EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 8.9.2016 COM(2016) 558 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes



REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes 1. Introduction Article 5(2) of Directive 98/58/EC requires the Commission to submit a report to the Council based on the experience gained by Member States since its implementation. Commission Decision 2006/778/EC lays down provisions concerning minimum requirements for collecting information during inspections of production sites on which certain animals are kept for farming purposes. Its annexes contain tables of the requirements to be checked with regard to non-compliance. Under this Decision, Member States have been obliged to send the Commission annual reports since June 2009. Also, recital (9) of this Decision indicates that “the collection of data on animal welfare inspections is essential for the Community to evaluate the impact of its policy in this field”. The EU Animal Welfare Strategy 2012-2015 identifies lack of enforcement of EU legislation as one of the main problems affecting the welfare of animals. In addition the report to the Council on the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes provides valuable insight into areas of enforcement. 2. Methodology The report covers the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2014. Three sources of information have been used in compiling this report: Firstly, the data used stem from reports of the Commission containing the results of its audits performed in Member States. The reports are mainly from the years 2011-2013, as the audits performed in those years specifically targeted the on-farm situation (see Table 1 of Annex I). Secondly, each Member State must ensure that animal welfare inspections are performed in line with the rules on official controls laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 . National competent authorities are responsible for reporting the findings of these inspections annually to the Commission. The Commission has used the data provided by the Member States for the years 2013 and 2014 as these data tend to reflect the most recent situation. An overview of the number of holdings subject to inspection and the percentage of sites inspected is shown in Table 2 of Annex I. Finally, the Commission at times receives complaints concerning the alleged failure of one or more Member States to apply Union law. These complaints can also provide valuable insight into areas that are perceived by citizens to not be properly enforced. 3. Findings 3.1 System for surveillance and inspections Commission audits show that Member States have put in place a risk based system for selecting sites for inspection. A significant reason for carrying out risk-based animal welfare inspections on farms was Regulation 882/2004 on official controls and cross-compliance checks for single farm payments . Several Member States describe in detail their system for selecting the holdings to be inspected which also confirms the use of a risk-based approach. In addition, EU legislation requires that the absolute number of inspections must be proportionate to the scale of production and the number of animals involved.

Moreover Member States need to follow up any recommendation made during audits. The Commission noted in its audits that national officials took action in all cases. Nevertheless it also found that the measures were insufficient to achieve compliance in three of the Member States. In two of these Member States this was found to be due to the lack of sanctions that were dissuasive enough while one Member State had not pursued the case adequately. 3.2. Variations in Member States’ reporting The considerable differences in Member States’ reporting make the interpretation and comparison of the data generally more difficult. An online form was developed in 2012 based on the tables of Decision 2006/778/EC, which Member States have been using in 2013 and 2014. This online form has allowed the Commission to analyse the reported figures more efficiently. However some inconsistencies persist. This is especially true of domestic fowl. According to the definition of the term ‘domestic fowl ’ this column should only be used for chickens kept for meat production (broilers). However, several Member States have also included figures for small laying hen holdings in the domestic fowl column. It is therefore impossible to know whether the findings are representative of broiler or laying hen holdings. A similar problem exists for the ‘cattle’ category which includes both beef and dairy production systems. As the risks to animal welfare in the two systems differ, a separate analysis of the data would be useful. 3.3. Technical findings Firstly, for the findings to be considered representative of the production system, the percentage of holdings inspected compared to the total number of holdings needs to be high enough (see Figure 1 of Annex I). In only one case did the Commission experts highlight that the number of facilities inspected was quite low compared to the scale of production. The Commission reported no inadequacies relating to the risk-based selection of holdings. It should be noted that the number of holdings inspected was particularly high for both laying hens and sows in 2013 and 2014. This may be due to the ban on unenriched cages for laying hens (2012) and the introduction of group housing of sows (2013), and the linked obligation to ensure full compliance. Secondly, with regard to the number of non-compliances, it is important to bear in mind that these include all types of breaches of EU legislation, even minor ones. Categories A and B in Table 3 cover administrative acts of non-compliance, which result in a request to address the issue either within three months or sometimes longer. Category C covers more severe breaches which result in immediate action for administrative or criminal penalties. By way of illustration, only 8.1 % of the breaches in domestic fowl holdings registered in 2014 were severe, resulting in immediate action. Finally, it is important to take into account that, following a risk based approach those holdings where breaches are most likely to occur are targeted specifically. As a result, any increase in the number of breaches recorded does not necessarily indicate a worsened welfare situation. In addition, the risk-based approach should in general result in animal welfare issues being more rapidly addressed and an improved situation for the animal.

With due regard to methodological weaknesses, these are the findings: Commission audits Eighteen of the Commission audits in 2011-13covered laying hens (13) and/or sows (8). The outcomes of these audits provide a good reflection of the situation prior to the introduction of the ban on unenriched cages for laying hens and the transition to group housing of sows. In most of the Member States audited with regard to the keeping of pigs, the Commission experts also reported non-compliance relating to the provision of manipulable material and the avoidance of tail-docking. The findings in these Member States are quite diverse. Some were found to be doing very little with regard to preventing routine tail-docking or providing manipulable material. There was frequently a lack of insistence by the competent authority to impose other measures, such as changes to environmental conditions or management systems. In addition, unsuitable materials such as metal chains were considered acceptable by a majority of the Member States’ officials while suitable materials were e.g. considered incompatible with drainage systems. Four Member States had issued guidance or introduced measures to reduce non-compliances. Yet, the audits highlighted that Member State officials often lacked expertise on how to interpret the requirements for the provision of manipulable materials, and for management and environmental changes to be made before allowing routine tail-docking. The Commission also performed 9 audits in 2014 which found that data from slaughterhouses was used to assess welfare of domestic fowl/broiler farms. However only three Member States audited effectively used this data to check farms. In the other Member States severe lesions were regularly seen at slaughter but with little feedback to those carrying out farm checks. Member States’ reports Information about breaches reported by the Member States for the farmed species covered by EU animal welfare rules may be found in Table 3 of Annex I. 'Record keeping' is one of the categories where there are a high number of non-compliances for almost all farmed species. This category relates to the insufficient traceability of medicinal treatments and mortalities observed by the farmer, and is an important source of information. As regards the requirements affecting the animal itself, the most frequent negative finding relate to ‘buildings and accommodation’. The improper design of buildings, floors and fittings falls under this heading. In addition it encompasses the equipment inside the building/cage/pen as well as inadequate use of the facilities such as poor regimes for ventilation or lighting.

The main other types of non-compliance found vary depending on the animal species farmed. For calves it was ‘freedom of movement’, which includes an animal's ability to move around and rules concerning tethering, while for domestic fowl it related to regular checks on the functioning of ‘automatic and mechanical equipment’. Problems relating to ‘feed, water and other substances’ were quite frequent for free-range laying hens, cattle, sheep and goats. This last issue covers the diet itself, an animal's access to feed and water and the checks on any automated feeders or drinkers. Member States' reports show a rate of non-compliance of 8.4% in 2013 concerning pigs and the provision of manipulable material. For mutilations (i.e. tail-docking but also castration and teeth clipping) the rate of non-compliance registered by the Member States was 2.2%. Complaints In 2013 and 2014 the Commission registered eight complaints concerning Member States’ failure to provide pigs with manipulable material and routine tail docking. These complaints also reflect the findings of the Commission audits. Of these, five have so far been closed. In the meantime, the Commission has issued guidance in this area. Though there have been complaints on other animal welfare issues such as the production of foie gras, transport and welfare at slaughter, numbers remain low for each topic. All complaints have been closely assessed and it has been concluded that there were not sufficient grounds to proceed in any of them. Thus the majority of them have been closed. 4. Conclusion The general principles and provisions contained in Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes have contributed to the establishment of a common framework for the welfare of farmed animals in the EU. The Directive has also supported the Member States in ensuring that these rules are properly enforced and implemented. Crucially, the Member States are obliged to submit annual reports on the outcome of their checks on the application of animal welfare rules and to identify new targets to improve enforcement; this has led to prioritization of welfare issues. Indeed the reports indicate that Member States seem to be working systematically to address any non-compliance identified and to enforce EU animal welfare rules. This is corroborated by figures from the previous Commission report of 2006 and figures reported by the Member States for 2013 and 2014. There has been a noticeable improvement in the number of compliant holdings. In fact, with regard to the latest two measures introduced – banning unenriched cages for laying hens (2012) and individual stalls for sows (2013) – action taken by the Commission to encourage all Member States to properly enforce these bans has proved effective. Currently, according to information available to the Commission, all Member States are compliant and are using either enriched cages or alternative systems for laying hens. As regards group housing of sows 25 Member States are compliant while three have declared full compliance. The Commission is in the process of checking the documentation provided to substantiate these claims. In most cases, the data indicates slight improvements between 2013 and 2014. For example, the registered compliance for domestic fowl and the requirement relating to ‘automatic and mechanical equipment’ increased from 82.1 % to 86.4 %. There was also a general improvement reported from 2013 to 2014 in ‘record keeping’ and ‘buildings and accommodations’ for the majority of species and production systems. A majority of those Member States who have provided an analysis of their findings also mention that there is a general trend towards a change for the better. Some also highlighted that lack of knowledge is often the cause of non-compliance and have for this reason introduced measures on training in their action plans for the coming year. This overall improvement, including on the part of Member States is supported by the Commission's audits undertaken during the same period. These have concluded that the Member States had followed up recommendations and that the situation had improved compared to previous audits. It is however necessary to continue to work with the Member States to introduce further improvements in the way compliance with animal welfare rules are reported. For instance, since Decision 2006/778/EC was issued, other legal requirements in the field of animal welfare have been adopted. Such legislative changes introduced at a later date are not reflected in today’s reporting obligations. Consideration on how best to ensure the harmonious transfer of this additional data, whilst simultaneously keeping administrative burdens to a minimum is needed. Finally, from the information gathered, it becomes clear that a better common understanding of existing animal welfare rules and how they are to be applied and enforced is required. This is particularly true of certain legal requirements for the welfare of pigs. Between 2013 and 2014, data from the Member States data shows that there was only a small increase in breaches registered as regards the provision of manipulable material and that the number of breaches concerning the tail docking of pigs decreased. This is in contrast to the Commission audit reports showing a much higher number of breaches for these two requirements in most of the Member States audited. Moreover, the numbers of complaints on these issues seem to indicate increased awareness among EU citizens and an interest in the well-being of pigs. The lower figures reported by the Member States could result from a failure to recognise non-compliance. Commission audits showed that with regard to tail docking most Member States considered that they were compliant with Union law. Meanwhile, work has been ongoing on this subject for several years with a view to increasing knowledge and changing attitudes. Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/336 of 8 March 2016 introduces a number of parameters that are pertinent in reducing tail-biting and lists the characteristics of an optimal enrichment material. The accompanying Staff working document provides Member States with further details on the issue and also gives them tools and indicators that can be used in assessing the on farm situation. As a minimum, the Commission will continue to monitor compliance with the implementation of Council Directive 98/58/EC. However, it is apparent from the action plans and comments provided that the Member States use various tools to better enforcement in this area. In parallel the Commission considers it essential to develop further stakeholder dialogues in order to favour specific initiatives and projects in this field that could be mutually beneficial both from an economic and animal welfare point of view. Against this background the Commission is currently working on a more systematic and visible format for this dialogue, so that all interested parties (animal welfare organisations, scientists, veterinarians, farmers, food processors, food retailers, etc.) could express their concerns, share knowledge and resources to build common activities. Furthermore, the adoption of a Commission proposal on official controls will open the way for the establishment of European Reference Centres for Animal Welfare that could also contribute to further improvements through the creation and exchange of better technical and scientific knowledge. Annex I

Table 1 List of Commission audits 2010 - 2014 Member State Report number Subject of animal welfare audit Date Malta 2010-8386 farms and transport (laying hens, calves, pigs, 2006/778) Jan 2010 Luxembourg 2010-8385 farms and transport (98/58, 2006/778, laying hens, pigs) Jan 2010 France 2010-8390 farms and transport (laying hens, pigs, 2006/778) Feb 2010 Poland 2010-8387 farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) Feb-Mar 2010 Italy 2010-8388 farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs) Mar 2010 Romania 2010-8389 farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) Apr 2010 Bulgaria 2010-8383 farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) Apr 2010 Czech Republic 2010-8384 farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) Jun 2010 Sweden 2010-8391 farms and transport (2006/778, laying hens, pigs) Oct 2010 Denmark 2010-8392 farms and transport (laying hens, pigs) Nov 2010 Austria 2011-6096 farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) Jan 2011 Portugal 2011-6052 farms and transport (broilers, laying hens, calves, pigs) May 2011 Poland 2011-6049 farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) May-Jun 2011 Belgium 2011-6039 farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) Jun-Jul 2011 Hungary 2011-6045 farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, broilers, pigs, Council of Europe (CoE) geese) Sep 2011 Slovakia 2011-6053 farms and transport (laying hens, broilers, pigs) Sep 2011 Italy 2011-6048 farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) Nov 2011 Ireland 2012-6379 laying hens on farms Mar 2012 Slovenia 2012-6375 farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers) Apr 2012 Netherlands 2012-6376 farms and transport (98/58, laying hens, pigs, broilers, CoE cattle) May 2012 Bulgaria 2012-6454 farms and transport (laying hens, broilers, pigs) Jun 2012 Latvia 2012-6525 farms and transport (98/58, 2006/778, laying hens, pigs, broilers, calves, CoE cattle, CoE fur farms) Oct 2012 Lithuania 2012-6526 farms and transport (98/58, pigs, broilers, CoE fur farms) Nov 2012 France 2012-6446 farms and transport (laying hens, pigs, broilers, CoE Muscovy ducks) Nov 2012 Romania 2012-6374 farms and transport (laying hens, pigs, broilers, CoE turkeys, CoE ducks) Nov 2012 United Kingdom 2013-6822 major farmed species and chickens for meat production (broilers, CoE turkeys) Feb-Mar 2013 Denmark 2013-6807 major farmed species and chickens for meat production (broilers, CoE fur farms, CoE cattle) Oct 2013 Austria 2013-6805 major farmed species -Council of Europe requirements (2006/778, CoE cattle, CoE turkeys, CoE geese) Nov 2013



Table 2 Summary of all Member States’ reports for 2013 – 2014 by species 2013 Category Description Laying hens Free range Laying hens Barn Laying hens Enriched Turkeys Domestic fowl Ducks Geese Production sites subject to inspection 6.731 3.490 3.236 19.768 111.115 29.877 13.553 Production sites inspected 20.1 % 33.6 % 40 % 5.1 % 5.3 % 2.8 % 5.6 % Production sites without non-compliance 89.8 % 89.4 % 87.5 % 90.7 % 82.7 % 89.9 % 89 % Total Non-compliance Cat 198 189 224 122 1275 132 127 Category Description Ratites Pigs Cattle (except calves) Calves Sheep Goats Fur animals Production sites subject to inspection 788 685.660 1.503.586 942.407 549.713 186.632 3.956 Production sites inspected 13.5 % 4.3 % 4.5 % 4.1 % 3 % 2.5 % 28.8 % Production sites without non-compliance 90.6 % 80.8 % 86.2 % 87.2 % 86.4 % 80.7 % 85.1 % 2014 Category Description Laying hens Free range Laying hens Barn Laying hens Enriched Turkeys Domestic fowl Ducks Geese Production sites subject to inspection 12.099 12.772 3.565 26.395 183.920 75.420 37.241 Production sites inspected 17.3% 16% 40.5% 5.6% 4.1% 1.9% 3.3% Production sites without non-compliance 91.8% 92.3% 86.4% 88.4% 83.5% 91.5% 90.7% Category Description Ratites Pigs Cattle (except calves) Calves Sheep Goats Fur animals Production sites subject to inspection 1.716 767.042 1.626.413 978.358 653.721 235.205 4.317 Production sites inspected 11.2% 4.7% 4.6% 4.5% 3.4% 2.9% 28.7% Production sites without non-compliance 92.2% 82.2% 86.6% 84.7% 89.5% 81.4% 85.6%



Figure 1 Percentage of production sites inspected 2013 and 2014



Table 3 Number of production sites in the Member States subject to inspection and percentage of non-compliances in 2013 and 2014 - main farmed species 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 Category Description Laying hens Free range Laying hens Free range Pigs Pigs Calves Calves Domestic fowl Domestic fowl Production sites subject to inspection 6.731 12.099 685.660 767.042 942.407 978.358 111.115 183.920 Production sites inspected 20.1 % 17.3% 4.3 % 4.7% 4.1 % 4.5% 5.3 % 4.1% Production sites without non-compliance 89.8 % 91.8% 80.8 % 82.2% 87.2 % 84.7% 82.7 % 83.5% Number of Non-Compliances Staffing 5.6 % 5.6% 2.9 % 3.1% 2.4 % 2.3% 14 % 10.5% Inspection 6.1 % 8.9% 7.8 % 9.2% 7.8 % 8.8% 8.2 % 7.4% Record keeping 22.7 % 27.1% 15.5 % 13.5% 17.4 % 12.8% 44.5 % 30.5% Freedom of movement 0.5 % 2.8% 3 % 4.1% 14.2 % 14.3% 3.4 % 4.4% Space allowances 5.6 % 5.1% 13 % 6.3% 6.9 % 7% 4 % 5.1% Buildings and accommodation 78.3 % 84.6% 27.5 % 28.5% 40.9 % 39.3% 36.4 % 37.3% Minimum lighting 2.5 % 3.3% 5.5 % 8.8% 1.9 % 2.8% 0.8 % 2.7% Flooring surfaces (for pigs) 0 % 0% 8.8 % 9.3% 0 % 0% 0 % 0% Manipulable materials (for pigs) 0 % 0% 8.4 % 10% 0 % 0% 0 % 0% Automatic and mechanical equipment 6.6 % 5.6% 4.7 % 4.2% 3 % 3.3% 17.9 % 14.6% Feed, water and other substances 28.3 % 35% 11.8 % 11.5% 13.3 % 16.4% 7.2 % 8.3% Haemoglobin (for calves) 0 % 0% 0 % 0% 0.4 % 0.5% 0 % 0% Fibrous food (calves and sows) 0 % 0% 0.2 % 0.2% 0.2 % 1% 0 % 0% Mutilations 0.5 % 1.9% 2.2 % 1.8% 0.3 % 0.3% 0.8 % 0.4% Breed procedures (not for laying hens) 0 % 0% 2 % 1.3% 1.1 % 1% 11 % 7.1% Number of Categories of Non-Compliance Category A 56.1 % 64% 64.2 % 66.1% 73.3 % 76.6% 69.8 % 73.2% Category B 37.9 % 25.7% 20.3 % 22.1% 15.1 % 12.9% 23.4 % 18.5% Category C 6.1 % 10.3% 15.6 % 11.8% 11.5 % 10.5% 6.8 % 8.3%