TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Policy context................................................................................................................. 6

1.1........ Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties.................................................... 6

1.2........ Consultation of stakeholders........................................................................................... 7

1.3........ Inter-Service steering group on the impact assessment..................................................... 7

1.4........ Follow-up to the opinions of Impact Assessment Board................................................... 8

2........... Policy principles, context, and problem definition............................................................. 9

2.1........ Animal welfare: Definition and guiding principles.............................................................. 9

2.2........ EU policy on animal welfare.......................................................................................... 10

2.2.1..... EU animal welfare 2006 Action Plan and existing EU legislation..................................... 11

2.2.1..... Policy coherency.......................................................................................................... 12

2.2.2..... International dimension.................................................................................................. 12

2.2.3..... Sector concerned......................................................................................................... 13

2.3........ Problem definition......................................................................................................... 14

2.3.1..... Underlying problem...................................................................................................... 14

2.3.1..... Animal welfare evaluation.............................................................................................. 16

2.3.2..... Why animal welfare is compromised in the EU............................................................... 17

2.4........ Baseline scenario.......................................................................................................... 23

2.4.1..... Baseline by specific areas.............................................................................................. 23

2.4.2..... Baseline deriving from common drivers.......................................................................... 24

2.5........ Subsidiarity test............................................................................................................ 31

3........... Objectives.................................................................................................................... 32

3.1........ General objectives of the strategy.................................................................................. 32

3.2........ Specific objectives........................................................................................................ 32

4........... Identifying the options................................................................................................... 32

4.1........ Option 1: Strengthening Member States' compliance (EU level non-legislative tools)....... 33

4.2........ Option 2: Benchmarking voluntary schemes (EU support to sector self-regulation).......... 34

4.3........ Option 3: Establishing a European network of reference centres (Specific EU legislation) 34

4.4........ Option 4: Streamlining requirements for competence and using animal welfare indicators (EU general framework law).............................................................................................................................. 36

4.5........ Option 4+: Investigating the possibility of extending the scope of Option 4 (EU Framework Law with increased scope).......................................................................................................................... 36

5........... Impact analysis............................................................................................................. 37

5.1........ Methodology................................................................................................................ 37

5.2........ Impacts of Option 1- Strengthening Member States' compliance.................................... 37

5.2.1..... Impacts on objective 1- improve enforcement............................................................... 37

5.2.2..... Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition....................................... 39

5.2.3..... Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge................................................................. 39

5.2.4..... Impacts on objective 4- to improve coherence across animal species............................. 40

5.2.5..... Other possible impacts.................................................................................................. 40

5.2.6..... Opinions of stakeholders on Option 1........................................................................... 41

5.3........ Impacts of Option 2 – Benchmarking voluntary schemes................................................ 41

5.3.1..... Impacts on objective 1-improve enforcement................................................................ 41

5.3.1..... Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition....................................... 42

5.3.2..... Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge................................................................. 43

5.3.3..... Impacts on objective 4- to improve coherence across animal species............................. 44

5.3.4..... Other possible impacts.................................................................................................. 44

5.3.5..... Opinion of stakeholders on Option 2............................................................................. 45

5.4........ Impacts of Option 3: Establishing of a European network of reference centres................ 46

5.4.1..... Impacts on objective 1-improve enforcement................................................................ 46

5.4.1..... Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition....................................... 47

5.4.2..... Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge................................................................. 47

5.4.3..... Impacts on objective 4- to improve coherence across animal species............................. 48

5.4.4..... Other possible impacts.................................................................................................. 49

5.4.5..... Opinion of stakeholders................................................................................................ 49

5.5........ Impacts of Option 4: Streamlining requirements for competence and using animal welfare indicators 50

5.5.1..... Impacts on objective 1-improve enforcement................................................................ 50

5.5.2..... Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition....................................... 50

5.5.3..... Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge................................................................. 52

5.5.4..... Impacts on objective 4- to improve coherence across animal species............................. 52

5.5.5..... Other possible impacts.................................................................................................. 52

5.5.6..... Opinion of stakeholders................................................................................................ 53

5.6........ Option 4+: Investigating the possibility of extending of the scope of Option 4.................. 54

6........... Comparing the options.................................................................................................. 54

Comparing the options in terms of effectiveness........................................................................... 57

6.1........ Comparing the options in terms of efficiency.................................................................. 58

6.2........ Comparing the options in terms of coherence................................................................. 59

6.3........ Preferred option........................................................................................................... 59

7........... Monitoring and evaluation............................................................................................. 60

Annex 1- Glossary of technical terms and abbreviations............................................................... 62

Annex 2- EU key policy principles.............................................................................................. 66

2A - Definition of animal welfare and guiding principles................................................................ 66

2B - Current EU legislation on animal welfare.............................................................................. 68

2C - List of the recommendations of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes 70

2 D - Five areas of actions of the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 (COM(2006)13final).................................................................................................................. 71

2E – The European Parliament resolution on evaluation and assessment of the Animal Welfare Action Plan 2006-2010 72

2F – Scope and questions of the evaluation................................................................................. 73

2G – Key messages of the evaluation.......................................................................................... 75

2 H – Summary of the discussion of the Commission report on Animal welfare labelling at the European Parliament, the Council and other EU institutions................................................................................................. 77

2I – Council conclusions on the welfare of dogs and cats............................................................. 78

2J – List of scientific opinions on the welfare of animals................................................................ 80

2K – List of international standards and of EU international bilateral initiatives where animal welfare is included 85

Annex 3 – Consultation of stakeholders and Member States........................................................ 87

3A – Stakeholders contributions.................................................................................................. 87

3B. Member States' contributions on the policy options............................................................... 93

Annex 4 – Baseline..................................................................................................................... 94

4A - Legal provisions, animal welfare impacts, problem drivers and no change scenario................ 94

4B – Level of EU resources dedicated to animal welfare at EU level (baseline)........................... 101

Annex 5 – Impact assessment................................................................................................... 103

5A - Indicators for the specific objectives.................................................................................. 103

5B – Option 1: Strengthening Member States' compliance......................................................... 105

5C - Option 2: Benchmarking voluntary schemes....................................................................... 107

5D - Option 2: Why not an EU compulsory system for animal welfare labelling?......................... 109

5E - Option 3: Establishing a European network of reference centres......................................... 110

5F - Option 4: Streamlining requirements for competence and using animal welfare indicators..... 114

5G – List of impacts considered................................................................................................ 117

Annex 6 – Evidence.................................................................................................................. 121

6A -Data submitted by Member States on inspection activities in 2008 pursuant to Commission Decision 2006/778/EC 121

6B – Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility including animal welfare................................ 125

1. Policy context 1.1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties[1]

Over the past 30 years the European Union has adopted a series of laws on protecting animals (Annex 2B). Most of this legislation concerns food-producing animals (farm animals) and animals used for experimental purposes. Animal welfare is not in itself an objective of the EU Treaties, and the first motive for legislating in this area was to prevent distortion of competition between activities involving animal use[2].

In 2006, the Commission adopted a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 (the "2006 Action Plan")[3], setting out strategic guidelines and describing future action[4]. The 2006 Action Plan was the first document to bring together in a single text the various aspects of EU policy on animal welfare. It is the "First Animal welfare Strategy" to which this initiative aims to provide the follow-up for the next five years period.

On 5 May 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution[5] expressing its opinion on the results of the 2006 Action Plan and on the prospects for a new strategy on animal welfare[6]. This impact assessment will consider, in particular, options suggested by the European Parliament.

In December 2009, the Commission asked external experts to evaluate the EU’s policy on animal welfare. The detailed terms of reference of this evaluation ("the evaluation") have been published on a website[7]. The evaluation investigates eleven questions (see Annex 2F). One of its objectives was to indicate possible directions for the future of EU animal welfare policy. Much of the material collected during the evaluation has been used for the purposes of this impact assessment.

Concerning the welfare in farmed fish a more specific evaluation is foreseen according to the EU Aquaculture Strategy[8]. Past experience indicated that general welfare provisions which were made for terrestrial animals are inadequate for fish. Moreover, problems and difficulties may be different than those presented in this document as well as the approach to solve them.

Key conclusions of the evaluation are set out in Annex 2G.

1.2. Consultation of stakeholders

During the evaluation, the experts consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations, scientists working on animal welfare, and businesses and industries that use animals (farmers except fish farmers, slaughterhouses, pharmaceutical industries, cosmetic industries, the food processing industry, the feed industry, organisations of pet breeders, pet shops, veterinarians, etc.).

The evaluation also included an eight-weeks-long public web consultation aimed at gathering the views of citizens and organisations that had not been consulted face-to-face or via telephone interviews[9].

Stakeholders were also consulted on the future of the EU policy at a specific meeting held to discuss the outcomes of the evaluation and the policy options set out below[10]. They were also consulted within the framework of regular consultative committees such as the Animal Health Advisory Committee[11] and specific agricultural committees. The stakeholders’ contributions have been published[12] on the Commission’s website.

Member States were consulted during the evaluation, and the evaluator collected a large amount of information in twelve Member States that represent at least 90 % of the farmed and experimental animals in the EU. The competent authorities of these Member States were consulted via specific face-to-face interviews and a detailed written questionnaire.

The results of the evaluation and the policy options were presented to the Member States in a specific working group on 17 January 2011. In addition, the Commission presented the options for the strategy to the Council Working Party of Chief Veterinary Officers[13]. The evaluation report was presented to the farm ministers at the Agricultural Council meeting on 17 March 2011.

A report on stakeholders meeting as well as stakeholders and Member States contribution are given in Annex 3.

1.3. Inter-Service steering group on the impact assessment

Commission inter-service steering groups took place as early as December 2008 to prepare the various stages of the evaluation (terms of reference, kick-off meeting, inception report, progress report, final report) and to draw up the strategy[14]. The following directorates-general as well as EFSA[15] actively contributed to the steering group: DG AGRI, DG ENV, DG TRADE, DG MARE, DG RTD, SG and LS. DG MARKT and ENTR provided occasional contributions.

1.4. Follow-up to the opinions of Impact Assessment Board

The impact assessment has been amended to reply to the comments of the Impact Assessment Board as follows:

1. Better define the problem and problem drivers and develop a full baseline scenario:

The problem definition section has been fully revised to start from a detailed description of the welfare problems encountered in the EU by species. For each case, there is an identification of the main underlying drivers. In addition the problem definition has been further expanded as to provide more concrete examples of the underlying specific problems encountered and their scale. In particular this part details the problem related to lack of dissemination and coordination of research that justifies Option 3. From those examples, the present document identifies several common drivers. The section also describes the current instruments of the EU policy on animal welfare and the expected results, by species as well as on the common drivers. A baseline scenario has also been further developed as to illustrate through specific examples the success and the limitations of the current policy on animal welfare.

2. Better demonstrate the need for, and EU value added of, a horizontal animal welfare strategy.

The problem definition has also been revised for the part concerning the EU added value (subsidiarity test). It explains why the EU has taken initiatives for protecting animals and why it is important that the EU continue to have a strategy in this field. It also presents the reasons for a horizontal approach compared to a sector-specific approach. This section identifies, when the data is available, the respective role of the Member States and the EU on animal welfare. It in particular shows how the strategy can provide outcomes that Member States are not likely to deliver individually. It also specifies the possible legal base for future initiative.

3. Present a clear intervention logic by better explaining the choice and content of options.

The present version of the impact assessment contains a new list of specific objectives which correspond to the main drivers identified. The number of options have been expanded and redesigned to correspond to the specific objectives. The intervention logic should therefore appear clearer to the reader than the previous version. The definition of the options has also been revised to make it clear what the implications are for the existing range of legislative measures.

In the presentation of the options, explanations have been provided on the reason to exclude a non EU action Option as well as to not consider a sector-based approach (vs. a holistic approach defended here). The scope and the aim of Option 4+ are further explained.

4. Improve the assessment of impacts

The impact analysis has also been redrafted to take into account the previous changes. However, the methodology for assessing the impacts remains similar to the previous version, assessing first the impacts on the objectives and then on possible other impacts. A new section has been added to present the opinion of the stakeholders for each option.

Indicators for Option 4 are proposed in Annex 5A. A summary of table of the costs and benefits of each option has been added. The report also indicates that any subsequent legislative proposals arising from this initiative will be supported by a separate impact assessment.

Furthermore, a glossary has been added in Annex 1.

2. Policy principles, context, and problem definition 2.1. Animal welfare: Definition and guiding principles

The term "animal welfare" is defined by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)[16]. The EU played a central part in the work leading to the OIE definition, which has now been recognised by more than 170 countries.

"Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress."[17]

Guiding principles have been developed through the OIE, in which there are references, in particular, to the internationally recognised concepts of the "Five Freedoms" and the "3Rs", and to the overarching principle that animal welfare initiatives shall be based on scientific evidence.

The concept of five freedoms was developed as to define the essential elements of ensuring proper welfare to the animals as follows:

1. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition,

2. Freedom from fear and distress,

3. Freedom from physical and thermal discomfort,

4. Freedom from pain, injury and disease,

5. Freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

The "three Rs" concept has been developed for animals used for experimental purposes aiming at the Replacement of animals with non-animals techniques, Reduction in number of animals used and Refinement of experimental methods..

Notably, the OIE guiding principles recognise that "the use of animals (…) makes a major contribution to the wellbeing of people" and that "the use of animals carries with it an ethical responsibility to ensure the welfare of such animals to the greatest extent practicable".

2.2. EU policy on animal welfare

The aims, principles and scope of the EU animal welfare policy derive from Article 13 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (the Treaty) which states that:

"In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage."

Article 13 does not provide a specific legal basis for protecting animals in the EU. However, it recognises animals as sentient beings; hence all animals scientifically known to be able to feel pain are included in the scope of EU animal welfare policy imposing an obligation to ensure that their welfare needs are considered within the framework of EU policies.

Nevertheless, currently, the EU policy on animal welfare is restricted to a few specific EU policies, limiting the scope to animals:

- under direct human control (mainly domestic animals but also wild animals in captivity);

- used in the context of an economic activity having an effect at EU level (like farming, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, etc.).

Thus, the following animals and activities are not included in the scope of EU animal welfare policy:

– Wild animals in the wild (but not wild animals in zoos)

– Fishing for commercial purposes (capture fisheries)

– Hunting or fishing for recreational purposes (private activity)

– The keeping of animals as private companion (private activity) including stray animals.

2.2.1. EU animal welfare 2006 Action Plan and existing EU legislation

The 2006 Action plan proposed five strategic actions:

(1) Upgrading existing minimum standards in line with scientific evidence and socio-economic assessments;

(2) Giving a high priority to promoting policy-orientated future research on animal protection and welfare;

(3) Introducing standardised animal welfare indicators: to classify the hierarchy of welfare standards applied (from minimum to higher standards) in order to assist the development of improved animal welfare production;

(4) Ensuring that animal keepers/ handlers as well as the general public are more involved and informed on current standards of animal protection and welfare;

(5) Continue to support and initiate further international initiatives to raise awareness and create a greater consensus on animal welfare.

The legal framework is based on Directive 98/58/EC[18] which applies to all farmed animals, providing them with protection through general principles[19]. In addition there are four specific directives on the keeping of certain species (calves, pigs, laying hens and broilers covering in total 48 % of the EU farmed mammals and 80 % of the birds).

Furthermore, there is a directive on the protection of animals at the time of killing[20], and a regulation on animal transport[21] in the context of an economic activity.

There is also a directive covering the welfare of animals used for experimental and scientific purposes[22], a directive on zoos[23] (the main purpose of the directive is conservation of wild species but contains animal welfare requirements), a regulation on trade in seal products[24] and a regulation on the use of leg hold traps[25].

As regards pets, there is a regulation banning the trade of cat and dog fur[26], but there is no legislation that directly concerns the welfare of living dogs and cats.

2.2.1. Policy coherency

The current EU policy on animal welfare links to other EU policies including the following:

Communication activities through events such as conferences, and a dedicated EU website ("Farmland"[27]) are intended to inform citizens and consumers of animal welfare issues and of the EU's role in improving the welfare of animals.

Training activities are performed within the EU framework of "Better Training for Safer Food"[28]. They ensure that officials responsible for controls of animal welfare legislation in the Member States and officials from third countries understand and are able to disseminate information about the legislation.

Within the framework of the CAP, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) offers to Member States possibilities to co-finance animal welfare measures within their rural development programmes. According to the evaluation, an average of 50 million euros is distributed through this fund every year to compensate farmers for implementing higher animal welfare standards[29]. This mechanism constitutes the most important source of financial funding for animal welfare activities in the EU (72% of the overall EU spending on animal welfare).

The CAP funding from the single payment scheme[30] depends on the compliance by farmers of certain statutory management requirements including, from 2007, some on animal welfare.

With an average of 15 million euro per year, EU funding for research through FP6 and FP7 is important to develop knowledge as a basis for future policy measures (e.g. alternative testing to reduce the number of animals used in experiments).

2.2.2. International dimension

International activities aim at ensuring a level playing field between operators in the EU and in third countries and at contributing to higher animal welfare standards throughout the world (see Annex 2K on the list of international standards and EU bilateral initiatives).

A first approach has been to promote the adoption of internationally recognised animal welfare standards. The EU has been successful in supporting the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) with the adoption of a series of guidelines on animal welfare for farmed (transport and killing) and experimental animals[31].

Another approach has been to work on a bilateral basis with certain third countries through specific trade agreements or cooperation forums. Today there are several ongoing bilateral cooperation activities which contribute to establishing equivalent animal welfare standards in third countries to those in the EU.

2.2.3. Sector concerned

Live animals are used for economic purposes by various industries and businesses.

In terms of numbers of animals, the farming sector is the largest user, with at least 2 billion birds (chickens, laying hens, turkeys[32], etc.) and 334 million mammals (pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, fur animals[33]). The EU produces around 630 000 tonnes of farmed fish every year[34]. Pets are the second largest category of animals in Europe, with around 120 million dogs and cats and possibly 35 million birds. There is no data on the actual proportion used for economic purposes, but some 10 % of the dog population is sold each year[35]. An estimated 12 million animals per year (mainly rodents) are used for experimentation in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, and by other public and private research bodies. No data is available regarding zoos, but it is estimated that they house around 800 000 wild animals. No reliable data could be obtained for circuses or other activities such as animals used in sports, shows, etc.

In economic terms[36], livestock farming in the EU is worth € 149 billion[37] every year. Of this, pigs and poultry (subject to specific EU provisions) represent 38 % (i.e. € 57.6 billion). Animal output value represents 41 % of the overall agricultural output (€ 363 billion in 2008). Farmed fish in the EU are worth € 2 billion[38]. There is no EU data on the value of trade in dogs and cats, but data collected in France[39] suggests that sales of dogs alone could be worth around € 3 billion[40].

In terms of employment, it is estimated that some 4 million people, most of them farmers, handle animals in the course of their business activity[41] while 16.4 million people work regularly on 7.3 million agricultural holdings (9 million Annual Work Units in 2007[42]). Work related to animals should include around 3.7 million people.

In addition to the farming sector, there are around 200.000 people working with animals in slaughterhouses[43]. Aquaculture activities provide around 65.000 jobs in coastal and rural areas. The number of persons handling experimental animals or animals in zoos is unknown[44].

2.3. Problem definition 2.3.1. Underlying problem

Animal welfare is still at risk across EU Member States. The evidence for this persisting underlying problem stems from the findings of the Commission services (Food and Veterinary Office[45] of the Directorate General for Health and Consumers) as well as scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority[46]. The Commission also received data from the Member States[47] as well as from animal welfare organisations[48].

Main areas at risk are:

Housing and management of farmed animals

Piglets (young pigs) from one week of age often have their tails cut off (tail docking) without anaesthesia and their teeth clipped. Most EU producers do this as a routine practice. Pigs tend to bite at each other's tails when they are placed within a limited space and if they do not have the possibility to dig in the ground with their snouts (rooting). Tail docking and lack of manipulable materials are widespread in the EU and are both non compliances to the EU legislation. In addition, 80% of male piglets are in the EU castrated without anaesthesia. Female pigs (sows) used for breeding will often be kept for almost all their life in individual stalls where they do not have the freedom to move. Because of lack of exercise, old breeding sows will have difficulties to move in the trucks that transport them to slaughter. They will be sometimes dragged before slaughtered.

During their one year of productive life, laying hens are often kept in cages that are too small to allow them space to behave normally (battery cages). Scientists have found that, as a normal behaviour, hens need a nest for laying eggs, a perch to rest and they also need to scratch the ground. Even though these basic needs can not be fulfilled in small cages, these cages are in widespread[49] use in the EU. In addition the lack of space and a bare environment often leads hens to peck at each other and possibly cannibalism. For this reason, parts of the beak are routinely removed without anaesthesia (beak trimming). This has been documented to be painful for the hens both during and after the trimming.

Chickens bred for the production of meat (broilers) present lameness because of excessive development of their muscles and lack of space to move at the end of the fattening period. Genetic selection has been developed to increase growth rate (an industrial chicken can be slaughtered at 40 days against 85 days for traditional breeds). They are submitted to constant feed restriction to avoid becoming excessively overweight. Parent flocks (i.e. animals used for genetic selection and multiplication to obtain fattening animals) are constantly restricted in feed to prevent reproductive problems. These animals therefore suffer from constant hunger.

Transport

Most production cycles involve more than one production site. Therefore the majority of animals will be transported at one time or another. While most of this transport takes place within national boundaries, there is also important trade between Member States. These journeys often last for several days. Animals have little space to move. When drivers stop to rest and sleep, animals will often stay in the truck without the ability to rest. Animals that do not know each other are placed together and this can result in conflicts. Access to water is limited, due to lack of space. Feed is rarely provided to animals during transport. Furthermore, the trucks seldom have straw or other bedding to absorb faeces and urine. Transport of animals is taking place on a large scale, sometimes over large distances. Young pigs from the Netherlands and Denmark are routinely traded to Germany and Spain, cattle and calves from Ireland to Spain and Italy, sheep from Spain to Greece and horses from Romania and Poland to Italy. Trade of cattle transported between Member States and with third countries in 2009 has been estimated at 4 million heads. The equivalent number for pigs has been estimated at nearly 28 million heads.

Slaughter and killing

Killing animals is necessary in order to obtain meat. It can be performed in ways that limit suffering of animals, in particular by making them unconscious prior to slaughter. According to EU legislation, animals shall be stunned before they are slaughtered[50]. However, there is a possibility to derogate from this requirement where animals are subjected to methods of slaughter required by certain religious rites. The Commission has received evidence that certain slaughterhouse operators excessively use the derogation from stunning to streamline their production process.

Keeping of other animals

Many dairy cows also suffer during their productive lives. Many are kept in areas with cement flooring which may often lead to lameness. Intensification of milk production has led to regular mastitis and metabolic problems for the animals which also involves pain. To avoid competition for feed, cows are commonly dehorned with different techniques, some of which are very painful, in particular as no anaesthesia or analgesics are used.

Scientists have recognised fish as sentient beings. Killing processes for certain species of farmed fish are pointed out to be particularly inhumane. Killing farmed fish by taking them out of the water takes a long time before fish die and it is frightening and painful to the fish. The situation of wild animals kept in captivity varies between Member States, they are many examples where wild animals are kept within very limited space and a bare environment far from their natural conditions. Sanitary conditions are also often questionable (source: NGO reports [51]).

The Commission receive evidence of bad treatments where dog breeders use females, producing puppies without proper welfare and hygienic conditions. These puppies are then separated from their mothers at a very early stage (less than two months of age) to attract buyers and exported to be sold via the internet or specific traders. Puppies raised under such conditions often develop serious behavioural and sanitary problems.

2.3.1. Animal welfare evaluation

An evaluation of the EU policy on animal welfare was performed in 2010 involving a wide consultation of stakeholders and Member States. In addition to an online consultation of stakeholders with more than 9000 responses, the evaluator contacted stakeholders and decision makers at EU and national level. Twelve Member States were visited and interviews were carried out with governments and key stakeholders.

Key conclusions of the evaluation are set out in Annex 2G and the following points can be highlighted:

· More enforcement is needed to improve the welfare of animals and reduce distortion of competition in certain areas. There are widespread calls for more consistent enforcement but less appetite for a new wave of standards.

· EU welfare standards have imposed additional costs on the livestock and experimental sectors, estimated at around 2% of the overall value of these sectors. There is no evidence that this has so far threatened their economic sustainability.

· The Commission has been working in the long term to establish equivalent market conditions between EU businesses and those from third countries. However there is much yet to done to raise awareness and create a shared international understanding of animal welfare issues and standards with our trading partners.

· The extent to which EU communication actions have raised stakeholder and public awareness and responsibility towards animal welfare is unclear. To maximise the impact of the limited resources available, a clear communication strategy and stronger monitoring and evaluation are needed.

2.3.2. Why animal welfare is compromised in the EU

There are a number of reasons behind the various animal welfare problems in the EU.

Housing and management of farmed animals

Regarding pigs, the EU legislation[52] bans certain bad practices. There is, e.g., a requirement to provide pigs with access to material that will enable them to root ("manipulable materials", such as straw). Sow stalls will also be banned to all holdings in 2013.

However, in spite of this legislation, animal welfare problems remain widespread. A main reason for this is that Member States often do not take appropriate measures to enforce the legislation. Many Member States also do not provide adequate resources for research, communication and training activities, which would often be necessary to inform farmers on the rules. (Main driver: lack of enforcement)

The design of pig housing systems is also an important problem driver. Most pigs are raised on fully slatted floors that are designed to facilitate the handling of manure and are not easily compatible with straw or other rooting materials. Sow stalls were originally designed to save space and avoid competition between sows. Those housing systems were conceived at a time when animal welfare was not yet an intrinsic part of the considerations related to animal husbandry and animals' needs were largely ignored. Even though consumers later have become interested in animal welfare and scientists now know more about the issue, the market place still does not encourage producers to change their housing systems, as this would imply new investments and sometimes additional production costs. Another reason for this could be that there is little information to consumers on how pigs are treated during production processes. Many farmers also lack information about alternative systems and often do not see any advantage in changing their processes into more animal friendly housing systems. (Main driver: lack of knowledge)

Pig castration is permitted in the EU and widely used by farmers. When male pigs reach a weight above 70-80 kg (the slaughter weight is usually around 100 kg) their meat will start to acquire a distinct odour and taste ("board taint"). Most consumers do not like the board taint. Consequently, producers have interest in maintaining the practice of castration. However, there are alternatives that could reduce the number of animals being castrated (lower slaughter weight, better detection method of the board taint, breeding and feeding techniques). Thus, lack of proper research and dissemination of results of research can largely explain why the practice of male piglet castration is still widespread. (Main driver: Lack of knowledge)

As concerns laying hens, the EU legislation[53] banning the use of battery cages will enter into force on 1 January 2012. For this ban lack of enforcement has already become a major issue. An important problem is that, as in the example concerning pigs, the use of modern, more animal welfare friendly systems of production often conflicts with economic pressure on operators to reduce costs. The change from battery cages to other cages involves investment costs that many producers are reluctant to make, even though the EU legislation provided for a transitional period of more than 12 years. (Main driver: Lack of enforcement)

Beak trimming is allowed in the EU if it is performed on chicks younger than 10 days-old. However, beak trimming is as painful for young chicken as for older ones. The entry into force of the ban on battery cages could theoretically make it possible to stop the practice of beak trimming. This is because beak trimming would not be necessary if battery cages are not used (hens that get more space will be less likely to peck at each other). However, since the practice is still permitted, it is unlikely that it will end if there is no programme to inform and educate farmers of alternative practices. (Main driver: Lack of knowledge)

Animal welfare problems related to broilers (chickens for meat) are essentially related to economic pressure in reducing production costs. Genetic selection has been developed as to reach as quickly as possible a slaughter weight and increase the feed conversion ratio. Animals are confined in limited space as to limit costs. The EU legislation will provide certain limits in space allowances. (Main driver: lack of economic incentives).

Transport

There is legislation protecting animals during transport[54]. However, Member States do not take sufficient measures to enforce the EU legislation and there is an economic pressure on operators not to comply with the rules. Requirements on space allowances are not respected in order to increase the number of animals in trucks, so that costs is reduced. Drivers often do not stop for watering, feeding and resting animals in order to save time and money. There are few economic incentives to comply with the Regulation as there are few official controls and a very low likelihood of being fined for infringements. Also, economic losses due to immediate or later mortality after transport are usually not borne by the transporter or are covered by insurances. Further, animals sometimes have limited individual economic value, especially animals at the end of their productive lives. (Main drivers: Lack of enforcement/Lack of economic incentives).

There are also some gaps in the current EU legislation. For example, there are no rules on space allowance for pigs. Some parts of the EU legislation are not in line with up to date scientific knowledge (in particular on space and travelling times[55]).

Furthermore, fish as vertebrates are under the scope of the Regulation but the provisions of the Regulation have been designed for the transport of terrestrial animals and do not in all cases fit well for the transport of fish. At many occasions the aquaculture sector has complained on the uncertainties encountered in the implementation of the Regulation. It is therefore necessary to address this problem which has already been identified under the Aquaculture Strategy.

Slaughter and killing

The excessive use of the derogation from stunning animals before slaughter[56] is also mainly driven by economic interests. Even if some EU consumers want meat from animals slaughtered without stunning for legitimate reasons related to the respect of the freedom of religion, some Member States have granted derogation going beyond the scope of the derogation for ritual slaughtering. Hence, some slaughterhouse operators have extended the practice of not stunning animals in order to simplify their production process and to avoid possible shortage of meat from unstunned animals. This means that Member States not taking appropriate measures to enforce the legislation is also an important driver for this problem, even though it is initially created by the economic interests of certain slaughterhouse operators. (Main drivers: Lack of enforcement/Lack of economic incentives).

Keeping of other animals

There is a directive[57] which applies to all farmed animals, providing them with legal protection through general principles. This directive should address animal welfare problems of dairy cows and farmed fish. However, the evaluation has clearly indicated that these animals are not adequately covered by this legislation. This is partly because the requirements are too general[58]. Another explanation is that, as shown in previous examples, production systems focus on costs reduction and high productivity rather than on animal welfare. The absence of knowledge for farmers on animal welfare issues, lack of research and dissemination of research in certain species (like farmed fish) also contribute to animal welfare problems. (Main drivers: Lack of specific guidance/Lack of economic incentives)

The EU directive[59] on zoos aims at protecting wild fauna and biodiversity. It contains some animal welfare elements but no detailed requirements. Many Member States seem not to make much effort to provide guidance to operators. In addition, official inspectors often have little experience and training on the specific needs of wild animals in captivity. Usually, zoo personnel do not seem to have a sound knowledge of keeping such animals. The absence of EU research in defining the particular animal welfare needs of wild animals in captivity has also been pointed out as problematic by the evaluation. (Main driver: Lack of specific guidance/Lack of knowledge).

As regards the welfare of dogs and cats, there is no EU legislation. Requirements in the different Member States vary a lot and the level of enforcement is usually limited. Breeders from Member States with little legislation on the welfare of dogs sell puppies at a low price to traders in other Member States with stricter rules. With almost no border controls, those breeders have a market advantage especially as most final buyers of dogs have limited knowledge in dogs. (Main driver: Lack of specific rules/Lack of economic incentives).

Towards common drivers

During the consultation process, there was broad agreement on the problem definition as presented by the Commission[60]. Farmers’ organisations insisted on including the costs and the risks of importing animals from outside the EU. Animal welfare organisations stressed the need to widen the scope of EU policy and to give the public and stakeholders more education and information on animal welfare issues. NGOs also highlighted the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform and the need to develop animal welfare in this context. All parties supported the need for better enforcement and further scientific research. In particular, the aquaculture sector stressed the need for more research an investigation in order to clarify each fish species needs based on scientific results.

1. Lack of enforcement

Driver: the EU legislation is not coherently implemented across Member states;

Problem: Member States non-enforcement of EU legislation undermines the effectiveness of EU policy on animal welfare;

Examples: There is evidence (directive on pigs, on animal transport, implementation of the ban on battery cages, directive on zoos) that some Member States do not take sufficient measures to inform stakeholders, train official inspectors, perform checks, and apply sanctions in relation to the EU animal welfare legislation.

For this reason, important parts of EU legislation have not had the intended effects on the welfare of animals[61]. Difficulties in compliance is sometimes related to a very prescriptive approach of the EU legislation making requirements difficult to apply in all circumstances even if the welfare of animals is not necessarily compromised.

Source: Reports from the Food and Veterinary Office (Commission services), the evaluation report.

2. Consumers' lack of appropriate information on animal welfare

Driver: There is no EU wide system for consumers to be properly informed on the relevance of animal welfare attributes of products.

Problem:

EU-wide Eurobarometer survey shows that animal welfare is a worry for 64 % of the population. On the other hand, animal-welfare-friendly products usually have a low share of the market[62]. There is a clear gap between consumer views and market shares in this regard[63]. This gap may be interpreted in different ways that are not necessarily exclusive[64]. Studies show that concern for animal welfare is only one of the factors affecting the consumer’s choice of a product. They may rely on authorities or particular brand names, assuming that high animal welfare standards are part of the product’s attributes[65]. Low availability of products, higher prices and limited information on specific attributes may also explain the gap[66].

Except in the case of eggs (obligatory[67]), organic products (voluntary regulation not specifically aimed at animal welfare issues but with animal welfare attributes[68])) and poultry meat (voluntary production method labelling), there are no specific EU rules on how to inform the consumer about animal welfare. Moreover, there are few voluntary certification schemes focusing on animal welfare[69] [70] and their market share is relatively limited in most EU Member States. The Commission adopted a communication on animal welfare labelling in 2009 but debates in the Council did not point out a single direction for future EU policy, most Member States being opposed to establishing a new compulsory labelling system as it exists for eggs(see Annex 2H).

Source: the evaluation report.

3. Low level of knowledge of stakeholders/business operators

Driver: Animal welfare is a relatively recent science and has not been part of the curriculum of many professionals dealing with animals.

Problem: Stakeholders are not aware of animal welfare and its implications.

Example: Low level of knowledge has had an effect on the conception of most modern production methods. Many of them have been designed at a time where animals' needs were ignored. The changes necessary to bring production systems in line with modern science and consumer concern about animal welfare imply investments and increased production costs but also knowledge among today's operators and public officials about alternative practices and better management.

The way animals perceive pain, suffering or comfort can be objectively measured through scientific investigation. But because the subject also encompasses ethical dimensions it is controversial. It is therefore important that measures be based on scientific data. Since its creation, EFSA[71] has played an important role in assessing risks to animal welfare. While EFSA does not in itself carry out scientific research into animal welfare, it has provided important reviews of the current scientific knowledge in this field (Annex 2J).

The evaluation revealed that 80 % of EU funding for research on animal welfare[72] is spent on experimental animals (of which there are 12 million), while only 20% goes to farmed animals including farmed fish and poultry, of which there are several billion. The evaluation also stressed that research funding is also needed for wild animals kept in captivity. At present, hardly any EU funding is used for that purpose and relatively little research is carried out in this field.

In addition, the evaluation has indicated that, beyond additional funding for research on animal welfare at Member States and EU level, there is a need for further coherence and coordination between Member States as well as further dissemination of research results to stakeholders as to transform findings into practical innovations.

Source: the evaluation report, EFSA reports.

4. Inconsistency for different animal species

Driver: Limited scope of EU rules, regulations and guidance, difference between national rules

Problem: Some categories of animals are not subject to adequate welfare conditions.

Example: There is no EU legislation on the welfare of dogs and cats. The evaluation has revealed that the general directive on the protection of farm animals and the directive on zoo animals contain provisions that are too general to have a practical effect. They would need to be completed by more specific guidance or rules. Only a few Member States have developed more specific rules on animal welfare for farmed animals (UK, NL, DE and SE).

Source: the evaluation report, EconWelfare project, Member States (for dogs and cats).

2.4. Baseline scenario

The baseline scenario is defined by the continuation of the current policy, mainly in form of the existing legislative framework. This is set out in detail in Annex 4, with a description of all relevant legal acts, their main provisions, and impacts on animal welfare, problem drivers and an assessment of the evolution without any new or additional EU initiatives.

2.4.1. Baseline by specific areas

Housing and management of farmed animals

For pigs, a positive evolution is expected by the implementation of the grouping of sows from 1.1.2013 but difficulties are however likely in certain Member States. The Commission is presently working with the Member States to evaluate the level of readiness of pig producers. A positive evolution is also expected for the phasing out of the castration of piglets through the implementation of a private public partnership initiated in 2011.

However, no positive change are expected for tail docking and tooth clipping as well as the implementation of manipulable materials. Those practices are entrenched among pig farmers and linked to the use of fully slatted floors. Alternatives exist but are often unknown by farmers.

For laying hens, a positive evolution is expected through the implementation of the ban on battery cages that will apply to all holdings from 1.1.2012. This evolution has required and will continue to draw Commission resources since the level of implementation has been unequal between Member States. However, the decreasing of beak trimming seems unlikely without more resources to educate farmers on alternatives.

For broilers, positive evolution is expected since new EU legislation has been adopted in those areas. However, the legislation on broilers will not address all problems, in particular feed restriction (animals are sometimes fed every two days). The new directive will not address the problems related to parent flocks but a report is foreseen in the future.

Transport

The transport of unfit animals is likely to remain a real problem except may be for adult cattle where private initiative has been taken. Lack of space, water and feed and lack of rest during very long journey may be addressed by further actions on enforcement through navigation systems.

For farmed fish the baseline scenario includes the implementation of the actions included under the Aquaculture Strategy (i.e. address the difficulties related to the implementation of the transport Regulation).

Slaughter and killing

The new regulation on the welfare of animals at the time of killing is likely to address a number of current problems but will not change the situation regarding the use of the derogation from stunning. However, the Commission has engaged a dialogue with the Member States concerned and a positive evolution could be envisaged taking always into consideration the respect of freedom of religion and the need to not stigmatise any religious community.

Keeping of other animals

As regards farm animals without specific provisions (except Directive 98/58), there is no perspective of positive evolution in many cases (see Annex 4A).

For farmed fish, as already mentioned, the Aquaculture Strategy foresees an evaluation of fish welfare issues in aquaculture.

However, there is a possibility for a positive evolution in two cases. The ban of the use of individual cages for ducks in France (a provision that should have been implemented five years earlier) since French authorities have agreed to implement the ban which derives from the provisions of the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

Another positive evolution is foreseen for fur animals, since the European Fur Breeding Association has decided to make animal welfare as one of its priorities in the future. They have in particular decided to invest in research for developing animal welfare indicators.

However, there are still a number of important problems without foreseen positive evolution. Some Member States have adopted specific requirements for dairy cows. Germany has recently adopted standards for the farming of rabbits but the main producing countries (France, Italy and Spain) have no specific animal welfare requirements for rabbits. Farmed fish is not subject to specific animal welfare legislation in most Member States. Same applies for turkeys. The UK and Sweden are two of the Member States having a wide range of specific provisions for farm species according to the Econwelfare project.

No positive evolution is foreseen for the welfare of dogs and cats as there is today no EU framework and the investigation performed by the Belgian Presidency has shown that the level of protection differs widely between Member States.

2.4.2. Baseline deriving from common drivers

1. Addressing the lack of enforcement

Several mechanisms are used to improve enforcement.

Enforcement is primarily under the responsibility of the Member States which have much larger resources than the Commission to ensure compliance of business operators. The Commission' role in improving enforcement is therefore essentially to stimulate and facilitate the work of the national/regional competent authorities and not to check compliance directly.

Enforcement is primarily under the responsibility of the Member States which have much larger resources than the Commission to ensure compliance of business operators. The Commission' role in improving enforcement is therefore essentially to stimulate and facilitate the work of the national/regional competent authorities and not to check compliance directly.

As the EU legislation has often implied new investments or practices, transitional periods have been set up when important changes were requested. Directives requesting major changes were accompanied with long transitional periods[73] allowing progressive adaptation. If the conversion to the grouping of calves went relatively well, the conversion of systems for laying hens or sows seem to be more problematic. In the laying hen sector, part of the industry seems to have neglected the opportunity of a long period of adjustment in the hope of changes for less stringent measures. Therefore, if long transitional measures seem to be necessary for certain sectors to adapt, it does not seem always sufficient to work in isolation and other measures seem necessary.

State aids have been used in some Member States to encourage farmers in converting their farming system for better compliance to EU rules (in particular for laying hens). As for Rural Development Programmes, the possibility of acceding to those funds depend on each Member State to dedicate financial incentives for better complying with EU rules on animal welfare. Impacts of state aids in addressing competitiveness issue have therefore been globally limited.

As regards the legislation on farmed animals, Member States are regularly monitored by Commission' experts of the Food and Veterinary Office from the Directorate General Health and Consumers (FVO). Inspections are carried out for all specific EU legislation applicable to farm animals and their reports are made public on the internet[74]. There is no such mechanism for the EU legislation on zoo animals. The legislation on experimental animals foresees the possibility should there be due reason for concern.

The FVO work has contributed to a more uniform application of EU rules in the veterinary field including animal welfare. In the average, the FVO performs around 10 visits per year dedicated to the animal welfare legislation. The experience has showed that repeated FVO inspections can address enforcement issues limited to areas of deficiencies involving the competent authorities.

The FVO has no mandate to inspect and sanction business operators but only to supervise if competent authorities are doing so. Their ability to contribute to compliance should therefore not be overestimated. FVO missions are indeed less efficient in addressing widespread problems due to operators who, mainly for economic reasons, preferred taking the risk of being checked and possibly sanctioned rather than changing their production processes. The best example of limiting effects of FVO inspections is given on the difficulty in implementing requirements for manipulable materials for pigs.

With or without FVO inspection, in case of failure of Member States to ensure enforcement of EU legislation, the Commission may initiate legal proceedings against the Member State concerned. In practice legal proceedings are a heavy procedure to be carried out taking time and resources. The evaluation report pointed out that a legal proceeding against one Member State has been going on for more than nine years without sanctions imposed against this Member State[75] despite the fact that the judgment is favourable to the Commission.

In addition to FVO assessment, Member States provide reports on their inspections and the level of compliance on the welfare of farmed animals (See Annex 6 indicating the results for 2008). According to this data, the overall rate of full compliance is relatively low for the three main directives of the welfare of farmed animals (61%). Such monitoring instruments are useful in the perspective of FVO missions. It seems however to be of limited efficiency to improve enforcement if it is not associated with other initiatives to analyse the underlying failures of Member States to reach better levels of compliance. The analysis and the follow-up of Member States data is also resource demanding.

Following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official controls, the Commission has developed training activities targeted at officials in charge of checking different aspects of the food chain, including animal welfare. On average 185 officials are trained on animal welfare every year. This initiative called "Better Training for Safer Food" has contributed to raising the level of competence of inspectors as well as raising awareness of the EU legislation for participants from third countries. However, only officials have access to such training and their number is limited. The present capacity of BTSF can not match the overall number of officials in the EU. Secondly it tends to select specific participants due to language consideration. Lectures and interactions between participants are usually in English and it is therefore difficult to reach officials that are strictly monolingual in many Member States. There is an ongoing project to develop e-learning modules for BTSF, including for animal welfare, but the process is not yet implemented and could possibly address those limitations. However, it is not yet certain that e-learning alone will create the necessary interactions and knowledge sharing that a local structure could perform.

The Commission has occasionally organised specific workshops on enforcement issues with stakeholders or/and competent authorities. Working groups of competent authorities have been used in particular in relation to the transport of animals or on ritual slaughter. Workshops with stakeholders have been organised on the use of manipulable materials for pigs, on pig castration or on the implementation of the laying hens directive. According to the participants, all such initiatives are useful in bringing all partners together but can only be effective if the Commission continues after the event in ensuring a certain follow up in providing guidelines or organising more specific actions. The effectiveness of such instruments is however limited. It requires additional resources to manage the organisation and the follow up of regular meetings. Secondly it can only be effective if it is based on clear legal requirements (like the ban of battery cages or the use of manipulable material for pigs). The effectiveness of such approach for providing "interpretation" of EU rules that may be open to divergent legal readings is more limited.

The current EU policy, through two specific pieces of legislation (directive on broilers and regulation on killing), has started to introduce a more flexible approach, progressively replacing resource-based requirements (like the width of slatted floors, or the number of lux for light in pig farms) to outcome-based indicators (like the mortality in broilers).

Introducing animal-based indicators through individual pieces of legislation is likely to take more time than adopting a horizontal approach.

In conclusion, the current policy with the present level of resources is able to address a number of critical enforcement issues but is limited in scope and is not efficient in addressing problems related to the management of the animals.

The baseline is therefore unlikely to address the lack of enforcement in a number of aspects that are indirectly related to other problem areas (no economic incentives, lack of knowledge).

2. Addressing the consumers' market choice with respect to animal welfare standards

On the producer' side

The EU has tried to address the issue of competitiveness through different instruments. Establishing common standards have contributed to limit differences in production costs between Member States.

The Common Agriculture Policy contains financial measures in the European Agricultural Rural Development Fund (EARDF) to compensate farmers in implementing higher welfare standards ("animal welfare payments" measure 215). According to the evaluation, an average of 50 million euros per year is used for that purpose. Rural development fund works through national or regional programmes that are submitted for Commission approval and requires a certain level of co-financing by the Member States.

Animal welfare payments are not compulsory[76] and are therefore not widely used by the Member States. Other measures under this fund can be used to improve the welfare of animals ("meeting standards" – measure 131 or "modernisation of farm holdings" – measure 121) but are not specific and no precise figures can be provided on the amount possibly dedicated to animal welfare. In principle these measures should compensate EU farmer for implementing animal welfare legislation and additional cost related to its compliance. However the efficiency of such measures is difficult to monitor in terms of animal welfare. Programmes are submitted to the Commission but without a proper system for evaluating them in terms of animal welfare outputs, there is no evidence that they deliver substantial benefits for the animals. Compared to the list of specific problems identified in Annex 4, there is no evidence that rural development programmes having a welfare component (when they exist) have contributed to substantially reduce their incidence.

.In order to address the competitiveness issue at global level, the EU has engaged a set of international activities to improve the level of awareness of animal welfare in third countries (see Annex 2K).

A first approach has been to promote on a multilateral basis, global international standards through the adoption and the promotion of internationally recognised animal welfare standards. The EU has been successful in supporting the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in adoption a series of guidelines on animal welfare for farmed (transport and killing) and experimental animals. Such EU action has been very positive in establishing a common ground of discussion with third countries on animal welfare and trade. This action however needs to be continued, as a number of important areas (farming of pigs, poultry, etc.) are not yet covered by international guidelines.

Another approach has been to work on a bilateral basis with certain third countries through specific trade agreements or cooperation forums. Today there are several bilateral cooperation activities ongoing which contribute to establish equivalent animal welfare standards in third countries to those in the EU. The evaluation has revealed that both approaches are supported by all stakeholders but need to be extended, especially in the context of further globalisation of agriculture markets.

On the consumer' side

Except in the case of eggs (obligatory[77]), organic products (voluntary EU regulation not specifically aimed at animal welfare issues) and poultry meat (voluntary production method labelling), there are no specific EU rules on how to inform the consumer about animal welfare. Moreover, there are few voluntary certification schemes focusing on animal welfare[78] [79] and their market shares are relatively limited in most EU Member States. The Commission adopted a communication on animal welfare labelling in 2009 but debates in the Council did not point out a single direction, most Member States being opposed to establishing a new compulsory labelling system as it exists for eggs.

The current EU policy provides some instruments to compensate producers from higher production costs. Transitional periods have not been proved to be very successful[80]. There is little evidence that the rural development fund is able to address the main animal welfare problems because the measures on animal welfare are not compulsory and requirements for funding are not very specific (no benchmark).

On the consumer' side, except for eggs, there is no specific EU instrument that could encourage consumers to express a choice in favour of more animal welfare friendly products.

The baseline is therefore not expected to substantially address the consumers' market choice with respect to compliance of animal welfare legislation or to their specific concerns for animal welfare.

3. Addressing the lack of knowledge of business operators

Request for education and competence for animals' handlers have been introduced in some EU legislation (directive on pigs, directive on experimental animals, regulation on animal transport, and the new regulation on the protection animals at the time of killing). The experience drawn from those requirements indicate that their implementation will depend in part on their level of precision and secondly on their level of implication of the sectors concerned.

In the case of pigs, requirements for competence are rather limited and vague (having knowledge of the EU requirements) and do not focus on the underlying scientific rational for applying the legislation. The effects for changing a number of problematic practices appear very limited.

In other cases, requirements have been more detailed and specific and the approach seems to have provided better results. Following an external study on the impacts of the EU legislation on animal transport, stakeholders agreed that the introduction of a requirement for competence has improved the handling of animals.

However the current requirements have limited effects. Those requirements do not cover the handling of all animals covered by the EU legislation (no requirement for calves, laying hens or other farm animals) and not specific enough for pigs. In addition those requirements are directed to personnel handling animals while a number of painful procedures are related to the design of the production system (animals handlers can not change the space dedicated to animals for example or avoid tail docking if pigs are biting each other due to poor environment).

The EU has funded a number of research projects through the different framework research programmes. The evaluation estimated that the EU spends an average of 15 million euros on research animal welfare projects. However most of them are dedicated to the finding of alternative methods of testing (80%) while most animals are farmed. The evaluation has also pointed out the difficulty in dissemination and coordination of research findings within the Member States. As regards farm animals, the Welfare Quality Project has been successful in developing a new approach for assessing and measuring animal welfare on farm through outcome based animal welfare indicators.

The current EU policy for addressing the lack of knowledge of business operators is relatively successful for improving the handling of animals. However it is today too limited to address problems related to the design of production systems. The EU policy on research has positively contributed to develop new approach in assessing animal welfare but funding on farm animals remain limited.

The baseline is therefore expected to be positive but limited in scope. A number of training requirements are still in a process of being implemented[81] and would need to be assessed in their effects. The current level of EU funding for research is likely to positively contribute to better knowledge on animal welfare but would have limited impacts if not accompanied by more efforts in dissemination and translation into practical tools.

4. Addressing the lack of specific legislation or guidance on certain animals

Without specific EU legislation, a number of animal issues are left to the initiatives of the Member States. The Commission does not have a comprehensive view of the Member States initiatives in the field of animal welfare where the EU has no recognised competence.

However, on the welfare of dogs and cats, the Belgium Presidency in 2010 conducted a survey with the Member States which indicate that national animal welfare requirements applicable to dogs and cats vary widely between Member States (identification and registration of dogs, trade of dogs on markets, licensing of pet shops, the ban of ear cropping, tail docking, licensing of shelters, etc.). From the Council conclusions (see Annex 2I), it appears useful for the EU to investigate if there are problem areas (trade of dogs in particular) where the EU could provide better results than national measures.

On the welfare of farmed animals not covered by specific EU legislation (as for example adult cattles, sheep, goats, turkeys, rabbits, fur animal or farmed fish) the Commission has fragmented information on the way Member States have adopted specific requirements to reflect the principles laid down in the EU legislation for farmed animals (Directive 98/58).

The EconWelfare research project made a detailed comparison of national farm animal welfare legislation in some Member States (see evaluation report p. 42). Some of them have specific requirements on fur animals (DE, IT, NL and DK) and dairy cows (DE, SE, UK, DK and under discussion NL).

The current EU policy does not address a number of animal welfare issues since there are no specific EU rules or other EU instruments available. The Commission does not have a comprehensive view on the Member States initiatives in this field but the data collected (on farm animals and dogs and cats) indicate that the range of initiatives taken by the Member States spreads from no action to very detailed rules.

The baseline is therefore expected to have positive effect on the welfare of animals only in the few Member States having an active policy. However national policies may negatively affect the producers of those Member States putting them at competitive disadvantage. The baseline is also expected to have a negative impact on the welfare of animals of many Member States who do not take specific measures on those animals.

2.5. Subsidiarity test

According to the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5.3 TEU), action at EU level should be taken only when the objectives envisaged cannot be achieved sufficiently by Member States alone and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the EU. The objectives of the present strategy meet these conditions.

Firstly, measures adopted by the Member States in the field of animal welfare can have an impact that is felt across national borders. In particular, they can create obstacles to trade between Member States and distort competition. Different rules on animal transport pose a problem where transport is carried out across national borders.

Such obstacles and problems cannot be overcome by the Member States alone. It is therefore justified for the EU to take action by harmonising certain provisions on animal welfare. The EU has indeed progressively adopted several pieces of legislation on animal welfare, in particular regarding farmed animals. To the extent to which such provisions are already in place, the EU is best placed to refine them and to develop them into a coherent system for different species of animals for which rules at the level of the EU are necessary.

Secondly, where harmonised rules are in place, it is in principle the task of the Member States to enforce those rules. However, important differences in the level of enforcement between the Member States do not allow the objective of those rules to be attained. Where such differences are found, it is therefore justified for the EU to take action and to promote a more uniform approach to enforcement.

Thirdly, consumers across the EU are confronted with a great variety of animal welfare attributes. To allow consumers to understand and compare such attributes and to allow producers to make credible claims as regards animal welfare, the visibility and the credibility of animal welfare claims could be improved through a system allowing their EU-wide comparison. The EU is in a better position to draw up such a system than the individual Member States.

Fourthly, harmonisation at EU level of rules on the welfare of animals requires the EU to be in a position to judge on the most appropriate standards for animal welfare. It thus seems justified for the EU to contribute to the advancement of research in the field of animal welfare, building upon the efforts made by the Member States and complementing the activity carried out by them. At the same time, the EU has a role to play in the dissemination of knowledge of animal welfare issues. This is particularly true due to the fact that Member States have no coordinated approach and most efforts are made in those regions in which operators are already well aware and knowledgeable about animal welfare.

3. Objectives 3.1. General objectives of the strategy

The proposed new EU strategy on animal welfare would have two general objectives:

– to give animals a level of protection and welfare that reflects European societal concerns;

– to ensure fair competition for the EU animal sector in the context of the internal market.

These general objectives touch upon economic, social, environmental, public health and consumer welfare objectives, also with an international dimension.

3.2. Specific objectives

Based on the analysis of the problem drivers, the specific objectives of the new strategy on animal welfare can be summarised as follows:

– Objective 1: to improve enforcement of the EU legislation in a consistent approach across the Member States;

– Objective 2: to provide for open and fair competition for EU business operators that implement or go beyond EU requirements;

– Objective 3: to improve knowledge and awareness of EU business operators regarding animal welfare;

– Objective 4: to improve the coherence of animal welfare across animal species.

Indicators for each specific objective are laid down in Annex 5A.

4. Identifying the options

There have been four main options identified, which reflect the problems and its drivers. They are reflecting the full range of EU and Member states level action, including non-legislative and legislative tools.

Two options were not considered in this report:

(a) The No EU action option has been excluded because the baseline scenario indicated that it has no chance to deliver substantial improvements in a number of major problems identified. Enforcement through the classical approach is limited if not associated with other instruments (knowledge approach, market approach). Lack of economic reward to producers is partially addressed through the CAP but lack of efficiency without a transparent and measurable benchmarking system. Insufficient knowledge is not correctly addressed with the current measures (BTSF, certificate of competences, EU research programmes, EFSA) and need to be expanded as to be closer to stakeholders. Finally, the current baseline is unlikely to address a number of situations potentially or certainly critical on animal welfare taking place at a large scale (dairy cows, turkeys, dogs and cats).

(b) The sector-based approach option (opposed to the holistic approach taken in this report) has also been excluded. This option could have addressed certain aspects of the problems through the amendments of sector-specific legislation. This could have introduced requirements for competence and the possibility of using animal welfare indicators (see options below). However, such approach would require the change of at least eight specific legislative acts, while the work could be performed with one act, ensuring better consistency. The sector-based approach would also make very difficult to use a market based approach (see later) as well as addressing the insufficient coherence and dissemination of research outcomes.

When discussing future policy options, most stakeholders considered that a policy mix would be necessary. The adoption of a framework law was strongly supported by the European Parliament (Ms Paulsen, MEP). Producers’ organisations were mostly in favour of improving enforcement through non-legislative tools while NGOs considered that new laws would be necessary, combined with more non-legislative action. Member States are uniformly supportive of better enforcement. There is also a wide support for the establishment of an European network of reference centre for animal welfare, provided that it is not creating a new structure.

4.1. Option 1: Strengthening Member States' compliance (EU level non-legislative tools)

In this scenario, the current EU legislative setting will remain unchanged. Existing rules may be updated or new rules adopted on an ad hoc basis but it will not be a priority.

Option 1 will include the following initiatives:

· Increase the number of audit missions in the Member States and third countries;

· Strengthen inter-governmental cooperation to promote better enforcement;

· Organise workshops with stakeholders on specific animal welfare issues;

· Develop EU guidelines for species covered by the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for farming purposes;

· Increase the participation to the training initiative Better Training for Safer Food.

All these initiatives will primarily aim at ensuring that the Member States put in place and perform the necessary measures to achieve better enforcement of the EU legislation.

Further details on Option 1 are provided in Annex 5B.

4.2. Option 2: Benchmarking voluntary schemes (EU support to sector self-regulation)

In this scenario, a new legislative act will be proposed but the rest of the EU legislative setting will remain unchanged. Existing rules may be updated or new rules adopted on an ad hoc basis but it will not be a priority. This option will also include communication campaigns for informing consumers of EU requirements as well as of the new EU framework for animal welfare claims. In addition this option will prioritize EU actions on animal welfare at international level through multilateral and bilateral negotiations.

Option 2 will include the following initiatives:

– A legal framework for benchmarking certification schemes with animal welfare claims;

– Communication campaigns for informing consumers;

– Prioritizing of EU actions on animal welfare at international level.

The Commission will propose a new specific legislation to provide for open and fair competition for voluntary certification schemes containing animal welfare claims. This legal framework will allow certification schemes to be registered at EU level. The registration will imply the preliminary establishment of an EU benchmark where applicant certification schemes will be positioned (the bottom of the benchmark being the EU legislation and the top the most animal welfare friendly scheme in the EU). The EU benchmark will be established for each type of activities (dairy farming, etc.) where there are applications for registration. The validation of the EU benchmark and the registration process would be performed by the Commission with the opinion of a multi-stakeholders committee (farmers, food processors, retailers, food services, certification scheme owners, scientists and animal welfare organisations).

Further details on Option 2 are provided in Annexes 5C and 5D in particular why we have not considered the extension of a compulsory labelling system for pig or poultry meat as it exists for eggs.

4.3. Option 3: Establishing a European network of reference centres (Specific EU legislation)

In this scenario, the Commission will present a legal proposal to establish a network of reference centres on the basis of a model that exist in the field of animal health and food safety (network of reference laboratories as laid down in Regulation 882/2004 on feed and food control).

The idea of a network of reference centre has been extensively presented in a specific Commission communication[82] in 2009, accompanied with an corresponding impact assessment report.

This network will not be a new EU structure but the consolidation, through co-financing, of existing scientific national resources on animal welfare. The role of this network will not duplicate the role of the European Food Safety Authority which gathers research findings and provides the EU institutions with scientific risk assessments on the food chain as well as on animal welfare and the activity of the Joint Research Centre of the EU.

Reference centres could be organised by animal welfare topics in line with the current EU legislation making a need of about nine specific centres[83]. Each centre will have the following roles:

– Coordinate at EU level and carry out research on EU relevant themes in collaboration when appropriate with existing EU funded research structures like the SCAR (Standing Committee on Agricultural Research) collaborative working group on animal health and welfare research[84] and the the Animal Health and Welfare ERA-Net (ANIHWA)[85] ;

– Provide scientific and technical expertise to competent authorities on the EU legislation;

– Disseminate research findings and technical innovations to EU stakeholders;

– Disseminate research findings among the EU and the international scientific community;

– Coordinate at EU level the listing and the evaluation of professional training activities related to animal welfare.

The Commission adopted a specific communication[86] on the establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres in 2009 based on an external study.

Under Option 3 an increase in the EU funding for research on animal welfare including wild animals in captivity will be examined as a possibility.

Further details on Option 3 are provided in Annex 5E.

4.4. Option 4: Streamlining requirements for competence and using animal welfare indicators (EU general framework law)

This option will be a legislative proposal for a general EU law on animal welfare to simplify requirements already laid down in certain pieces of EU legislation as follows:

– Requirements for competence will be integrated in a single common text and more precise;

– The possibility of using animal welfare indicators will be introduced as an alternative to compliance with functional requirements of existing legislation.

This will imply replacing Directive 98/58 (umbrella directive for all farmed animals) by the new law.

Option 4 will be limited to the categories of animals presently covered by specific pieces of legislation (calves, pigs, laying hens, broilers, transport and killing of animals, experimental and zoo animals).

Further details on Option 4 and 4+ are provided in Annex 5F.

4.5. Option 4+: Investigating the possibility of extending the scope of Option 4 (EU Framework Law with increased scope)

As set up in the problem definition, there are documented evidence that animal welfare problems exist at various scale in species where the Union has not provided particular rules for their protection. The aim of Option 4+ is therefore to address this issue in order to verify if those animal welfare issues are relevant for the Union.

In addition to Option 4, Option 4+ will investigate on the relevance of extending the scope of Option 4 to other animals where animal welfare problems have been identified (dairy cows, beef cattle, rabbits, turkeys) as well as to dogs and cats. The investigation will consist of launching a series of studies for assessing whether the welfare problems identified by scientists are significant at EU level and whether they affect the functioning of the internal market or other EU objectives.

In Option 4+, the studies will aim at:

– Quantifying the scale of the welfare problems in the EU;

– Establishing the existence or the risk of market distortions or risk related to other EU objectives (public health) due to the absence of EU rules;

– Analysing the impacts of extending the requirements for competence on the economic sustainability of the sector(s) concerned and on the Member States budget.

5. Impact analysis

The present report aims at assessing the impacts of the strategy, keeping in mind that any subsequent legislative proposals arising from this initiative will be supported by separate impact assessment reports.

5.1. Methodology

In the following assessment, the impacts of the proposed options on the specific objectives, and on some other relevant aspects, are considered. The list of impacts considered is discussed in Annex 5G. However the impacts are only mentioned in the main text if they have been considered significant.

The present impacts are always compared to the baseline scenario.

5.2. Impacts of Option 1- Strengthening Member States' compliance 5.2.1. Impacts on objective 1- improve enforcement

Further auditing and advice from Commission services to the national authorities are likely to improve enforcement. Past experience shows the effectiveness of this approach, which is why the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of DG SANCO was created and continues working on food and veterinary issues. However, to increase compliance does not necessarily mean increasing the number of audit missions, since the Commission may use other tools to make progress and ensure follow-up. It should be also noted here that the FVO is today only working on farmed animals and there is no legal framework to extend their activities to zoo animals. The legislation on experimental animals foresees the possibility of controlling national inspection systems should there be due reason for concern.

It should be reminded here that enforcement is primarily the role of the Member States' competent authorities which have or should have the necessary resources to ensure that non compliances are identified and possibly corrected. Commission visits to the Member States are efficient in pointing out defects of the inspection services but not at correcting non compliance by operators since the problem is on a very different scale. Measures to be taken by the Member States may take months to have effects (like training officials, prepare instructions, print leaflets for stakeholders, etc.) and increasing the number of visits of Commission' official will not necessarily provide better results.

Strong enforcement policy has been partly successful in the ban of battery cages (at the present time we don't know yet whether all EU producers will comply with the 1.1.2012 deadline). Since the measure is unambiguous and easily verifiable, it is likely to succeed. The implementation of the grouping of sows through similar pressure from the Commission is likely to succeed for similar reasons (clear measure and deadline). However, enforcement policy through inspection and threat of infringement proceedings is less successful for requirements related to the management of the animals (like feeding, watering, handling, light, etc.). Unlike the design of facilities (battery cages, grouping of sows), they are dependent on the way animals are treated on a daily basis. Such issues demand a proper awareness and understanding of animals' by owners and handlers as well as officials and can not be established overnight. They are also more difficult to verify and often based on sufficient knowledge and experience.

Strengthening intergovernmental cooperation through thematic working groups (of officials) is useful in providing clarification in some aspects of the legal texts and allows exchange of good practices between the different competent authorities. Such exchanges also need to be translated and communicated to stakeholders through specific guidelines to have a broader effect. Such an approach has been punctually used in the past (in particular for the transport of end-carrier animals) and provides positive results.

We could expect even more positive results if certain provisions could be further explained and detailed by the Commission regarding the species covered by the Council of Europe Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

However, the Commission's role in providing quasi-legal interpretation has been challenged by some stakeholders since they consider that such interpretation may go beyond what is actually agreed in the legal text. Such EU guidelines are not binding and are unlikely to address issues that are driven by economic interests (head space in transport for example).

Increasing the participation of officials to Better Training for Safer Food initiative is expected to have a positive effect on enforcement. Those training sessions provide useful inputs for inspectors and contribute to establishing a network of officials having similar technical interests. The initiative is not available for the directive on experimental animals or zoo animals.

Workshops with stakeholders have been used in the pig sector to address recurrent problems arising from the routine use of tail docking and the absence of manipulable material. It seems to provide positive results for a similar development has begun on of animal[87] transport issues and is welcomed by all stakeholders.

Apart from EU legislation, a similar approach[88] has been developed to end pig castration by 2018 and a declaration to this effect has been endorsed by the main stakeholders at EU level. This project is closely followed by the Commission which would like to provide accompanying measures to finance a number of necessary technical studies. Funding is therefore a contributing factor in facilitating stakeholders to work on changes of current practices.

The overall impact of Option 1 in terms of improving enforcement is expected to be fairly positive (++) but limited in scope (no much on experimental and zoo animals) and in certain problem areas (efficient in problems related to design but less in relation to management).

5.2.2. Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition

This option is expected to have no significant impact to provide for open and fair competition. It will have a positive impact in creating a level playing field between operators, in particular as regards measures related to the housing of animals (battery cages/grouping of sow). However, consumers will not be better informed on the welfare aspects of the products they buy.

International competitiveness will not be significantly affected. Equivalent standards are required for slaughterhouses from third countries exporting to the EU. But there is no legal requirement for equivalency in other part of the EU animal welfare legislation.

The overall impact of Option 1 to provide for open and fair competition for EU producers is expected to be slightly positive (+).

5.2.3. Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge

Option 1 is mainly targeted at influencing competent authorities in performing enforcement so the effects on stakeholders are likely to be limited.

However two aspects of Option 1 may have positive effects on the knowledge of stakeholders.

The organisation of workshops on specific enforcement problems have been positively used in the past in particular for better informing stakeholders on the scientific background of certain EU rules as well as the possible alternative methods available. A number of topics could be addressed by this way to share positive experiences of good animal welfare practices. For example developed to ensure a proper implementation of the regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing, on animal transport or for the zoo directive.

Industries representatives have usually been very supportive of the organisation of such informative events and it has created in some case, a dynamic for change (in the case of castration of piglets).

However the effects of such workshops should not be overestimated. First due to logistical reasons, the number of workshops and the number of participants that could benefit from those events is rather limited (usually no more than 100 participants per event) compared to the number of European operators concerned. The participation is often limited to few EU lobby representatives. The organisation of such workshops also requires substantial resources in time and money.

The production of guidelines of interpretation could also contribute to improve the level of understanding of animal welfare among stakeholders despite the possible controversy concerning the legal value of such documents. They may be translated in many languages and published on the internet, providing much larger audiences than workshops. But they are not necessarily increa