What price animal rights?
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The latest EC livestock regs were doubtless drawn up with the best of motives, but they present problems for hauliers and bodybuilders and in some cases could actually do more harm than good...
Few livestock hauliers have a good word to say for the latest amendments to directive 91/628/EEC, which deals with livestock animals in transport.
EC directives are funny things at the best of times. Always drawn up with the best of intentions, they have often been blamed for bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator, forcing up costs most in countries which had the most appropriate regs iri the first place.
Community administrators are usually quick to recognise a compromise when they see one, and the result generally satisfies at least a fair proportion of the industries or individuals they affect most directly. Not so this time.
As well as annoying most of the animal haulage specialists in the Single Market they pose some awkward questions for the designers and builders of the trailers they use. Even animal rights campaigners will be angered by some of the changes—sheep can be left 24 hours without water or feed—in the UK that equates to an extra nine or 12 hours of misery.
Enforcement agencies are likely to face problems when attempting to assess the degree of compliance with some of the loading requirements, and there's no sign of additional support for policing.
Despite the support of over two million signatures from across the EC it will be at least three years before any reconsideration about minimum journeys for animals bound for slaughter or further fattening The Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1992 introduced the requirements of EC directive 91/628/EEC into UK legislation on 1 January 1993. Left out of that directive—but scheduled for inclusion in this amendment—were any regulations regarding sheep, maximum journey times, feeding and watering intervals, resting periods, space allowances and standards for livestock vehicles. It seems generally agreed within animal welfare circles that the time of greatest stress for animals is during loading and unloading In addition some animals, like some people, do not travel well on a full stomach. Thereafter stress is caused by the need for refreshment and possibly the environment in which they travel. At the moment there is no limit on the distance livestock may be carried by road, only on journey times. In the UK, provided livestock has been fed and watered before a journey (how long before is a grey area), they may be driven by road for 12 hours without feeding, watering or rest. This may be extended to 15 if a delivery is possible within that time.
This is designed to reduce stress for the animals and, by coincidence or otherwise, fits reasonably well with the drivers' hours regs. But the latest proposals change this radically. For calves up to six months the limit comes down to eight hours; for pigs and lactating cows watering must be after eight hours with feeding after 24.
There are other variations too: "It does not fit in with drivers' hours in any way, shape or form," says Ben McGuire, secretary to the Road Haulage Association's livestock haulage group. "It would probably lead to double manning which would drive up the cost of the final product. We will oppose them and want to stick with the present system, which fits quite nicely."
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals agrees that there is a problem: "Many hauliers are already experiencing difficulties with 12 and15 hours, let alone eight hours. There will be a lot of pressure on ministers to reject these and the enforced rest periods," says Dr Martin Potter, head of animal welfare. McGuire agrees:"I think it's fair to say that all livestock hauliers across the EC will fight a reduction to eight hours," he says. haulier AE George & Sons and chairman of the RHA livestock group. He points to the practical implications of introducing enforced resting times as proposed in the amendment: "If we went down the road with a load of pigs on a very hot day and stopped to give them a rest, we might end up with more dead than live ones at the end of the route."
He adds that although animals may be watered on the vehicle, it is often difficult to do so with calves. Taking them off, assuming a driver can find the facilities, will increase the stress.
"These proposals meet the minimum requirements for the transport of animals, but there is no proposal for sheep and there should be," says Graham Taylor. senior animal welfare officer at Birmingham City Council's Environmental Services Department, who carries out regular animal livestock roadside enforcement checks.
The sheep has been a political hot potato for some time, and it seems rather fortunate that a few years of additional research—to be carried out in three EC states including the UK—is necessary to determine the amount of time that a sheep can travel before becoming stressed.
"The EC science veterinary committee said they didn't really have the evidence to make any firm recommendations on how long sheep should travel without becoming unduly stressed," says Potter "But in the absence of that kind of information I don't think we should have resorted to this 24hour rule for food and water with no proposals for resting periods. I think it should have gone to the other extreme and said 'until we know, let's go for a shorter period like eight hours and give them the benefit of the doubt until the report is ready'."
McGuire agrees, adding: "If they need to do a further study about one group of animals, why not wait until all studies are concluded before changing them all?"A major omission from the proposal document is any changes to Construction and Use Regulations, which were included in Chapter 6 of the original directive.
In a report "The Transport of Livestock by Road" based on a study of six EC countries and published early this year, BCC's Taylor concluded that UK animal trailers are inferior to many of their EC counterparts. He is disappointed that an opportunity to rectify this has been missed. But there are two aspects which directly influence Construction and Use and imply difficulties for hauliers which are intertwined with those of equipment manufactures, warns to McGuire. One is a restriction on space, which defines the floor space; the other is height clearance above the animal's heads, which affects the construction of the trailer.
Harper says: "If they bring the present proposals in, which includes calls for 20cm clearance above the heads of cattle, it will make it almost impossible to use a two-deck vehicle when moving them. His fleet of 20 vehicles includes five double-deckers; he says that under these plans they would have to be phased out by 1 January1999.
The economic consequences, such as the cost of replacement and the reduced numbers of animals carried, would force up the cost of the final product to the consumer.
BCC's Graham Taylor, says that these proposals for defining loading densities should improve the welfare of the travelling animals: "Animals are not like packing cases, and should have enough room to get up if they fall and not be trampled by others."
Harper says that providing every EC state observes them, these densities should pose no operational problems.That, however, is one of the only areas of agreement or optimism.
by Steve McQueen