(2004/C 70 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject:   Subsidies for animal transport

Live animals exported from the EU face long and distressing journeys. The EU has for many years subsidised this suffering.

For how long is the Commission intending to continue providing subsidies for the export of live animals to Egypt and Lebanon?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2003)

The Honourable Member once more raises an important issue and one on which the Commission has been active recently following undertakings made to Parliament in 2002.

The Community has very strict rules on animal welfare in general and on the transporting of animals in particular. The Commission has recently adopted Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 (1) to replace Regulation (EC) No 615/1998 (2) and designed to reinforce veterinary controls and penalties for non-compliance with animal-welfare rules during the exportation of live animals with the help of refunds. These controls and the rules behind them apply equally to breeding stock and to animals for slaughter.

With the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 118/2003 (3), the Commission has considerably reduced refunds on live animal exports, in the case of slaughter animals leaving only those for male animals exported to Lebanon and Egypt. These two countries have a production and trade structure strongly influenced by cultural and religious traditions. As a result, they import only very little meat compared to imports of live animals.

In the case of Lebanon, live animals account for almost 80 % of all beef imports, as carcases or on the hoof, from all origins. Community exports of beef to Lebanon are thus mainly in the form of animals for slaughter, the Union being the principal supplier. If refunds were discontinued, Community exports of these animals would not be replaced by exports in the form of meat but by imports of live animals for slaughter from other competing countries. This is what has happened in the case of Egypt: when our traditional exports of beef animals were blocked as a result of the BSE crisis along with all other beef and veal products, they were replaced by imports of slaughter animals from Australia with a much longer transport route than from Europe. In general, third countries have much less strict rules on animal welfare than those in the Community.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the drastic reduction in refunds for live bovines, in terms of eligible classes and destinations, will contribute to ensuring respect for animal welfare during transport.

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 of 9 April 2003 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, OJ L 93, 10.4.2003.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998, OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2003 of 23 January 2003 fixing the export refunds on beef and veal and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds and (EC) No 1445/95 on rules of application for import and export licences in the beef and veal sector, OJ L 20, 24.1.2003.