12 Amendments of Iratxe GARCÍA PÉREZ related to 2012/2031(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the transport of animals is necessarycarried out for economic reasons, whilst at the same time giving rise to an increase in the financial costs of animal production, which are borne on the one hand by farmers and breeders, and on the other hand by consumersere there exists a higher value of the products at their destination, creating a profit for the parties involved;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the transport of meat and other animal products is technically easier and financially more rational than the transport of live animals, which requires the appropriate training in handling animals, the conditioning of the trucks and other administrative and inspection requirements to ensure that the animals are transported under the best possible conditions, that a higher value is obtained for the product and that the cattle farmer’s income is preserved;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the transport of animals over significant distancepeople, freight and animals increases the risk of transmission of animal and human diseasediseases unless carried out under the appropriate sanitation conditions;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas animal slaughter and meat processing at the closest possible proximity to the breeding location is important for the stimulation of rural areas and their sustainable developmenta rather unrealistic objective given that high standards of hygiene and other requirements imposed under EU regulation on this type of installation have brought about the restructuring and decline in the number of slaughterhouses available;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the conditions under which animals are transported are a matter of interest to citizens and socithe farming sector, citizens and non-governmental organisations in the European Union;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that in relation to the weak and ineffectual 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 animalsimprove the work in coordinating and informing the European Commission, as well as the number of FVO inspections for the purpose of continuing to improve the proper application of Regulation 1/2005;
Amendment 117 #
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 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Further to the concerns described above, cCalls on the Commission to evaluate fully the influence of the coscosts and benefits of animal transport on the price of meat products in the European Union market;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that during the 2005-2009 reporting period the number of animals transported increased significantly: cattle by 8 %, pigs by 70 %, sheep by 3 %, and only with horses was there a decrease of 17 %. The aim set out in Recital 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, namely that ‘for reasons of animal welfare the transport of animals over long journeys, including animals for slaughter, should be limited to the greatest extent possible’ has therefore not been achieved;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that given that the Regulation has not fulfilled its aim of limiting the transport of animals, EU policy on the matter should be reviewed and should be directed at supporting, wherever possible, local processing, small local slaughterhouses and local meat processing plants, based on the supply of animals for slaughter from the immediate vicinity, should be promoted;
Amendment 160 #
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, proviAcknowledges Written Declaration 49/2011 of the European Parliament supporting an eight-hour limit for animals to be slaughtered, but recognises that such a demand is not scientifically based; considers that animal welfare during transport to a large extent depends on proper vehicle facilities and on the good handling of animals, as documented in the EFSA opinion of December 2010; nevertheless, asks the European Commission and the Member States to lay down guidelines for best practices to improve the correct implementation of Regulation (EC) N° 1/2005 and to reinforce control mechanisms in ordedr that the rules ono guarantee animal welfare; are complied with; sks Member States to introduce adequate and proportionate sanctions on the infringements to the Regulation;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is 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 amendments to the Regulation so as best practice guide to eliminate the possibility of it being interpreted arbitrarily;