centralised making it impossible to follow up on systemic breaches of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005; regrets that no progress has been made on a harmonised system of sanctions, nor on a list of bad conduct of operators perpetrating repeated breaches of the Regulation, despite the Parliament’s call to the Commission in its 2019 resolution;
Amendment 366 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Is aware that, despite the high level of non-compliance during animal transport, reporting of infringements between the Member States is poor and that effectivwhich makes monitoring of intra-EU cross-border transport very difficult; points out that effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions against those who violatebreach the regulation are still lacking, recalls that there is no EU-wide standard existing for the control and monitoring of long and cross-border animal transport by the competent authorities, especially outside EU borders;
Amendment 378 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Is awareExpresses concern over the fact that there are insufficient checks in someand of varying quality in Member States, in particular road checks and retrospective checks; stresses that some Member States conduct hardly any checks;
Amendment 384 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Notes that the level of training of police and the number of police trained to inspect animal transport varies greatly between Member States and is insufficient in several countries, highlights the lack of official veterinarians able of carrying out inspections of vehicles and vessels transporting animals is also insufficient;
Amendment 390 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Notes the Commission’s view that new technological advances in geolocation, electronic journey logs and tracing can allow for more data collection and analysis, thereby helping to improve risk analysis, targeted controls and inspections; insists nevertheless that road-side inspections of animal transport vehicles randomly picked out from the flow of traffic is essential and complementary;
Amendment 404 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Recalls that, according togrets the fact that, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, providing that all necessary arrangements shall be made in advance to minimise the length of the journey and meet the animals’ needs during the journey, is breached in a recurring way; recalls that the length of a journey is one of the main factors that increase the stress and suffering of animals during transport; recalls that the length of a journey increases both the probability of breaches of the legislation and their severity;
Amendment 424 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Regrets the fact that control post facilities for unloading, watering, feeding and resting of animals during long journeys are not always identified on journey logs, as required, ordo not comply with EU standards; notes that certain Member States and regions have attempted to verify the suitability of control posts outside of the EU, but this effort is not harmonised and causes an unlevel playing field;
Amendment 442 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Points out that exposure to temperatures outside the optimlegal range, between +5 and +30 degrees, and, in particular, to high temperatures, is one of the main causes of animal welfare problems and suffering during transport; regrets that the tolerance of +/-5 degrees granted by Regulation 1/2005 is often interpreted by transporters as a simple authorisation to transport animals between 0 and 35 degrees; notes furthermore that Annex I Chapter VI 3.1 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 defines 30 degrees as maximum temperature within the means of transport, making transport of animals impossible to comply with Regulation 1/2005 when the outside temperature exceeds 25 degrees due to the added body heat of the animals inside the means of transport;
Amendment 457 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recalls that the means of transport by road for long journeys must be fitted with a temperature monitoring and recording system, as well as with a means of recording such data, to be obligatorily provided to competent authorities, alike so that realistic checks for route plans can be executed in a fast and standardized manner; regrets the lack of mandatory requirements for such systems in livestock vehicles and vessels;
Amendment 478 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Stresses the vulnerability of unweaned animals and that the current minimum age for the transport of calves is too low; highlights that, according to various experts andnotes in this respect that veterinarians recommended a definition of unweaned calves as animals under12 weeks; points out that unweaned calves between 14 and 35 days of age experience a physiological weakness that excludes them former sub-group of the EU Animal Platform on Animal Welfare, more scientific evidence is needed to support good practices in the long-distance transport of unweaned animals and thatrom fitness for transport according to Annex I, Chapter I, paragraph 2, since their maternal antibodies are reducing and they have not yet gained their ability to develop antibodies in the required time of exposure to germs during transport and/or to the extent required; reminds that veterinarians and NGOs auditioned during ANIT committee hearings repeatedly underlined that unweaned calves, and unweaned animals more generally, could not be transported in conditions that guarantee their welfare and comply with Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 requirements; highlights that, according to various experts and the former sub-group of the EU Animal Platform on Animal Welfare, the current provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 are not adapted to the needs of these animals;
Amendment 497 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Recallgrets that, although according to the regulation, watering devices shall function properly and be appropriately designed and positioned for the different categories of animals (size and species) to be watered on board the vehicle, water is often reported as not available to animals because the devices are inappropriate for the species, the devices are unhygienic, or the water supply is not switched on, or in the case of unweaned calves, they are unable to use the devices;
Amendment 503 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Recalls the Commission’s recommendations from 2009 to the competent authorities to ensure that unweaned animals are offered electrolytes or milk substitutes during the resting period and pointing out that metal nipples should not be considered suitable for unweaned calves; reminds that from a physiological point of view unweaned animals should be fed at least every 12hours, when in free range herds, calves would for example feed in intervals of2 to 8 hours; stresses that according to veterinarian experts, fed unweaned animals need a resting period for digestion before transport; notes that feeding unweaned animals during their journey in lorries is technically impracticable and that other innovative solutions are needed;
Amendment 508 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 a (new)
Paragraph 50 a (new)
50a. Points out that animals at end of their productive life are also a vulnerable category, due to their age, and often deteriorated health or the presence of injuries; notes that these animals are also of lesser value to transporters, and may therefore be at higher risk of neglect;
Amendment 511 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 b (new)
Paragraph 50 b (new)
50b. Highlights that the transport of fish and other aquatic animals has increased in the last years and is likely to keep increasing as the Farm To Fork Strategy foresees a growth of the aquaculture sector; notes no specific rules or guidelines have been designed for the live transport of fish and other aquatic animals;
Amendment 514 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 c (new)
Paragraph 50 c (new)
50c. Recalls that recital 9 of the Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 foresees the adoption of specific provisions for poultry, cats and dogs following the relevant opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), highlights that the Commission did not make any proposal of legislation on the protection of poultry, cats and dogs during transport; regrets in particular the lack of official tools, such as guidelines and check lists, to support competent authorities in identifying unbroken horses from domestic ones when performing checks; highlights that this situation is enabling operators to transport unbroken horses over long distances in breach of the Regulation without being sanctioned;
Amendment 525 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Highlights that, where proper infrastructure is lacking, the high number of animals moving quickly and simultaneously from trucks to vessels hinders the adequate inspection of individual animals; stresses that many ports of export are not equipped with facilities such as housing facilities where animals can be unloaded and rest, particularly in the event of delay, inspected and rest, or facilities to euthanise animals when injured, particularly in the event of delays; highlights that, when such housing facilities exist, they are often not used to allow animals to rest before being loaded on vessels;
Amendment 527 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)
Paragraph 51 a (new)
51a. Recalls that journeys on sea vessels are not limited in time, and consequently records do not reflect the reality of animals’ journeys; reminds that this allows for transport of many days, weeks or even longer, possibly in extremely rough conditions, including extreme meteorological events with few obligations for transporters, especially in the case of export to third countries; stresses that, according to experts, transport on sea means similar stress levels for the animals as transport on road;
Amendment 529 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Stresses the lack of clarity of the provisions in the Animal Transport Regulation on the identification of the organiser and the transporter on the sea journey leg, particularly when the operation involves several consignments with different origins, but also of the person responsible for animals on-board also in the case of transport on roll-on roll-off ferries; notes that DG SANTE audits found a majority of approved journey logs had not identified the authorised transporter and livestock vessel, causing legal uncertainty on the accountability for animal welfare;
Amendment 531 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52 a (new)
Paragraph 52 a (new)
52a. Notes the absence of emergency slaughter facilities onboard livestock vessels; notes the current absence of data collection on the number of livestock deceased during transport, and the need to observe Marpol Convention on marine litter, which according to Marpol definition includes animal carcasses; notes that there are indications from ship captains and NGOs, that carcasses have been disposed of in the Mediterranean, in contravention of the Marpol Convention Annex V which classifies the Mediterranean as a marine protected area;
Amendment 537 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Considers that the presence of a veterinarians, proportionate to the number of animals on board, is necessary for the leg of the journey at sea to provide support for sick or injured animals on vessels constitutes good practiceshould be made mandatory;
Amendment 541 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53 a (new)
Paragraph 53 a (new)
53a. Notes that, according to the questionnaire sent by the Portuguese Presidency, crew training and competence on sea vessels is identified by a majority of Member States as difficult to enforce; notes in particular that, in the last 2 years, most EU-approved vessels were found to have deficiencies under the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, mostly concerning life-savings appliances or working-living conditions;
Amendment 567 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 55
Paragraph 55
55. Notes that once livestock crosses the EU border, respect for animal welfare standards may be difficult to guaranteis impossible to enforce, both en route and on arrival, and controls have never been attempted by authorities, as third countries are not bound by EU legislation; recalls the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which states that EU welfare rules are binding until the final place of destination in third countries; regrets that only a few regions within certain Member States have attempted to follow the ruling of the ECJ, by stopping authorisations of exports to third countries; recalls that Member States may suspend exports where they see that animal welfare standards are not or cannot be complied with;
Amendment 601 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Agrees with the Commission that the presence of a qualified veterinarian during loading for long journeys to non-EU countries constitutes good practice16 ; who re-assesses the fitness for transport16 should be made mandatory; _________________ 16 Final report of an audit carried out in the Netherlands from 20 February 2017 to 24 February 2017 in order to evaluate animal welfare during transport to non-EU countries, European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, 2017.