'False information was knowingly provided.'

What led to your decision to take a closer look at the so-called Eastern route?

The abuses on the transport route, which had been well documented by Animals’ Angels, triggered a number of discussions between the federal and state governments. It was repeatedly argued that reports from NGOs could not be regarded as verified facts—while, on the other hand, the industry insisted that everything was in order.

At the same time, things were going in circles: the federal government called on the states to take action, as enforcement lay with them. The states, in turn, urged the federal government to certify the staging posts in third countries. I have little patience for such ineffective debates, even shortly before retirement.

As luck would have it, someone who is also very familiar with the conditions in Russia approached me. That gave us a door opener, and we set off. The minister responsible for animal welfare in Hesse strongly supported this official trip.

How did you proceed and what did you find on site?

Our aim was to visit the ten addresses that were repeatedly listed in transport logbooks as control posts, or at least to verify whether they actually existed. Our findings were sobering: as of August 2019, there were two control posts in the Smolensk region registered by the Russian authorities, but they did not comply with EU standards.

Along the remaining roughly 3,000 kilometres towards Uzbekistan, however, there was nothing. At seven of the listed addresses, we found only houses or barns that were not suitable for unloading animals. One address turned out to be an unapproved facility and therefore illegal under Russian law as well.

And your conclusion from this?

A lawful, compliant transport of cattle to large parts of Russia, Kazakhstan, or Uzbekistan was and remains impossible. This is not changed by the fact that there are now two additional control posts approved by Russia.

And even if there were a sufficient number of suitable control posts, this would not mean that the animals would actually receive proper care and be able to rest. In many cases, they remain on the trucks at highway parking areas or in front of the control posts. We were also informed of such cases.

How can it then still be the subject of debate whether export transports to third countries are safe for the animals?

Economic interests are apparently still more decisive for many politicians, and also for some official veterinarians, than compliance with applicable law. We should be clear that exporters have demonstrably lied for many years and provided information about non-existent control posts. Strikingly, this has not had any consequences in the debate either.

What do you think should be done now?

At the very least, we would need an external, independent control system in the third countries that not only certifies control posts but also monitors day-to-day practice. However, I am not very optimistic about this: anyone familiar with the serious enforcement deficits in Germany can only conclude, with regard to exports, that these transports are not compatible with animal welfare. It would be better to export semen, embryos, meat, and milk instead.

This interview was published in our 2020 annual report.