DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental and Social Policy (ESP)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental and Social Policy (ESP) DOCUMENT OF THE EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL POLICY Report On the Invitation to the Public to Comment Report on Stakeholder Engagement: 2014 Environmental and Social Policy Introduction In accordance with the 2011 Public Information Policy, stakeholder comments were requested during the review/revision of the 2008 Environmental and Social Policy (ESP). An additional early stage of commenting was introduced in 2013, requesting comments on the ESP prior to drafting revised text. A brief summary was prepared of the main issues raised in the early consultation, and disclosed on the EBRD website along with the draft proposed text of the revised policy for a second stage of comments. The draft revised Environmental and Social Policy was disclosed on the EBRD website from 20 January until 5 March 2014 in English, Russian, and French languages. A series of public meetings was organised in Casablanca, Kiev, Tbilisi, Almaty, Moscow, Sofia, and London in February 2014, as well as a videoconference with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Belgrade. This report comprises a summary of the comments received from clients, CSOs and others during the consultation on the draft revised policy. The comments have all been reviewed and reflected in the revised policy document as appropriate. Client Survey ESD sought the views of clients on the proposed changes to the Environmental and Social Policy. Approximately 140 clients were surveyed, including both direct and indirect clients, private and public sector, and from a wide geographic range. Overall, the vast majority thought that the proposed changes were manageable and realistic, although many expressed the need for support from the Bank, either in terms of training and guidance or additional support during initial implementation. The application of the mitigation hierarchy was recognised as appropriate, although support or guidelines from EBRD was requested with regard to certain changes. Similarly, the reduction in the level of greenhouse gas levels that would trigger reporting gasses (from 100,000 to 25,000 tCO2eq/yr), led to a need for guidance on methodology and interpretation of results, particularly for those clients who not have needed to report under the previous limits. The introduction of the need to review the environmental and social performance of primary suppliers received a mixed response and was seen as particularly problematic for some clients operating outside the EU. Around half the respondents stated that they could accommodate this requirement, or already have a system in place or do so; however, the remaining respondents stated that this would be challenging. ‘This is not required by domestic laws… reasonable to meet for all international vendors but more challenging… for local suppliers’. In relation to health and safety requirements, the vast majority of responders agreed that the grouping of occupational, community, product, road and traffic health and safety in PR4 was logical and highlighted health and safety as a major issue for EBRD. Most were also appreciative of the need to undertake fire and life safety audits for buildings; follow good international practice for product safety; and to identify, evaluate and monitor potential traffic and road safety risks to workers and affected communities. Where issues were raised, these related to clarity on which EU standards would be applied, costs, and potential conflict with local laws.’ Local standards are much lower than international standards, hard to justify additional costs… this is a local authority led process that investment companies are excluded from’. The plan for EBRD to disclose Category A Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) on the EBRD website was acceptable to clients, as was the annual EBRD update of project summary documents (PSDs) for Category A projects. When asked about the timing of ESIA disclosure, the majority were satisfied with 60 days disclosure requirement but would have concerns about any extension to the consultation period for ESIAs on private sector projects. Additional guidance on consultation was requested, particularly in relation to preparing a stakeholder engagement plan and on the principles of stakeholder engagement. For Financial Intermediaries (FIs), the requirement to introduce an Environmental Management System was generally not seen as a problem, and most stated that they already had a system in place. Of those that did not, some commented that additional assistance would be useful, particularly in relation to IT systems to support the requirements. The issue that appears to be the most challenging for FIs was the new proposed requirement that Category A sub-projects would need to meet the direct financing requirements of Performance Requirements 1-8 and 10, relying on EU standards, and this would be particularly challenging for FIs in non-EU countries which might not be 1 familiar with the EU requirements. A small number claimed that this would cause a competitive disadvantage and slightly less than half the respondents expressed a need for additional training and guidance from EBRD, particularly in relation to the implementation of EU requirements, categorisation and external communication. ‘We would need training or reference materials from EBRD to apply all requirements…such assessment are not commonly used by our bank’. The requirement to disclose information on environmental and social issues was generally supported and many already do this through existing CSR/sustainability reports. However, some suggested that such disclosure would conflict with local legislation and most would require further guidance from EBRD on reporting. ‘[We have a] lack of experience in [this] area… we will need some guidelines on preparing public reports’ COMMENTS AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSES: PUBLIC MEETINGS, INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, CONSULTANTS, AND CIVIL SOCIETY ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL POLICY (ESP) The Bank requested comments on the basis of the draft revised Environmental and Social Policy from 20 January until 5 March 2014. Forty-nine sets of comments were received by the 5 March deadline, including comments from seven public meetings, two corporate stakeholders, a number of environmental and social consultants, and approximately 85 CSOs. The comments were divided by topic and the topics were organised into general comments, those relating to the Policy, and those relating to an individual Performance Requirement (PR). A column was added by the Bank to highlight the main topic in order to review multiple comments on the same issue together. In most cases, the language presented in the table below is consistent with the original submission; however, any country names or project/client names used as examples have been removed. General background information submitted was reviewed, but not included in the table of comments. The areas in the draft policy and PRs receiving the most comments were on international law/conventions, the use of qualifiers (e.g. “where appropriate”), human rights, the Bank’s commitments reflected in the policy, and PR6 on biodiversity and living natural resources. Key changes to the draft policy, in no order of priority, include: The Environmental and Social Policy The document was shortened by removing generic non-committal and/or aspirational statements and explanatory text. References were standardised to ‘Good International Practice’. The ESP emphasises the importance of human rights and that elements of human rights are addressed at the project level through the PRs. Explicit references to the need for potential gender impacts to be identified and addressed at the project level were introduced, as well as identification of gender opportunities in accordance with the Bank’s Strategic Gender Initiative. More emphasis on resource efficiency was introduced reflecting the Bank’s Sustainable Resources Initiative. The mitigation hierarchy was introduced as a conceptual approach which runs throughout the Policy and PRs. Respect of international conventions and treaties included, including reference to UNECE Aarhus and Espoo Conventions. EBRD role and practices Text was introduced to ensure clarity of scope in implementing the ESP and PRs: The definition of Category C projects was modified to recognise that limited appraisal will be carried out for these projects. More clarity was provided on whether requirements apply to the project or the client. Text has been added to require a level of assessment which is commensurate with potential risks and impacts. 2 PRs 2 and 4: Health & Safety Occupational and public health & safety were integrated under PR4 to present a holistic coverage of health and safety issues that may impact workers and communities. New text was included to address issues such as Traffic and Road Safety and Product and Services Safety and Universal Access. PRs 5, 7 and 8: Involuntary Resettlement, Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Heritage More explicit reference was added to the need for (and difference between) socio-economic baseline studies and census amongst project-affected parties. Requirements for compensation related to displaced persons were included. Reinsertion of legal assistance for resettlement in PR5. Clarification that the Bank will refrain from financing projects which involve, or result in, forced eviction. PR6: Biodiversity/living resources Clarifications were included as to when it is appropriate to apply an adaptive management
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Citizens Against Fur Farming
    European citizens against fur farming Opinion polls from a number of European countries have consistently demonstrated that the majority of citizens consider breeding animals for fur unacceptable. Fur farming has already been banned in Austria, Bosnia- Hercegovina, Croatia, The Netherlands, Republic of Macedonia, Slovenia, UK and Northern Ireland and in the Belgian region of Wallonia. Austria: 81 % of Austrians consider that killing animals for fur products is wrong (Integral Survey/Four Paws, 2014) Belgium: 86 % favor a ban on breeding animals for their fur (Ipson/GAIA, 2012) Croatia: 73 % agree that breeding animals for fur should be legally banned in Croatia (SPEM Communication Group, Animal Friends Croatia, 2006) Czech Republic: 70% agrees that fur farming should be banned (Centre pro výzkum veřejného mínění, CVVM/Svoboda Zvirat, 2015) Estonia: 59 % do not support that wild animals are raised on farms for the purpose of producing fur (Saar Poll LLC social market and research provider/LOOMUS, 2014) Germany: 86 % of Germans consider that killing animals for fur products is wrong (Integral/Four Paws Germany 2014) Italy: 91 % of Italians are against the activities linked to the production of fur using animals (EURISPES “Italy Report”, 2015) Latvia: 64% of the Latvian population considers fur farming unacceptable (SolidData/Dzivnieku Briviba, 2015) Lithuania: 58% of the Lithuanian citizens considers raising and killing wild animals for fur unacceptable (Vilmorus, Tušti narvai, 2016) The Netherlands: 84% considers fur farming unacceptable (Motivaction/Bont voor Dieren, 2015) Norway: 68 % of people said fur farming was wrong (Infact/Dyrevernalliansen 2014) Poland: 66 % thinks the breeding of foxes, raccoon dogs and minks for fur should not be allowed.
    [Show full text]
  • VIER PFOTEN – Stiftung Für Tierschutz / FOUR PAWS European Policy Office, Brussels
    VIER PFOTEN – Stiftung für Tierschutz / FOUR PAWS European Policy Office, Brussels KILLING OF HEALTHY DOGS IN EUROPE Legal Research I. SUMMARY 1.1 Legality of the killing of healthy dogs In 10 EU Member States the law explicitly allows to kill dogs in shelters or strays. In 7 EU Member States, killing of healthy cats and dogs can be practiced because the law does not prohibit it (no legislation on this issue). In 8 EU Member States (+ the Spanish Region of Catalunya), the Law clearly prohibits the killing of dogs in shelters or abandoned and their offspring. Member States who have prohibited the killing of healthy dogs are mainly located in Central Europe We couldn’t succeed to find the Cyprus and Maltese legislation on this topic 1.2 The person responsible of the killing In 15 EU Member States, the law allows only veterinarians to kill an animal (healthy or sick), and in one Member State, the killing has to be done at least under the supervision of a veterinarian. In 6 EU Member States, the law allows the killing of stray animals by another person than a veterinarian: a police officer, a professional killer, or even any other person. In 5 EU Member States, the Law does not say who can practice the killing 1.3 Reasons for killing In all Member States, suffering of the dog and public health risk is a reason for killing animals In at least 11 EU Member States, public safety is also a valid reason to kill animals 1.4 Deadline Among the 12 EU Member States which authorize the killing of healthy dogs, 8 of them provides a time frame during which the killing is not possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Virginijus Sinkevičius Mr. Valdis Dombrovskis
    Mr. Virginijus Sinkevičius Commissioner Directorate-General for Environment European Commission 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel Belgium Mr. Valdis Dombrovskis Commissioner Directorate-General for Trade European Commission 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel Belgium February 2021 Dear Sirs, Sub: EU priority steps to ban all commercial intra-EU and external trade in live tigers and tiger parts and derivatives We the undersigned organizations are writing to you to express our continued concern about the commercial trade of live tigers, tiger parts and derivatives within, from and into the European Union. Furthermore, we would like to draw your attention to the loopholes in EU Regulations which help facilitate this trade, provide cover for illegal activities, and thereby threaten the survival of wild tigers. We repeat our request1 to the Commission to exercise its mandate under Article 19.4 of the Basic Regulation 338/97 to adopt additional measures to ensure that the EU does not contribute to the breeding of tigers for trade in their parts and derivatives nor contributes to the breeding for commercial trade in tigers without demonstrated conservation benefit.2 We ask that the Commission takes priority steps to ban all intra-EU and external trade in live tigers and tiger parts and derivatives for commercial purposes. We also would like to thank Commissioner Sinkevičius for highlighting the plight of tigers and the need for their protection at the webinar Profit or protection: Why Europe needs to ban the commercial trade in tigers and their parts 3 organised by FOUR PAWS on December 1st, 2020. EU-wide commercial trade and illegal activities Following the seizure of dead tigers and equipment to make tiger products from a registered tiger breeder in the Czech Republic (July 2018), animal welfare organization FOUR PAWS has consistently documented illicit activities throughout the European Union from 2018 to December 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • “Petsafe” HOW PET REGISTRATION CAN REGULATE the ONLINE PUPPY TRADE
    “PetSAFE” HOW PET REGISTRATION CAN REGULATE THE ONLINE PUPPY TRADE Michel Schoffeniels, President EUROPETNET Julia Mundl, International Campaign Manager FOUR PAWS (updates done after the Berlin conference on slide 8) WHY ARE WE HERE? Suggest how to end illegal puppy trade online Overview of this session: ▪ What is the problem? ▪ Why EUROPETNET & FOUR PAWS? ▪ What is our suggested solution? © Fotolia | Eric Isselée WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? ▪ Cruelly “produced”, illegally imported, often sick puppies bring huge profits for illegal dealers ▪ Classified ad sites are mains sales channel: hardly regulated, anonymous use, dealers disappear ▪ EU countries investigated online pet trade ads: Illegal transports, lack of trader identification, fake pet IDs. Conclusion: e-commerce control needs to be strengthened. ➢ Our approach: Make the online trade safe and block market access for unscrupulous dealers. Only registered dogs can be advertised by traceable sellers. FOUR PAWS & EUROPETNET partner up for a solution. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_other_euccp_dogs-cats-analysis.pdf WHY EUROPETNET? ▪ Runs a central European reference registry, which tells in which database details on a pet are stored (e.g. for re-uniting with owner) ▪ 47 pet registration databases from 26 countries (EU & Europe) ▪ Stores over 92 million datafiles on pets ▪ Over 20 years experience in monitoring fraudulent activity © 123RF | Eric Isselée WHY FOUR PAWS? ▪ International Animal Welfare Organization ▪ 15 offices worldwide: Europe (AT, D, CH, NL, UK, BG; European Policy Office in Brussels), USA, ZA, AUS, Southeast Asia ▪ Working over 12 years on illegal puppy trade; focus on online trade since 2016 ▪ Developed “Model Solution” to regulate the online puppy trade in 2019 OUR SOLUTION: „PET SAFE“ Only registered dogs can be advertised online, by traceable sellers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Report
    FOUR PAWS – Foundation for Animal Welfare 2016 ANNUAL REPORT More Humanity Towards Animals Contents Editorial 3 Editorial Ladies and gentlemen! 4 Overview Map 6 The Year in Pictures What did we achieve for animals in 2016? At the end of every year, we owe it not 8 Vision, Mission, How We Work only to ourselves but above all to our numerous supporters and interested members 10 Donor Service and PR of the public, to give a detailed response to that question. That's why I'm delighted to be able to give you a comprehensive summary of our work in 2016 in the form of Report On Our Work this annual report. During the past year, FOUR PAWS had 11 national branches Wild Animals and operated in a further 14 countries around the world. Stray animal care 12 Helping Bears teams in eight countries neutered and treated more than 10,000 animals living 16 Helping Big Cats on the streets. Our disaster support campaign organised food for about 10,500 farm animals, preventing them from starving. The team led by vet Dr Amir Khalil 18 Great Apes in Need released 15 zoo animals from the Gaza Strip and saved them from certain death. OWL AND BIRD OF PREY CENTRE, Haringsee 20 At our five bear sanctuaries and three big cat centres, we fed and looked after 74 22 Fur Farming Campaign bears and 107 big cats every day throughout 2016. We were also able to rescue a 24 Campaign for Wild Horses and Working Animals further 17 bears and tigers from terrible conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Puppy Trade in Europe
    PUPPY TRADE IN EUROPE Research on the impact of illegal businesses on the market, on consumers, on the one-health concept and on animal welfare FOUR PAWS International November 2013 SUMMARY The puppy trade business (with mostly breed puppies) grew more professional and more industrial in the last 5 years. The profit margin all through the trade chain and the little to none existent law enforcement seems to make it an easy gamble with a lot of wins. They drug the puppies and drive with them through the whole of Europe. This industrial scale of puppy trade needs to be targeted. Stronger law enforcement needs to be put in place to control known traders and their veterinarians. In the frame of its 2013 Puppy Trade Campaign, FOUR PAWS has mandated an investigator to lead a field investigation to identify puppy trade networks in Europe. The goal was to identify the biggest puppy traders likely to be illegal traders using harmful or illegal practices and breaching current puppy trade, transport and animal welfare legislation. Out of a range of identified targets, several puppy traders were chosen to be investigated more in detail. During its 8 month inquiry, the investigator visited around 50 places. This permits to shed light on how puppy trade businesses are operating today. The interviews, collected documents and detailed observation led to identify around 30 international trade links that appear to be operational. In parallel to this investigation, FOUR PAWS has lead several actions against illegal puppy trade. Among other, the organisation has created a platform (www.stoppuppytraders.org) to gather testimonies of people who bought a puppy that was sold through illegal practices, got seriously ill or died.
    [Show full text]
  • Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Director-General's Office WHO Headquarters Avenue Appia 20 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
    Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Director-General's Office WHO Headquarters Avenue Appia 20 1211 Geneva, Switzerland Vienna, 10th March 2021 Dear Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Dear Dr Monique Eloit, Dear Dr QU Dongyu, On behalf of the international animal welfare organisation, FOUR PAWS, I am writing to you upon the first anniversary of the World Health Organisation declaring COVID-19 a pandemic. FOUR PAWS is an international Animal Welfare organization with offices in ten European countries, as well as South Africa, Australia, Vietnam, Thailand and the USA. We run several campaigns and projects for wild animals, farm animals and companion animals to improve the welfare of animals kept under direct human influence. Reflecting on Dr Tedros’ speech, a year ago today, which called for “a whole-of-government, whole- of-society approach, built around a comprehensive strategy to prevent infections, save lives and minimize impact,” it is deeply concerning that the same approach is not being applied to tackling the root causes of this pandemic and other zoonoses. As you will all be aware, approximately 75% of emerging infectious diseases1, such as SARS and BSE, are zoonotic, originating from a range of animal species. COVID-19, with its potential origins in a live animal market, later infected millions of mink on fur farms across the globe, resulting in new concerning virus variants that can spill over back to humans and affect vaccine efficacy. Beyond the tragic human health toll of COVID-19, zoonoses cause approximately one billion cases of illness in people and millions of deaths every year2.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 First Detected in European Mink Farms a Year Ago – Ngos and the Public Urge the EU to Act
    COVID-19 first detected in European mink farms a year ago – NGOs and the public urge the EU to act For immediate release: Brussels 14 April 2021 12 months after the SARS-CoV-2 virus was first detected in animals in a mink farm in the Netherlands, the EU has failed to take decisive action to shut down these coronavirus reservoirs despite huge public support for a ban on fur farming. In recent months, almost 500.000 people have signed a petition calling for an end to the cruel and deadly fur trade. A new survey also shows strong support for emergency EU action to put an end to fur farming and breeding, to protect the health of EU citizens and animals. Throughout the past year, there have been outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19 to humans) on more than 400 mink farms in ten EU Member States, with millions of animals affected. Given the living conditions on fur farms, once a single animal has been infected, the virus spreads quickly. It soon became evident that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not only spread between farmed mink and mutate, but can also be transmitted back to humans and wildlife. Fur farms pose a threat to public health and have the potential to become reservoirs for the coronavirus. A joint assessment from the World Health Organization (WHO ), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that there is a significant risk of COVID-19 being transmitted from mink to humans.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 FOUR PAWS International Thomas Pietsch Wild Animal Lead Expert
    FOUR PAWS International Thomas Pietsch Wild Animal Lead Expert Schomburgstraße 120 22767 Hamburg Germany Ministry of Agriculture Prof. Davor Romić, PhD, Minister Ministry of Agriculture Ulica grada Vukovara 78 10000 Zagreb Croatia 24. February 2016 Dear Minister, Uphold the legal ban of fur farming in Croatia I am writing you on behalf of the international animal welfare organisation FOUR PAWS. We strive for sustainable improvements for animals through substantiated research and scientific expertise, awareness raising campaigns and projects providing concrete solutions for animals in need. We are focusing on animals that are directly under human influence, in the area of captive wild animals fur farming is one of our main working areas. FOUR PAWS runs offices in countries like Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands or United Kingdom with legal bans for fur farms in place and since years we encourage the development of such legal measures that effectively protect fur bearing animals from cruelty. Behind this background we are alarmed to hear that the ban in Croatia is threatened by a new amendment to the Animal Protection Act which would exclude chinchillas from the existing ban. In our opinion such an amendment would be a huge step backwards for Croatian welfare legislation and the protection of fur animals, especially because of the fact that the transitional period should end in less than a year. Today more and more European countries decide to ban all types of fur farming irrespective of the species concerned. We are now worried that Croatia – being one of Europe’s forerunner countries on welfare standards for fur animals since years - may fall 1 back into the situation before 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
    STATE OF HAWAII DAVID Y. IGE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR CATHERINE P. AWAKUNI COLÓN DIRECTOR GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS JOSH GREEN JO ANN M. UCHIDA TAKEUCHI 335 MERCHANT STREET, ROOM 310 DEPUTY DIRECTOR LT. GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 541 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 Phone Number: 586-2850 Fax Number: 586-2856 cca.hawaii.gov Testimony of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Before the House Committee on Finance Tuesday, February 25, 2020 11:00 a.m. State Capitol, Conference Room 308 On the following measure: H.B. 1689, H.D. 1, RELATING TO ANIMAL FUR PRODUCTS Chair Luke and Members of the Committee: My name is Catherine Awakuni Colón, and I am the Director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA or Department). The Department appreciates the intent of this bill and offers comments. The purposes of this bill are to: (1) task the DCCA with prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or distribution of certain animal fur products in the State, with certain exceptions; and (2) allow the DCCA Director to impose penalties and administrative fines upon any person who violates the statutory chapter regulating animal fur products. The Department appreciates the bill’s intent to eliminate fur farming and the sale or distribution of fur products in Hawaii to foster a more humane environment. The Department notes, however, that the regulation of animal fur products would require oversight by a department or an agency well-versed in matters involving fur farming, fur trade industries, and animal rights. These matters are well outside the jurisdiction of the DCCA, which protects consumers through business registration and professional Testimony of DCCA H.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Director Introduction from International Ceo & Chair of Four Paws Uk Board, Josef Pfabigan
    Animal Welfare. Worldwide. Appointment Brief - June 2021 DIRECTOR INTRODUCTION FROM INTERNATIONAL CEO & CHAIR OF FOUR PAWS UK BOARD, JOSEF PFABIGAN Dear Candidate, Thank you for your interest in the post of Director at FOUR The Director, UK will be line managed by the Chief PAWS UK. This position provides an exciting opportunity to Development Officer who is based in Vienna and will also lead the UK office of the global animal welfare organisation report to the UK board of Trustees three to four times a year. FOUR PAWS. What we are looking for is someone who can hit the ground running, deliver our international and national campaigns, FOUR PAWS is headquartered in Vienna where it was manage and further develop a strong senior management founded in 1988 by Heli Dungler and friends. Mr Dungler team, confidently represent the charity to the media, suddenly and sadly passed away in January 2020. FOUR politicians and within the sector and significantly raise the PAWS UK was set up almost fifteen years ago and, in that profile of FOUR PAWS in the UK. time, we have substantially grown our London based team and UK supporter base. We campaign on a range of topics Within the rest of this pack, you will find more information at the national level, as well as asking our UK supporters about our activities, our vision and mission, our achievements to add their voice to our international campaigns. Over the and our structure. You will also find details of the job years, we have been able to see those campaigns lead to description and person specification and information on how substantive positive changes in legislation and corporate to apply for this unique opportunity.
    [Show full text]
  • The EU Commission Has No Intention of Regulating Responsible Online Pet Trade
    Companion animal health and welfare The EU Commission has no intention of regulating responsible online pet trade Concern about pet health and welfare due to unregulated online trade was at the heart of a joint letter sent early June to EU Commissioners Andriukaitis (DG SANTE) and Ansip (Vice-President of the EU Commission and in charge of the EU Digital Single Market) by the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE), the Union of European Veterinary Practitioners (UEVP), Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations (FECAVA) and FOUR PAWS International. In particular, the letter called upon the EU Commission to regulate the selling and buying of animals online, and to improve the traceability of pet sellers. In reply, the Commissioners recalled the existence of current relevant legislation, in particular those covering the commercial and non-commercial movement legislation, the (new) Animal Health Law and the E-Commerce Directive. National enforcement “not enough” Pierre Sultan, Director of European Policy Office commented: “We appreciate that EU Commissioner Andriukaitis made clear that under the Animal Health Law, any keeper of dogs and cats for commercial purposes should register his establishment, even if he is not the owner and keeps the animals only on a temporary basis.” “However, it is disappointing that the EU Commission doesn’t intend to go further and will be relying on the Member States for proper enforcement. Research into 42 classified ad sites in 10 countries carried out by FOUR PAWS has clearly revealed that this is not enough.” Indeed, several loopholes in EU legislation and its enforcement have been identified by FOUR PAWS’ Pet Deception Campaign (www.petdeception.org) and by the joint FVE, UEVP and FECAVA report “Working towards responsible dog trade.” FECAVA President Jerzy Gawor stressed: “Profit should never take priority over animal health and welfare or public health and should never harm the consumer.
    [Show full text]