Table of contents 1.Introduction 1.1 Purpose and scope 2.Background to the intervention 3.Implementation / state of Play 3.1 Description of the current situation 3.2 Ongoing Commission activities on animal welfare 4.Method 4.1 Short description of methodology 4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1 Relevance 5.2 Coherence 5.3 Effectiveness 5.4. Efficiency 5.5. EU added value 6.Conclusions Annex 1: Procedural information

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultations Annex 3: Methods and analytical models Annex 4: List of actions under the strategy and overview table Annex 5: Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation Annex 6: Summary of costs Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition ABM Animal-Based Measure AAC Aquaculture Advisory Council AHL Animal Health Law AW Animal Welfare BBFAW Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare BTSF Better Training for Safer Food CAP Common Agricultural Policy CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement CIWF Compassion in World Farming CS Case study CVO Chief Veterinary Officer DG AGRI Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development DG DEVCO Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development DG MARE Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries DG NEAR Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations DGs Directorates-General EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EAGF European Agricultural Guarantee Fund EARDF European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EC European Commission ECA European Court of Auditors EEA European Economic Area EFSA European Food Safety Authority EU European Union EURCAW EU reference centres for Animal Welfare FAO Food and Agricultural Organization FAS Farm Advisory System FAWC Farm Animal Welfare Committee FVO Food and Veterinary Office GAEC Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade HAPO Hellenic Aquaculture Producers Organisation JACUMAR National Advisory Board for Marine Aquaculture JEEPA Japan EU Economic Partnership Agreement Kg Kilogram NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OCR Official Controls Regulation OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OIE World Organization for Animal Health RDP Rural Development Plan SMR Statutory Management Requirement SOPs Standard operating procedures TAIEX Technical Assistance and Information Exchange ToR Terms of Reference WTO World Trade Organization 1.Introduction 1.1Purpose and scope Animal welfare is an issue of growing importance with a potential to attract the public and media interest. The European Parliament is very active in engaging with different animal welfare dossiers. It has adopted several resolutions and closely monitors Commission’s activities in this policy area by sending regularly questions and petitions, also from the civil society. Similarly, the Council of the EU adopted conclusions on animal welfare and followed up on specific subjects (e.g. animal transport, animal welfare labelling etc.). The first EU legislation on the welfare of animals was adopted in 1974. It dealt with the protection of animals at slaughter. Since then, animal welfare legislation has developed and expanded its coverage in response to political, market and citizens’ demand as well as scientific developments. Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) recognises animals as sentient beings and requires that full regard be given to the welfare requirements of animals while formulating and enforcing some EU policies. This article does not provide a legal basis for protecting animals. However, it creates the obligation of the Member States and of the Union to ensure that the welfare requirements of animals are considered within the framework of certain EU policies, such as agriculture, the internal market and research . Responsibility for enforcing animal welfare legislation is shared between the European Commission and the Member States. The EU policy on animal welfare builds on legislative and non-legislative tools. The main body of EU legislation on animal welfare applies to food producing animals and to animals used for scientific purposes. The Commission adopted a Communication with an EU strategy for protection and welfare of animals (2012-2015) , in February 2012 (“the strategy”). It presented key strategic lines and a list of 20 specific actions. In November 2018, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) made a detailed assessment of the strategy for the first time and published a Special report No 31/2018: Animal welfare in the EU: closing the gap between ambitious goals and practical implementation . In particular, ECA’s recommendations aimed at improving the management of the animal welfare policy, calling upon the development of a strategic framework for animal welfare, more effective enforcement and guidance to achieve compliance, actions to strengthen the links between the cross-compliance system and animal welfare and action to better address animal welfare objectives through the rural development policy. The ECA recommended the Commission to carry out an evaluation of the strategy by the end of 2020 in order to identify to what extent its objectives have been achieved and if the guidance it has issued is being applied. Following the ECA’s recommendations, DG SANTE launched an evaluation of the strategy in early 2019. In line with the principles of Better Regulation, the evaluation’s scope covers all stages of the strategy i.e. its design (e.g. choice of strategic objectives, priorities and actions), its implementation (e.g. mode of implementation, division of tasks between stakeholders), its monitoring arrangements and its follow-up. While the strategy relates to the years 2012-2015, the evaluation covers the period 2012-2018 in consideration of the fact that the implementation of some of the actions of the strategy has been delayed. It also analyses whether the strategy remained relevant and coherent up until today (2019), considering the most recent economic, scientific, social and environmental developments in the area of animal welfare. The geographical scope encompasses the 27 EU Member States and the UK, as well as international organisations and third countries concerned by the strategy. The evaluation consists of an evidence-based assessment of the strategy’s overall relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value. More specifically, the evaluation assesses whether the strategy achieved its objectives and delivered the (expected) results. In addition, it has also focused on identifying remaining animal welfare risk areas, notably according to Member States’ degree of compliance (ECA’s recommendation), and areas of improvement.

In May 2020, animal welfare has been included in the Farm to Fork strategy and adopted in the context of the European Green Deal . Hereby, as better animal welfare improves animal health and food safety and quality, reducing the need for medication and supporting to preserve biodiversity. The Covid-19 pandemic has reminded us of the strong links between animal health and human health, and of the need to consider animal health and welfare under a One-Health approach. Animal welfare measures can also have considerable co-benefits and synergies with climate and environmental objectives, notably for reducing air and water pollution (e.g. dry, clean animal housing and good manure management). The Farm to Fork strategy proposed an ambitious agenda in the area of animal welfare, including an evaluation (“fitness check”) of the EU animal welfare acquis with a view to revise the legislation, including the slaughter and transport regulations, in order to align them with the latest scientific evidence, broaden their scopes, make them easier to enforce and ultimately ensure a higher level of animal welfare. This evaluation does not cover the EU animal welfare legislation. However, its findings will feed into the fitness check, and be considered for possible future actions in the animal welfare area to be taken in line with the “One Health” approach. 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives The strategy was a continuation of the Community action plan 2006-2010 which grouped defined areas where actions on animal welfare were mainly needed, while also announcing the upcoming development of the European Union strategy on animal welfare and other planned initiatives in this field. The design of the strategy was based on an Impact Assessment conducted in 2012, which identified key problems at EU level, their drivers, objectives to be met, and several policy options to reach such objectives. The impact assessment drew on an external Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the Future , published in 2010. The Impact assessment study identified a number of common drivers like: · Lack of enforcement by the Member States of the EU legislation on animal welfare in a number of areas (e.g. laying hens, the grouping of sows and other); · Business operators’ lack of knowledge in respect to animals’ welfare requirements and about possible alternative solutions; · Consumers' lack of appropriate information on animal welfare; · Lack of specific EU legislation and guidance for some categories of animals such as dairy cows, beef cattle, rabbits and other. In addition, the evaluation conducted in 2010 also highlighted the following issues and trends at EU level, which were considered in the Impact assessment: ·A distortion of competition for EU business operators within the EU in the light of the different level of compliance with animal welfare legislation in the different MS accompanied by a lack of enforcement (battery cages/grouping of sows) and on global markets (lack of equivalent animal welfare standards for slaughterhouses exporting from third countries to the EU); ·Insufficient uptake of opportunities by Member States and farmers in exploiting the potential of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in terms of support to animal welfare measures. The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) offers to Member States possibilities to co-finance animal welfare measures within their rural development programmes (RDPs). This mechanism constitutes the most important source of financial funding for animal welfare activities in the EU; ·Growing societal concerns over animal welfare across the EU (as shown e.g. in Eurobarometer surveys in 2006); ·Interest from EU consumers in receiving information on the handling of animals in order to make informed purchase choices; ·Uneven yet progressive integration of animal welfare issues in research, education and training across the EU. The impact assessment highlighted that animal welfare was still at risk across EU Member States back in 2012. This conclusion was based on Commission audit reports, EFSA scientific opinions and Member States reports.

Broadly, the strategy aimed to ensure that existing animal welfare legislation is consistently applied and enforced across the EU and that animal welfare policy is properly integrated with the CAP. The guiding principle behind the development of the strategy was that “Everyone is responsible”, meaning that in the area of animal welfare there are many stakeholders involved at different levels of the chain and each of them has an important role to play. More specifically, the strategy set up the following six (specific) objectives, accompanied by a set of actions to achieve these objectives: ·Consider the feasibility of introducing a simplified EU legislative framework (objective 1). The idea behind this objective was to ensure the respect of animal welfare principles for all animals kept in the context of an economic activity including, where appropriate, pet animals. ·Support Member States to improve compliance (objective 2) by educating, training, advising and auditing the competent authorities to strengthen the compliance with the EU animal welfare legislation, sharing of best practices, guidance and raising awareness amongst business operators; ·Develop EU level knowledge of certain issues, e.g. the welfare of farmed fish (objective 3), by producing new EU-level knowledge and evidence and taking decisions on that basis; ·Promote EU animal welfare standards globally (objective 4), notably via bilateral & multilateral international cooperation activities, including within the European Neighbourhood Policy and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and FAO; ·Optimise synergies with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and components of relevance (objective 5); i.e. funding under the Rural Development Programme for animal welfare payments which compensate farmers for costs or income losses associated with commitments going beyond mandatory requirements, to support farmers investing in animal welfare, cross compliance linking some CAP support to the respect of animal welfare rules, organic farming which requires a higher level of animal welfare, marketing standards for eggs and production standards for broilers fattened for poultry meat requiring compliance with animal welfare legislation, promotional measures, quality policy (requiring compliance with higher animal welfare standards); ·Provide consumers and the public with appropriate information on animal welfare (objective 6), e.g. via EU communication and education activities (e.g. Farmland designed for children and teachers in primary schools). To achieve its objectives, the strategy included 20 actions. (see a detailed overview in Annex 4) which can be grouped as follows: ·Studies, research projects, and scientific advice were envisaged as means to explore the various components of a potential animal welfare law (objective 1 - action 20). ·Member State support activities envisaged included training activities targeting competent authorities (e.g. via the Better Training for Safer Food programme ), implementing plans, as well as guidelines (e.g. slaughter, transport, etc.) developed for competent authorities (objective 2 - actions 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14), business operators and stakeholders (actions 4, 13, 16). The strategy also included enforcement actions, audits, and infringement proceedings at EU level to enhance further progress on compliance with animal welfare legislation (e.g. welfare of laying hens, pigs, slaughter etc.). ·Scientific advice and studies on fish welfare and other issues (e.g. welfare of broilers, stunning of poultry etc.) were expected to address knowledge gaps in specific areas (objective 3 - actions 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19). ·Bilateral and multilateral international cooperation activities aimed to enhance the competitiveness of European livestock producers in a globalised world (objective 4 - action 15). ·A dedicated cooperation structure was to be set up to assess how to optimise synergistic effects of the current mechanisms of the CAP in particular relating to cross-compliance, rural development, promotional measures, quality policy, organic farming, etc. at the farm (objective 5 - no link to actions listed in the Annex to the Strategy). ·Communication and education activities targeting the general public & consumers were also anticipated (objective 6 - actions 8 and 12). By means of those actions the strategy aimed to contribute to the achievement of the following results:

·A more comprehensive and uniform protection of animals (as a result of progress towards a simplified legislative framework, and training and other support to Member States to improve enforcement of existing legislation) (objective 1). ·Improved awareness and changes in practices from industry (following the received guidance and training) (objective 2). ·Improved enforcement and compliance on behalf of the Member States (as a result of EU support to MS enforcement, training, infringement proceedings, audits and other support) (objective 2). ·Policy decisions to be taken based on new evidence (as a result of studies completed, notably on fish welfare) (objective 3). ·Increased EU influence on global organisations and third countries (as a result of multilateral and bilateral international activities) (objective 4). ·Improved use by Member States of cross-compliance checks under the CAP to encourage farmers to comply with EU animal welfare standards (by linking full CAP payments to farmers among others to animal welfare requirements); and improved use by Member States of co-financing possibilities for animal welfare measures within their RDPs (objective 5). ·Consumers making decisions based on animal welfare considerations (as a result of initiatives to better inform consumers on matters of animal welfare) (objective 6). These results were expected to lead to four main types of impacts: ·Better treatment of animals. ·Open and fairer competition (both within and outside the EU). ·Increased consumer empowerment. ·Improved business opportunities. Several factors were identified as having different levels of influence on the impacts of the Strategy (details on the role of the factors can be found in section 5.3. Effectiveness). The intervention logic diagram presented below provides a visual representation of how the strategy was originally expected to work.

3.Implementation / state of Play 3.1 Description of the current situation The EU has a substantial population of livestock including at present 88 million bovine animals, 148 million pigs, and around100 million sheep and goats . Chickens, egg-laying hens and turkeys in the EU are estimated to be around 4.5 billion . Following a Commission’s study on the welfare of dogs and cats it was estimated in 2012 that in the European Union there were 60.8 million dogs and 66.5 million cats. In 2017, the agricultural industry of the EU produced a total output value of 427 billion Euro (up from 400 billion Euro in 2016). 39.6% of this output value came from animals and animal products (with milk accounting for the greatest share of output value) . In 2014 and 2015, EU finfish aquaculture industry produced almost 700,000 tonnes of finfish, and, together with other EFTA countries, produced over 2 million tonnes . According to the latest Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) report , the performance of the aquaculture sector had reached 1.4 million tonnes in sales volume and 4.9 billion Euro in sales value in 2016. Estimates for the number of persons involved in agricultural activities reach 22.2 million for 2013, many of whom are working part-time. Converted into full-time equivalents, this comes to somewhere between 8.7 and 9.5 million . Over the years, the EU invested significant efforts to make sure that its rules achieve the right balance between the need to protect the welfare of animals, while also supporting the competitiveness of the EU farming and agricultural industry. Implementation of the strategy All the actions under the strategy (listed in Annex 4) have been implemented, with the exception of the one requiring to assess the feasibility of introducing a simplified legislative framework. While the project concerning animal welfare law was not pursued, however several EU Reference Centres for animal welfare were established, and the development of standardised animal welfare indicators was initiated. A set of training activities for Member States have been put in place under the Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF) to support them in enforcing the legislation on the welfare at farm, during transport and at slaughter. Various guidelines and/or implementing plans on the welfare of pigs, slaughter and transport were developed for competent authorities, business operators and stakeholders, to assist the various actors in complying with animal welfare rules. Enforcement is primarily under the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission' role in improving enforcement is to stimulate and facilitate the work of the Member States competent authorities. For this reason, Member States are regularly audited by the Commission. Audits are carried out for all specific EU legislation applicable to farm animals and their reports are made public on the internet. As part of the enforcement actions, infringement proceedings were launched against 13 Member States for non-compliance with the requirement on group housing of sows after the end of the transitional period in 2013. The strategy launched ‘EU pilot dialogue schemes’, including 18 EU pilots on laying hens and pigs, and 5 pilots in other areas, mostly relating to transport. Studies on the welfare of farmed fish (i.e. common practices during transport and slaughter) and on the welfare of dogs and cats involved in commercial practices were carried out to address knowledge gaps in specific areas. EU producers have to comply with EU animal welfare legislation for products they export. Products imported into the Union do not have to comply with EU animal welfare standards (except for slaughter) and EU producers perceive this as a limitation to their competiveness (see 5.4.4 Competitiveness and the economic sustainability). Overall EU and third countries operators seem to have a different perception also on the impact of animal welfare standards on productivity. However, they both consider that compliance with animal welfare legislation has a positive impact on product quality. The inclusion of animal welfare in bilateral trade agreements has always been at the EU request. Within or outside trade agreements, the bilateral cooperation has achieved concrete results over the years such as the creation of working groups with partners (e.g. Chile and New Zealand) with annual work plans and corresponding actions. This was for example a trigger for Chile to develop a full body of national legislation on animal welfare and for New Zealand and Canada to set up equivalence on animal welfare at slaughter. The EU-Brazil Sectorial Dialogue Instrument in the context of a Memorandum of Understanding on animal welfare has also made progress. In parallel, the Commission and the EU Member States have also been active on a multilateral level by contributing to the process of development, adoption and implementation of the OIE international standards on animal welfare and cooperating with the FAO. The CAP has encouraged farmers through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to implement animal welfare standards that go beyond the minimum legislative requirements. These animal welfare payments compensate farmers for income loss and/or additional costs stemming from carrying out commitments going beyond the minimum requirements set out in the legislation. However, this measure is optional and only a limited number of Member States has used this possibility in their RDPs. Apart from table eggs, there are no compulsory EU marketing standards to allow consumers to choose animal welfare friendly products. Voluntary animal welfare labelling schemes exist in few Member States.

The level of understanding of animal welfare issues within diverse groups such as general public, students, consumers and professionals working with animals were also assessed during the strategy. The aim was to identify where deficiencies still persist and to suggest means of improving knowledge levels through education and the dissemination of information. 3.2 Ongoing Commission activities on animal welfare For the last years until the launching of the strategy evaluation in 2019, the work on animal welfare focussed on better enforcement, stakeholders’ dialogue and promotion of animal welfare globally. These were areas for which, despite the progress made by the strategy, the Commission aimed to do more. In terms of enforcement, the two key Commission priorities were and remain the protection of animals during transport and the welfare of pigs with particular focus on tail docking. Tail docking should only to be carried out under strictly defined circumstances, however it is still routinely practiced by many Member States. Regarding the transport of animals, the Commission focussed its work on addressing challenges related to long journeys. To ensure that the legislation is correctly applied, the Commission audited several Member States within a three-year project (2017-2019). This project focused exclusively on the welfare of animals exported to third countries by road and by sea. Other activities carried out include the Commission's Project on Animal Transport Guides , the organisation of regular meetings for the EU National Contact Points for animal transport and communication between the Commission and Member States on relevant issues such as transportations/exports at extreme temperatures. Furthermore, the Commission supports financially the implementation of the OIE Platform on Animal Welfare for Europe and the OIE animal welfare action plan for Middle East countries for 2016-2019 , which included targeted training activities on transport and slaughter of animals. Nevertheless, there are still some challenging issues requiring further efforts like high temperatures during transport/export by road and by sea. Animal welfare NGOs regularly approach the Commission with reports and complaints against national competent authorities concerning welfare during transport, with a particular focus on animal exports to the Middle East or Northern African countries and the export of animals by sea. On 19 June 2020, the European Parliament set up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union. As regards the welfare of pigs, the Commission developed activities to support Member States to improve their level of compliance. In March 2016, the Commission adopted a Recommendation on the application of Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs as regards measures to reduce the need for tail docking. It is accompanied by a Staff Working Document , which provides the technical tools to improve implementation and enforcement of the legislation. Furthermore, the Commission carried out study visits, produced overview reports, analysed and supported the implementation of Member States action plans (i.e. peer-to-peer support, organisation of technical meetings and fora). In addition to the strategy, the Commission performed audits in the Member States to evaluate how they have used this Recommendation to improve compliance with EU legislation. The Commission has also developed extensive communication materials to help pig farmers and to encourage them, with different approaches to avoid routine tail-docking. In 2017, the European Commission established the EU Platform on animal welfare , an expert group of the Commission serving as a forum to exchange good practices, promote non-binding activities and advise the Commission on animal welfare matters . The Commission, through the Platform, aimed to show that non-legislative initiatives have the potential to improve the welfare of animals, and that these improvements depend on Member States’ and stakeholders' commitments. Given the priority given tolive animal transport and the welfare of pigs, the Commission decided to establish dedicated sub-groups focusing their work on both topics. Commission’s sub-groups on transport and the welfare of pigs take into account all existing work in these areas and assist the Platform in its work by fostering the exchange of information, experience, good practices and facilitating cooperation. In 2020, the Commission set up a new sub-group on animal welfare labelling. In addition, several members of the Platform have decided to work on a voluntary basis on five initiatives that deal with the welfare of horses and alike, welfare of pets, welfare of farmed fish, welfare of pullets (i.e. young hens before they lay eggs) and the castration of piglets. The Official Controls Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (OCR), which replaced Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, aimed to introduce a more harmonised and coherent approach to official controls and enforcement actions along the agri-food chain . In May 2019, the Commission adopted an Implementing Regulation 2019/723 establishing the standard model form for the information and data, including on controls on animal welfare, to be included in the annual report submitted by Member States. This was an important step forward to unify data collection , including on animal welfare implementation and streamline risk based controls at farm, during transport and at slaughter. Under the framework of the OCR, the Commission designated in 2018 the first EU Reference Centre for Animal Welfare focusing on the welfare of pigs. Another centre on the welfare of poultry and other small farm animals was designated in 2019 and a third one on ruminants and equids has been announced in June 2020. The centres will provide scientific and technical expertise to perform official controls. Approximately one and half million citizens have signed a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) calling for an end to the use of cages for farm animals . This initiative was launched by Compassion in World Farming in Sept 2018 in partnership with Eurogroup for Animals and approximately 170 other animal welfare and environmental organisations. 4.Method 4.1 Short description of methodology For the purposes of the evaluation, the Commission published a roadmap in May 2019 for a period of four weeks, presenting the scope, the key evaluation questions and a consultation strategy to ensure stakeholders' engagement in the process. Feedback was received by a range of stakeholders including public authorities, business associations, organisations, NGOs, citizens, academia, research and other. An inter-service steering group including all the relevant Commission services accompanied and supported the evaluation, by providing further views and evidence which have been integrated in this document.

An extensive one-year study (‘the study’) carried out by a Commission external consultant provided the main evidence base for this evaluation. This study – which started in 2019 - applied a mixed-method approach in order to address the evaluation questions. The methods used included desk research, an online public consultation, targeted surveys and semi-structured interviews. In addition, eight case studies using contribution analysis, comparative analysis and an assessment of opportunity costs of partially (or not) meeting (some of) the objectives of the strategy were carried out to further support the analysis. The findings were validated during a stakeholders’ workshop. Furthermore, to ensure objectiveness of findings, the study applied a systematic categorisation of the evidence and used triangulation methods for qualitative research in weighing the different sources. 4.1.1 Desk research The desk research included a review of all existing quantitative and qualitative data and evidence. It focused primarily on: EU policy and legislative documents, reports and communications; national reports and other relevant documents, audit reports, national action plans, international reports on animal welfare standards and policies, various web-based sources from relevant stakeholders, academic publications, scientific opinions, consumer opinions on animal welfare, and competitiveness in the farmed animal sector, among others. 4.1.2 Consultation activities The consultation was based on primary data collected from three different sources: a)Public consultation targeting all stakeholders; and b)Targeted consultations addressed to specific stakeholder groups, which involved: ·surveys and ·semi-structured interviews addressed to specific stakeholder groups. All stakeholder groups (with the exception of consumer organisations, who did not contribute to surveys/interviews) were reached in the context of the consultation activities. All feedback received has been analysed and taken into account for the purpose of the evaluation. To the extent possible the number and the percentage of stakeholders who took part in specific consultation activities were indicated in the analysis. More details on the representativeness of the findings can be found in the synopsis report (see annex 2) and in the study. a)Public consultation

The goal of the public consultation was to gather information and perspectives from all stakeholders, including the public at large. For this purpose, an online questionnaire was designed around the five objectives of the strategy, and included questions relating to each of the five evaluation criteria as well as future challenges. The public consultation was launched on 23 March and ran for 13 weeks. A total of 3,375 respondents contributed to the consultation, of which 2,704 were identified to come from a coordinated response. Of the remaining 671 responses, 410 came from EU citizens, and 55 from non-EU citizens. The other 207 respondents were 30 academics/researchers, 34 were business associations, 31 companies, 49 NGOs, 8 organisations (2 consumer organisations and 6 environmental organisations), 19 public authorities, 4 trade unions and 31 self-identified as ‘other’. b)Targeted surveys The online survey, tailored to the different stakeholder groups, complemented the information collected through the public consultation and interviews, and focuses on questions about effectiveness, coherence, relevance and EU added value. The survey was conducted in English and targeted the following stakeholders: ·national competent authorities in Member States; ·business organisations; trade/professional organisations; ·non-governmental organisation (NGOs); ·consumer organisations; ·national Member States in non-EU countries; ·and international organisations. The survey was launched on 1 April 2020 and ran for five weeks. The survey was disseminated through several channels, including 348-targeted emails and via the EU Animal Welfare Platform, with 75-targeted members representing the different stakeholder groups. c)Semi-structured interviews

The interviews explored in detail specific aspects, such as the contribution of the strategy actions to the achievement of its objectives, coherence among policies and the strategy’s costs and benefits. The study team completed 102 telephone interviews from the initially planned 130 with a sample of key stakeholders at national, EU and international level. 4.1.3 Validation workshop An online validation workshop was organised on 9 July 2020. The event enabled various stakeholders and experts to share their perspectives and insights on the preliminary findings of the study. It served as an additional source of information and as a tool for validating all data gathered from the desk research, stakeholder interviews, surveys, and the public consultation. The stakeholders invited to this event were the 75 members of the EU Animal Welfare Platform since they represent various types of stakeholders. 4.1.4 Case studies In support to the data collected through desk research and the set of consultation activities eight case studies aimed to assess the extent to which the actions of the strategy contributed to its planned objectives. Each case study explored the impact for each delivery model (i.e. tools used to deliver on specific actions) of the strategy in order to understand the processes and what contributed to the outcomes. A synopsis report summarising all activities carried out as part of stakeholder consultations, and their results, is provided in Annex 2. 4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings Overall, the Commission agreed with the conclusions of the study despite the methodological limitations and lack of robust quantitative data (especially affecting the effectiveness and efficiency analysis), as described below. With respect to the data collection activities, the following key limitations have been identified: 4.2.1 Lack of longitudinal data

The lack of sufficient quantitative longitudinal data has been identified as an obstacle to develop the baseline provided in the Impact Assessment of 2012. As an alternative, a ‘snapshot’ data (data available for certain periods and for certain states) together with qualitative data (collected during the consultation with stakeholders) was used by the study. Due to limitations to demonstrating the causal link between the strategy and the impacts achieved, the study instead focused on assessing the extent to which the strategy may have contributed to outputs and any outcomes that could be documented. In the effectiveness section, it has not been possible to obtain impact level data for any of the objectives. This gap was filled by using the intervention logic to assess the extent to which the strategy’s actions and activities have delivered the anticipated outputs, outcomes, results and ultimately contributed to addressing the problems identified. Further, other information gaps have also been filled through qualitative inputs from stakeholders consulted. The lack of baseline data that correspond with the specific strategy objectives and related actions was a major challenge for assessing the relevance analysis as well. 4.2.2 Breakdown analysis of the public consultation and survey data An analysis of the results by production system and geography was not possible due to a small base of data for both categories (business representatives were n=38 in the survey and n=45 in the public consultation). For this reason, the responses were analysed taking these categories as a whole and not including evidence by geography or type of industry. 4.2.3 Low response rate on some specific questions and limited quantitative evidence available Efficiency questions were difficult for many stakeholders to answer due to limited familiarity with the strategy. To address this issue the interview and survey data provided insights into some of the costs incurred by stakeholders. There was no dedicated budget for the strategy, nor any dedicated data collection to measure the strategy’s progress. It has not been therefore possible to quantify accurately all costs of the strategy, so some estimates were used instead. Given the lack of information, it was not possible to establish proper and complete costs and benefits analysis and to establish the distributions among stakeholders, both in terms of differences by Member State and over time. Instead, a qualitative approach to assess the study questions on efficiency has been used. The efficiency analysis has been based on data gathered from Commission documents, desk research, interviews, targeted survey and the public consultation. Even when cost information related to the strategy was gathered, it was challenging to identify the share of it that directly pertains to the strategy and would not be incurred in its absence. 4.2.4 Covid-19 crisis Some of the data collection activities encountered additional delay due to the Covid-19 crisis in the mid of the study. An additional week was granted to contribute to the public consultation, to ensure wider participation of stakeholders. While the Covid-19 crisis contributed to the delay of the process it did not hampered any of the findings. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1 Relevance To assess the relevance of the strategy, the evaluation looked at the relationship between the needs and problems in society and the objectives of the strategy. In particular, the analysis aims to reply to the following evaluation questions: ·The extent to which the objectives of the strategy, its actions and other activities, properly addressed animal welfare needs at EU-level at the time of its adoption (2012)? ·The extent to which each of the objectives and actions remained relevant to animal welfare problems and drivers, as well as the context, at EU-level over time and up until today ( 2019)? Main findings: The strategy was an appropriate response to the animal welfare needs and challenges at the time of its adoption in 2012. The key problems, drivers and objectives have been well identified and incorporated into one document. The majority of stakeholders consulted perceived the strategy as a positive attempt by the Commission to coordinate actions around animal welfare in the EU. The delivery model of the strategy was appropriate for around half of the objectives in 2012. For example, enforcement actions to support Member States were well designed and specific enough. For the other half like for example optimising synergies with the CAP, supporting international cooperation and providing consumers with appropriate information, actions were perceived either as not ambitious enough or as not being sufficiently concrete in their formulation.

The enforcement actions were the most appropriate. The development of guidelines were also appropriate but would have needed more dissemination efforts. The production of studies and reports were also appropriate but concrete follow up actions would have been required. Most of the problems and drivers identified in the strategy remain relevant today. Despite the progress made the need to improve compliance across Member States in some legislative areas, enforcement remains a key challenge. Considering the increasing EU citizens concerns towards animal welfare, the adequate information to consumers makes the objective even more relevant today than it was in 2012. Although the strategy objectives have evolved over time, a majority of them continue to be relevant today. 5.1.1 Relevance in 2012 The strategy properly identified common problems and drivers affecting animal welfare in the EU and set out six objectives for addressing them. The objectives were all relevant at the time of the adoption of the strategy. An analysis of the relevance for each objective in 2012 is provided below. Objective 1: Consider the feasibility of introducing a simplified EU legislative framework for animal welfare With this objective, the strategy targeted two problems. The first was to simplify the legislative framework. The wording “simplification” led to different perceptions amongst stakeholders. In general, NGOs believed a simplification of the legislative framework would dilute the existing requirements, while others such as industry thought it could create additional burden. The second element relates to achieving a more comprehensive protection of animals across the EU, by including welfare principles for all animals. Evidence suggests that the relevance of this element was high since only farm animals were covered by EU legislation and not all farmed species were protected by species-specific legislation. Overall, while the problem identified was relevant, the objective and the strategy’s response lacked specificity. The action for possible legislative proposal for a simplified EU legislative framework for animal welfare was not pursued, however, the new Official Controls Regulation empowers the Commission to set up EU reference centres on animal welfare and introduce animal welfare indicators, and to adopt requirements for control of compliance. Objective 2: Develop tools, including where relevant implementing plans, to strengthen Member States' compliance This objective was highly relevant in 2012 due to the uneven level of compliance with EU legislation on animal welfare across the EU. The Impact assessment of 2012, Commission audit reports, Parliament, NGOs and various stakeholders largely support these findings by pointing at concrete issues related to the protection of calves, pigs, broilers, laying hens and animal transport. The strategy included a wide spectrum of measures targeting Member States and industry to improve compliance with EU legislation. For Member States, the strategy designed enforcement actions, implementing plans and reports targeting low enforcement areas of the EU legislation (e.g. welfare of laying hens and pigs). For industry, the strategy proposed the creation of guidelines targeting specific areas of EU legislation that were often seen as complex. The study and Commission audit reports from the time of strategy highlight that these measures were appropriate in addressing the identified challenges. Commission audit reports on the protection of animals on slaughter from the period 2016-2017 confirm the need for further support, supervision and guidance. Objective 3: Investigate on the welfare of farmed fish According to the Impact Assessment of 2012, the lack of knowledge about the welfare of farmed fish was a relevant issue in 2012. A report on the future of European aquaculture from 2012 also identified aquatic animal health and welfare as one of eight priority areas and contained a goal to ‘develop and improve existing welfare/stress indices’ (European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform, 2012). To address this objective, the strategy included two actions: a study on the welfare of farmed fish assessing common practices during transport and at slaughter and a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the possibility of introducing certain requirements regarding the protection of fish at the time of killing. Given the need for more knowledge about fish welfare, these actions were appropriate. Objective 4: Support international cooperation The Commission worked to support international cooperation on animal welfare far before the adoption of the strategy. However, this objective remained also relevant in 2012 because the international cooperation require long term vision and action. The strategy built on previous work done in this domain and contributed by further promoting the need to include animal welfare in trade agreements or cooperation fora. Inter alia, this was done by exploring better integration of animal welfare in the European neighbourhood policy framework and organising international events promoting EU views on animal welfare. Additionally, the Commission had collaborated with inter-governmental organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), providing financial support to the OIE and being actively involved in the development and implementation of international welfare standards. A report on the impact of animal welfare international activities on the competitiveness of European livestock producers in a globalised world has been published by the Commission under the strategy. Overall, activities foreseen under the strategy were appropriate and relevant to support the international cooperation on animal welfare. However, the lack of specificity in formulating this objective posed a challenge to evaluate the impact of its activities. Objective 5: Optimise synergistic effects from current Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) The 2010 Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare concluded that EAFRD animal welfare payments were under-utilised by Member States at the time. Despite the fact that there were already some tools in place (e.g. CAP Farm Advisory System (FAS), Cross-compliance measures and EAFRD), this objective was relevant considering the perceived insufficient integration between animal welfare policy and the CAP in 2012. The CAP provided opportunities for improving the awareness of farmers on the compliance requirements with animal welfare rules. Cross-compliance linked the payments of the CAP with the compliance of basic standards including animal welfare . In addition, the EAFRD offered Member States the possibility of co-financing support for animal welfare, via specific animal welfare payments (i.e. voluntary management commitments going beyond the legally binding requirements or commonly used agricultural practices, which compensated farmers for additional costs incurred and/or income foregone) or other measures (e.g. investments, training and advice) aimed at improvements in animal welfare.

The strategy planned to tackle problems in 2012 by establishing “a specific inter-services arrangement to assess how to optimise synergistic effects of the current mechanisms of the CAP in particular through cross-compliance, rural development, promotional measures, quality policy, organic farming, etc.”. No specific inter-service arrangements with this purpose was set-up during the period considered. Inter-service consultations took place on an ad hoc basis. The lack of specificity posed a challenge to assess whether the objective could have been met only with such an arrangement or not, and whether this could have been an appropriate tool to increase synergies between the two policy areas. Objective 6: Provide consumers and the public with appropriate information The Community Action Plan on the protection and welfare of animals (2006-2010) states that there has been a „clear shift of public attitudes towards animals over recent decades‟. Providing consumers and the public with appropriate information was another highly relevant objective in 2012, supported by evidence from the Evaluation of the EU animal welfare policy of 2010 and the Impact assessment of 2012. An EU wide Eurobarometer survey on “Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare” showed that animal welfare was a concern for 64% of the population (March 2007). 5.1.2 Relevance today According to the evidence gathered in the study, the six objectives of the strategy continue to be relevant today. Considering the fact that objectives and problems have evolved with time there are some differences in the extent of their relevance. Objective 1: A simplified EU legislative framework for animal welfare The objective remains relevant because the existing legal framework has not being updated with the latest scientific evidence and does not contain species specific requirements for all animal species. The appropriateness of other measures included under this objective like the creation of common requirements for personnel handling animals remain appropriate and are still relevant. The establishment of EU Reference Centres and the development of science-based animal welfare indicators were considered at the time as very useful tools for an improved animal welfare. For this reason the ideas were retained and included in the Official Controls Regulation. Changes and influencing factors: There were limited improvements in terms of the use of science-based welfare indicators. There were small improvements in the development of such indicators by EFSA (e.g. dairy cows, broilers and a statement on the use of animal-based measures which included recommendations around the development and use of such measures). The ECA report of 2018 recommends the Commission to define baseline and target indicators to measure and compare the Member States’ degree of compliance in remaining risk areas identified by the evaluation of the strategy. Objective 2: Support Member States and take action to improve compliance This objective remains highly relevant today although significant progress has been made. Some areas of legislation have seen improved levels of compliance (e.g. banning of non-enriched cages for laying hens, grouping of sows, animal transport and slaughter), but non-compliance (e.g. use of enrichment materials and routine tail docking of pigs) is still perceived by stakeholders to be driven by a lack of knowledge of animal owners and handlers, despite guidelines produced under the strategy. The need for continued training and education of personnel working with animals remains highly relevant. This is also supported by a survey of Chief Veterinary Officers (CVOs) under the Finish Presidency of the EU, where both the attitude and insufficient knowledge of operators and farmers were highlighted as the main reasons for lack of compliance. Changes and influencing factors: Consumer awareness and citizens’ interest in animal welfare have increased with time as also confirmed by Eurobarometer on the “Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare” made in 2007 and 2016. Expectations and behaviours of consumers changed over time, resulting in greater awareness overall (Cembalo et al., 2016) and therefore a greater commitment to act to make improvements. The lack of scientific and technological progress hampered the success of this objective in some legislative areas. For example an IT system or a software for tracking the transportation vehicles, their journey time, outside and inside temperature and other parameters could have improved compliance even further. NGO initiatives and specific campaigns (e.g. animal transport, pig’s tail docking and other) also played a role in influencing enforcement and compliance. Objective 3: Investigate on the welfare of farmed fish Overall knowledge regarding the welfare of farmed fish has improved as a result of the strategy, which has contributed to this objective with the production of the aforementioned study and a Commission report. Considering the high interest to this subject there is a need for follow-up actions based on the conclusions of the Commission report (e.g. scientific and technical progress, guidelines etc.). Stakeholders from across different disciplines believed that legislation and enforcement related to fish welfare needed to improve. The increased interest in fish welfare among consumers indicates that there is public support for this. While progress has been made under the strategy, this objective remains relevant today. Objective 4: Support international cooperation Despite the progress made, the need to support international cooperation remains relevant. The Commission study and report on the impact of the animal welfare international activities concluded that “animal welfare standards have a limited impact overall on the competitiveness of EU producers on world markets”. Despite this, industry still perceives animal welfare improvements as costly. EU businesses and business/trade associations expressed high degree of concern in relation to this objective, as they perceive that higher animal welfare standards would put them at a competitive disadvantage globally. This evidence was further supported also by the survey, where the majority (84%) agreed that further EU action was needed.

All the actions and activities were appropriate as they filled a knowledge gap but international cooperation is an ongoing objective and as such it remains relevant today. Stakeholders perceive that the strategy could have been more ambitious and concrete in the description of this objective. Changes and influencing factors: Consumer awareness is again considered a factor affecting the relevance of this objective. Despite increases in awareness and interest in animal welfare in the EU, this is overall lower in third countries. As a result, the demand for higher animal welfare products is still considerably lower in these countries following the Commission study on animal welfare international activities. This in turn influences exports from the EU as consumers in these countries may be less willing to pay for higher welfare products. The objective is also affected by trade of live animals. The level of trade between the EU and third countries has increased annually by 5%, with exports of agricultural products being higher in value (€182 billion) in 2019 than imports (€143 billion) and the share of agricultural products as a proportion of total trade reached 8% (Eurostat, 2020). Objective 5: Optimise synergies with the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) The CAP supports animal welfare by improving farmers’ awareness of their legal obligations, and incentivising farmers to pursue higher standards. This objective remains relevant, considering the need for higher animal welfare is foreseen in the context of sustainable food production referred to under the Farm to Fork strategy. Regular coordination between the CAP and animal welfare policies existed before and continued after the end of the strategy. However, no specific actions were carried out towards this objective under the strategy. Changes and influencing factors: Increased consumer awareness on animal welfare affected (and is likely continuing to affect) this objective. The Eurobarometer survey conducted across all 28 Member States, found that respondents perceived the CAP was fulfilling its objectives of supporting farmers in Member States in achieving higher animal welfare standards (Special Eurobarometer, 2018). The recent proposal for the CAP reform (2018) has taken a step in this direction by explicitly mentioning animal welfare, and linking it to animal and human health, as part of Specific Objective 9 “to improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and health, including safe, nutritious and sustainable food, reducing food waste, as well as animal welfare”. Objective 6: Provide consumers and the public with appropriate information This objective is even more relevant today than in 2012. This is due to a lack of progress on information available to EU consumers on animal welfare, despite perceived increases in the level of public interest on the topic, and the commitment to consider options for animal welfare labelling under the Farm to Fork Strategy. However, apart from the two studies to tackle the issue of consumer awareness (e.g. on the stunning of animals and education and information activities directed at the public and consumers), the strategy did not include more specific actions. There is also variation from one Member States to another supported by the findings of different surveys on consumers’ behaviours and willingness to pay for higher welfare products. Organisations responding to the public consultation supported this view, with the majority (76%) considering lack of information among consumers to be extremely or very relevant in 2020. Furthermore, a special Eurobarometer (March 2016) indicated significant increase in the interest of citizens to animal welfare by concluding that: “More than nine in ten EU citizens believe it is important to protect the welfare of farmed animals (94%).” One of the means to achieve improvements in consumer knowledge on the topic of animal welfare are labelling schemes. This is supported by stakeholders and evidence from the evaluation of EU marketing standards contained in the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation, the ‘Breakfast Directives’ and CMO secondary legislation, which found that rules for indicating the farming methods applied for laying hens had been effective in promoting ‘animal welfare-friendly’ production methods for eggs. There are also EU voluntary marketing standards for poultry meat, which includes reference to types of farming. In addition, the EU organic farming rules encourage a high standard of animal welfare. Apart from EU initiatives, various certification schemes have been developed with animal welfare claims. In 2009, the Commission adopted a report on options for animal welfare labelling, based on a study. Already at that time several quality schemes were in place, some of them specifically targeted towards animal welfare, others had animal welfare in their characteristics. This interest of the consumers to receive information on animal welfare is visible through the growing number of animal welfare claims among existing labels (like Label Rouge in France) but also with the emergence of new schemes where animal welfare is the sole or an important component. In absence of a common methodology, the proliferation of claims increases the difficulty for consumers to really assess their reliability. Available evidence suggests that there is an increasing demand for an EU animal welfare labelling scheme. This demand has been recently expressed by the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of Ministers who adopted in December 2020 specific conclusions on animal welfare labelling. As announced in the Farm to Fork strategy, the Commission will consider options for animal welfare labelling to better transmit value through the food chain. Changes and influencing factors: Changes and influencing factors are similar to the one described in the previous objective (e.g. increased consumer and citizens awareness since 2012). Some initiatives by NGOs have also influenced this objective through awareness raising activities during the strategy period. The 2016 United National Committee on World Food Security recommendations to improve animal welfare were initially driven by NGO initiatives and, as such, were praised by animal welfare NGOs (Buller et al., 2018).

Delivery model The feedback from the consultation activities confirms that the strategy was largely perceived by stakeholders as a positive step forward. In the meantime, it was also criticized for not being ambitious enough in its design. One of the reasons for this was that the strategy brought together some earlier planned work (i.e. international activities) and some actions that have been already foreseen under the legislation (e.g. enforcement activities under the laying hen and pig welfare directives and Commission reports to the Parliament and the Council). In addition, stakeholders also pointed to the lack of outcome indicators and follow-up actions as factors limiting the potential positive impact of the strategy. 5.2 Coherence Under the coherence criterion, it has been assessed whether/to what extent the different components of the strategy operate together in a coherent way to achieve the given objectives (internal coherence). Also, it has been explored whether the strategy is coherent with other relevant EU/national legislation and policies, initiatives taken in third countries and international organisations (external coherence). The following evaluation questions were used to guide such assessment: ·How well have the various components of the strategy operated together and led to synergies to improve overall performance, over time and up until 2019? Or, conversely, whether gaps, areas of tension or inconsistencies existed? Where there have been inconsistencies or gaps, what has caused these? What have been the impacts? ·To what extent has the strategy been coordinated with animal health policy and initiatives, as well as with the CAP (as per one of its objectives) over time and up until 2019? Where there have been inconsistencies or gaps, what has caused these? What have been the impacts? ·To what extent has the strategy been coordinated and complementary with other EU-level policies and interventions related to animal welfare over time and up until 2019 (e.g. environment, trade, single market, fisheries, and research)? Where there have been inconsistencies or gaps, what has caused these? What have been the impacts? ·To what extent has the strategy been aligned with national and non-EU interventions with common objectives? Where there have been inconsistencies or gaps, what has caused these? What have been the impacts? Main findings: The objectives and actions of the strategy were internally coherent. They operated well together and led to synergies. The strategy has been coherent and coordinated with the animal health policy and the CAP. However, the strategy made only a limited contribution to the improvement of synergies with CAP and the strengthening of the existing level of coherence. There is no evidence of contradiction between the EU policies developed during the period of implementation of the strategy. The strategy was coherent with interventions in Member States. However, the extent to which the strategy was aligned with relevant national interventions varied by Member State due to different, mainly national, reasons. There was limited evidence to assess the coherence between the strategy and the non-EU actions and policies. However, at global and regional level, there are some positive examples of coherence between the strategy and various OIE initiatives on animal welfare and as well as the FAO Gateway to Farm Animal Welfare. 5.2.1 Internal coherence Overall, the objectives of the strategy were internally coherent. For example, the objective to simplify the legal framework was coherent with that of supporting Member States in achieving and improving compliance, as a simpler framework with common indicators and requirements would make enforcement easier for Member States. Further, this objective was also aligned with the objective of optimising synergies with the CAP, as it aimed to improve the support given to businesses to raise awareness on compliance. Additionally, the general objective of addressing key gaps in knowledge on animal welfare issues supported all the other objectives, as improved knowledge helped promote animal welfare internationally and nationally.

The 20 actions elaborated under the different strategy objectives worked well together, complemented each other and established synergies. This is the case, for example, of the enforcement actions and the training activities, or the set-up of the EU Reference Centre for Animal Welfare and the objective to support Member States. These findings are largely supported by the outcomes of stakeholders’ interviews. While overall the strategy document is coherent internally, there were also some inconsistencies to be noted, particularly when exploring the links between the objectives, the actions, their expected outputs and the impacts. For example, certain actions were standalone or not directly associated with other parts of the strategy such for example the action requiring a report with recommendations in the area of restraining systems used for bovine animals. Also, the strategy did not include references to expanding research or plans to improve the welfare of equines, shellfish, rabbits, fur animals other than cats and dogs, and turkeys, contradicting the general objective of achieving welfare for all animals. 5.2.2 External coherence with EU legislation/policies Animal Health and Official Controls policies The strategy is coherent and coordinated with animal health policies and legislation. For the purposes of the evaluation, it was assessed whether the strategy is coherent with two major legislative acts which are relevant to animal welfare, i.e. the Official Controls Regulation (OCR) and the Animal Health Law, as well as with the previous EU animal welfare strategy (2007-2013). The OCR includes welfare requirements for animals in its scope and encompasses key animal welfare aspects, such as the establishment of reference centres or the potential use of science-based indicators. Both aspects were indicated in the strategy document as possible components of the simplified EU legislative framework for animal welfare. Article 13 TFEU recognising that animals are sentient beings is part of the recitals of the OCR. The animal welfare strategy was coherent with the EU animal health strategy (2007-2013) . Both strategies demonstrated synergies through their objectives, whereby the animal health strategy goal 4 was to promote farming practices and animal welfare by making a reference to coherence with the Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010. Contrary to the OCR, the Animal Health Law does not include animal welfare within its scope. Nevertheless, the strategy and the AHL share similar objectives, by promoting animal health and welfare. In its recitals, the AHL makes references to the link between animal health and animal welfare and to Article 13 of the TFEU. The majority of consulted stakeholders perceive both the Animal Health Law and the Official Controls Regulation as an important and positive animal welfare policy development. While both legislative acts (OCR and AHL) are relatively recent, the coherence with the animal welfare strategy demonstrates that coordination efforts have been successful. Common Agricultural Policy and other EU policies The CAP provides support for farmers to pursue higher standards through animal welfare payments, funded under the EAFRD as part of the CAP (Pillar II). These payments cover the income foregone and the costs incurred for carrying out animal welfare commitments that go beyond legal requirements. The EAFRD includes also other possibilities to support animal welfare objectives, such as investments in more animal welfare friendly stables, training and advice, quality schemes, organic farming and support for innovation through the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability. Farmers can receive such support only if the Member State or the region where they operate has incorporated the payments in their Rural Development Programmes (RDPs). On the other hand, improving farmers' awareness is largely done through cross-compliance under Pillar I of the CAP, which is financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). These requirements encompass several areas concerning the environment, climate change, good agricultural and environmental condition of land, public health, animal health, plant health and animal welfare. Commission Services maintained regular exchanges of information aiming at ensuring coordination in the area of animal welfare during the strategy period. However, there is limited evidence that these led to new or increased synergies with the CAP. This cooperation will further improve and it would potentially lead to some new synergies as a result of the new CAP proposal of 2018, which explicitly recognises and includes animal welfare together with animal and human health as part of its Specific Objective 9 “to improve the response of EU agriculture to societal demands on food and health, including safe, nutritious and sustainable food, reducing food waste, as well as animal welfare”. There are other EU policies that impact on the welfare of farmed animals. For that reason, there were well-established processes and procedures in place to ensure coherence with other EU-level policies, such as the joint organisation of events, regular communication on animal welfare, and collaboration on projects during the strategy period. For example, DG SANTE collaborated with other DGs on animal welfare activities in third countries through technical assistance instruments with DG NEAR, cooperation and stakeholders’ forums with DG AGRI, and development cooperation projects with DG DEVCO. The strategy was coherent with EU policies for research and food and feed safety. Coordination with research policy was achieved by research projects funded in the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development that focused on animal welfare activities. For example, under FP7, the Animal Welfare Indicators Project (AWIN)created science-based animal welfare indicators based on pain assessment and pain recognition for individual animals; EconWelfare promoted insight on the impact for the animal, the production chain and society of upgrading animal welfare standards; and AWARE sought to improve the integration of farm animal welfare research in an enlarged Europe. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was mandated to provide scientific advice on farm animal welfare, which created synergies between the strategy and the EU-level policies on food and feed safety. EFSA’s panel on animal health and welfare also examined a diversity of issues that affected the welfare of animals, including nutrition and feeding that impacted on the Commission’s science-based approach to animal welfare. For instance, the use of outcome-based animal welfare indicators in the strategy took into account EFSA’s Scientific Opinions. The creation of EU Reference Centres for Animal Welfare (EURCAWs) under the strategy was also designed with an aim to complement the role of EFSA and the EU Joint Research Centre and not to overlap with their activities. These Centres aim to improve the enforcement of animal welfare legislation, and provide technical support and coordinated assistance to EU countries in carrying out official controls in the area of animal welfare. The first one was created in 2018 and the second one in 2019. The strategy was moderately coherent with the EU single market, sustainability and environmental policies. Concerning the single market, there is still no harmonised system at EU-level for marketing and labelling of animal welfare standards. Under the Farm to Fork strategy, the possibility to introduce/use EU-wide labelling schemes for animal welfare will be considered. For this purpose, the Commission will conduct an external study foreseen to start first half 2021. In parallel, the Commission has established a sub-group on animal welfare labelling under the EU Platform on Animal Welfare which will assist the Commission in its related work. The coherence between the strategy and the need for more sustainable food production is expected to be strengthened with the Farm to Fork strategy, as the latter makes explicit reference to the integration of animal welfare and sustainability policy. This issue has been mentioned in the roadmap of the ongoing fitness check of animal welfare legislation, and will be further explored in that context.

Concerning environmental policy, some areas under the strategy demonstrate limited levels of coherence. For example, the laying hen practices enforced under the strategy required alternative caging systems for laying hens , which have higher ammonia emissions and carbon footprints than traditional systems. There were also some shortcomings in terms of coherence between the strategy and international trade, transport, and fisheries policy. The issue of coherence with the trade policy has been addressed by consistently including commitments on animal welfare cooperation in Free Trade Agreements to which the strategy had also contributed. While some progress was made on animal transport (through, for instance, the animal welfare transport guidelines), evidence shows that there was a lack of coherence between animal welfare policy and transport in terms of implementation and enforcement of rules covering temperatures and journey times. 5.2.3 External coherence with national policies The strategy achieved coherence with interventions in Member States. More than half of EU Member States directly transposed the Directives on the protection of animals into their national legislation. Member States, such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden, had more ambitious animal welfare interventions than the strategy, which are considered to be consistent with the strategy. Coherence was also achieved with EU-level interventions for Member States. Evidence gathered from the review of several reports of projects relevant to animal welfare funded under the European Network for Rural Development suggests that coherence has been achieved between animal welfare, technological and farm upgrades, training, environment, economics, and animal health. The identified lack of coherence between the EU and national policies in some cases were associated with the different sets of national rules and policies, cultural traditions, challenges faced by new Member States in adopting animal welfare legislation, as well as lack of resources to work on animal welfare. The presence of public-private initiatives also seem to have shaped the extent to which synergies were achieved. The level of coherence between the strategy and national interventions therefore varied by Member State. 5.2.4 External coherence with non-EU interventions The strategy was coherent with non-EU level interventions with common objectives, recognising the importance of science underpinning standards for animal welfare. The OIE and the strategy had objectives that were coherent and complementary. OIE’s Global strategy on animal welfare, like the EU strategy on animal welfare, promote the implementation of OIE international animal welfare standards, capacity-building and education, communication with stakeholders, and the implementation of animal welfare standards and policies. Some regional OIE activities like for example the OIE Platform on animal welfare for Europe has also shared common objectives with the strategy for improving animal welfare and identified the need for raising awareness. The EU remains the main donor of the OIE Platform on animal welfare for Europe and other OIE initiatives on animal welfare at regional and global level. Synergies were also achieved with FAO’s work through the EU’s contribution to the Gateway to Farm Animal Welfare. The Commission was a key strategic partner to the FAO ‘Gateway’ and provided links to diverse resources on animal welfare for farm and working animals. Finally, the strategy contributed to improving coherence in relation to some trade agreements. Provisions to strengthen cooperation on animal welfare were included in trade agreements with third countries, such as the trade agreement signed between the EU and Mercosur states - Argentina, Brazil Paraguay and Uruguay. This has been explored under the relevant the case studies available in Annex 9 of the study report. 5.3 Effectiveness The analysis of effectiveness focusses on how successful the strategy has been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives. For objectives that were only partially met, the assessment reveals the extent to which progress has fall short and why they have not been achieved. The following evaluation questions were used to guide such assessment: ·To what extent has the strategy contributed to a more comprehensive and uniform protection of animals across species in the EU? ·To what extent has the strategy contributed to improvements in the enforcement of and compliance with EU law at national level (including compliance risk areas)? ·To what extent has the strategy contributed to the functioning of the EU market and a level playing field in the EU and at global level? ·To what extent has the strategy improved awareness about animal welfare amongst animal owners/handlers, consumers and the general public (e.g. the link with the sustainable production methods)? ·To what extent has the EU strategy produced knowledge and evidence which, in turn, contributed to policy and decision-making? ·To what extent has the strategy contributed to the EU’s influence on animal welfare standards, policies and practices at global level and in relevant Third countries?

·To what extent has the strategy contributed to Member States’ improved use of the CAP to comply with EU rules and go beyond? ·To what extent have the 20 actions been achieved? ·Regarding the objectives partially met or unmet, which factors hindered the achievement of the objectives? Main findings: The strategy was overall effective as an initiative that set common goals and helped to improve key issues on animal welfare at EU level. All strategy actions were implemented except one (i.e. a simplified EU legislative framework). Although progress has been made on all objectives, there were different levels of success. However, none of them has been fully achieved. There is a complex set of internal factors (e.g. delivery model, resources, political agenda etc.) and external factors (e.g. differences across MS, stakeholders support, differences in interpreting the legislation etc.) that contributed to this. Overall, the strategy actions on enforcement and guidelines were the most effective ones. The strategy’s main contribution is associated with the enforcement of the prohibition of non-enriched cage systems for hens and the group housing of sows. The strategy has contributed to a medium extent to the protection of chickens kept for meat production, protection of animals during transport and slaughter, and indirectly to protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Commission audits revealed the use of risk-based systems for selecting sites for inspection and continuous efforts to address non-compliance. Despite some improvements the analysis identified some remaining compliance risks related to animal transport and the welfare of pigs. More concretely, compliance challenges on transport are associated with long journeys, especially those to third countries in combination with issues related to high summer temperatures. In the area of pig welfare, the main challenge remains the largely practiced routine pig’s tail docking. Stakeholders see the strategy as playing a key role influencing the creation of the EU Animal Welfare Platform. The EU Platform further contributed to some of the actions and objectives of the strategy in terms of improving dialogue with stakeholders, sharing knowledge, exchanges of best practices and development of guidance. The strategy did not contribute to extending protection of animals to species which were not previously protected, nor did it contribute to the development of common requirements for competence of personnel handling animals which were components of the simplified framework. At a global level, the strategy contributed to some extent towards a global level playing field through its international activities. The strategy further contributed to promoting animal welfare in international fora and establishing synergies with the other international organisations active on animal welfare like OIE, FAO and other. Overall, the awareness of animal welfare among industry stakeholders has improved since 2012. Actions to improve awareness of consumers and the public through communication and education were not so effective mainly because they were not pursued further on and there were no follow-up actions and dissemination activities. The strategy played a limited role for improving synergies with the CAP and in particular for encouraging Member States to make better use of the possibilities offered by the EAFRD to support animal welfare measures through their RDPs. Certain actions and objectives such as those targeting international cooperation, increased synergies with CAP, and the feasibility of an EU legislative framework - were not specific enough. This was a key factor to limit their impact. The strategy lacked a monitoring mechanism to effectively measure the progress or the impact of its activities. Some internal factors such as changes in political agenda and insufficient resourcing led to delays in the implementation of the strategy. In the absence of quantitative data to assess the extent to which the strategy has been successful in achieving the set objectives, the effectiveness analysis is mainly based on a qualitative analysis. 5.3.1 Comprehensive and uniform protection of animals (simplified legislative framework) The strategy contributed to a limited extent to a uniform level of protection of species already included in the legislation.

While a simplified legislative framework has not been developed under the strategy, some of the key components relating to such objective have been implemented by means of different actions, as described below. More uniform level of protection of different species As mentioned, the strategy partially delivered on the outputs that were planned in relation to this objective. These outputs are mainly associated with the establishment of EU Reference Centres for animal welfare (EURCAWs), the EU Animal Welfare Platform and the production of guidelines. While there is evidence of knowledge shared among stakeholders in the Platform across a range of issues, there is no evidence yet, that these have led to a simplification of requirements or a more uniform level of protection across species. The contribution of the outputs described above to achieving a more uniform protection of species has been small. Overall, there is little evidence that these outputs contributed to a more uniform level of protection of different species, due to a low level of progress and the delays incurred. Common requirements for competence of personnel handling animals This output was linked to the notion of including common requirements for the new potential new legislative framework. As the action to consider the feasibility of a simplified legislative framework was not implemented, common requirements were not introduced. Reference centres The concept for developing a network of reference centres existed before the strategy and it was included in the strategy document as an element which would contribute to a possible simplification of the existing legal framework. The obligation to establish reference centres on animal welfare derives from the Official Controls Regulation. The first EU reference centre on animal welfare of pigs was set up in March 2018 and started its activities in October 2018. A year later in 2019, the Commission designated a second reference centre dedicated to the welfare of poultry and other small-farmed animals . In June 2020, the Commissioner announced a plan for designation of a third EU reference centre dedicated to the welfare of ruminants and equids in 2021. EU Reference Centres on animal welfare aim at improving the enforcement of the legislation, providing technical support and coordinated assistance to EU countries in carrying out official controls in the field of animal welfare. They also contribute to the dissemination of good practices on animal welfare in the EU. In particular, by providing scientific and technical expertise, carrying out studies and developing methods for improving and assessing the welfare level of animals. Today, the role of these centres is largely perceived as very positive by all by Member State representatives, experts and EU bodies and institutions. However, it is still too early to measure their impact, considering that they have been designated recently. Scientific Indicators Overall, the strategy contributed to a small extent to the use and delivery of indicators. Collected evidence suggest that indicators are being used in an ad hoc manner by some stakeholders. The reason is often associated with the fact that only the broilers Directive has indicators embedded as of today. Another indication of progress is the 2017 Official Controls Regulation (OCR). It provided the Commission with the power to design and/or use indicators ‘based on measurable performance criteria’ to verify compliance with legislation. Such indicators had not been adopted yet under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Many respondents agree that the scientific indicators are useful, but they should be used better by integrating them into existing legislation. Others think that a systematic, centralised database of indicators is required to be truly useful in measuring animal welfare in the EU. The OCR provides an excellent opportunity to expand future work on the development and use of indicators. At present, the Commission is working on a 2-years project to assess whether Member States have a strategic approach to use animal welfare indicators to measure the severity, extent and permanence of animal welfare problems and to target its controls accordingly. The main output of this project will be an overview report, planned to be released in the first quarter of 2021. This report is expected to support the future work of the Commission in this direction. 5.3.2 Enforcement and compliance Enforcement actions contributed to a medium extent to improving enforcement and compliance at a Member State level. The strategy identified the uneven enforcement of EU legislation on animal welfare and insufficient incentives for the industry to comply with regulations as key issues. To address them, the strategy included actions to support Member States in improving enforcement and compliance. A majority of surveyed Member State representatives agreed (18 of 26), or strongly agreed (4 of 26), that the strategy helped to improve enforcement at a national level and contributed to improving animal welfare in the EU. A questionnaire developed by the Finnish Presidency in 2019 highlighted that enforcement methods used by the strategy, such as national controls (88%), national (76%) and EU audits (80%), national training (84%), BTSF training (76%) and National Contact Points (76%), were considered by CVOs to be very effective/effective tools. However, none of the NGOs believed that there had been great or significant improvements since 2012 in compliance with the EU legislation.

With regards to the protection of pigs back in 2012 the main issue in terms of compliance was with the pregnant sows. With an effect from 1 January 2013, they had to be kept in groups instead of individual stalls during part of their pregnancy. One of the main contributions of the strategy are associated with improvements in the group housing of sows. More concretely, as part of the enforcement actions, infringement proceedings were launched against 13 Member States for non-compliance with the requirement on group housing of sows. Furthermore, 18 EU pilot dialogue schemes on laying hens and pigs have been launched during the strategy. These actions were effective in increasing compliance as proved by Commission audit reports of 2016. This evidence is further supported by the survey findings where, 13 of 23 Member State representatives reported a significant improvement in compliance with this Council Directive. Similarly, 53% of respondents in the public consultation indicated that there were improvements in compliance with this Directive. Against this background, the largely practiced routine tail docking of pigs remains a major challenge in terms of compliance, as showed below (5.3.2.1. Compliance risk areas). Council Directive 2008/120/EC requires Member States to ensure that tail-docking is not carried out routinely but only where there is evidence that injuries to sows' teats or to other pigs' ears or tails have occurred. The practice of tail-docking of pigs is carried out in the early days of life to prevent tail-biting which has a multifactorial origin. That practice is done without anaesthesia by causing pain to pigs and is therefore detrimental to their welfare. Furthermore, a routine practice of tail-docking is triggered by frequent tail biting which itself reflect suboptimal animal welfare conditions in the holding. On the issue of pigs’ tail docking, the strategy produced a set of guidelines in 2016. The Commission audit reports carried out in addition to the strategy showed some evidence of improvement, but the largely practiced routine pigs’ tail docking and the use of enrichment materials remain challenging. The strategy action to enforce the ban on the use of unenriched cages from 1 January 2012 made a significant positive contribution described as a “success story” to improving compliance with the protection of laying hens. Fourteen audits were carried out in relation to the laying hens’ Directive. Based on the findings from these audits, The Commission launched infringement proceedings against 13 Member States for non-compliance. There were also ‘EU pilot dialogue schemes’. As a result, 27 national actions from Member States and Norway were undertaken to improve compliance. During the targeted survey 16 from 23 Member State representatives reported a significant improvement in compliance with this Directive. The same opinion was shared by 50% of respondents to the public consultation who reported that there had been improvements in compliance with the laying hens legislation. The strategy contributed to a medium extent to improve the enforcement of the legislation protecting chickens kept for meat production as shown below. Since 2012, a small number of Member States have started to use broiler welfare indicators to adapt their strategy for enforcement of legislation. Specifically, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK implemented effective monitoring systems for assessing on-farm welfare at slaughter through indicators (such as footpad dermatitis). Although evidence is limited, the strategy had indirect contributions to the enforcement of and compliance with the legislation protecting animals kept for farming purposes. Under the strategy, a report was produced on the implementation of such legislation, which highlighted improvements in compliance in some areas. Namely, Commission audits found that Member States such as Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK put in place a risk-based system for inspection and have been continuously concentrating efforts to address non-compliance. Although there is little evidence to suggest the report influenced enforcement or compliance directly, it did highlight the need for stakeholder dialogue. The strategy contributed to a medium extent to improving enforcement and compliance with the legislation protecting animals during transport through actions such as the production of guidelines, fact sheets and videos to improve the welfare of cattle, horses, pigs, poultry and sheep during transport. The study survey indicated that 13 of 23 Member State representatives reported a significant improvement in compliance with this Regulation. Additionally, the outcome of the public consultation indicated that 48% of respondents believed that there had been improvements in compliance with this Regulation. A series of actions were developed to improve the enforcement of the regulation on the protection of animals at the time of killing. One such action was the implementing plan for the slaughter regulation, which consisted in the development of national action plans detailing how the regulation would be implemented. On the other hand, actions such as production of guidelines had an indirect impact. In addition, compliance improvements with the Regulation were reported by 40% of respondents to the public consultation. The Commission’s audit overview report on the animal welfare at slaughter showed that the development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) based on guides to good practice, the tailoring of official controls to operators’ procedures and the implementation of good reporting systems were key factors in improving compliance of operators with animal welfare standards. 5.3.2.1 Compliance risk areas Following a recommendation from the ECA, the analysis focused on identifying the remaining compliance risk areas. Based on the evidence collected, the areas where most Member States are struggling to comply with the requirements set in the legislation are animal transport, welfare of pigs (e.g. routine pig’s tail docking) and protection at slaughter. Animal transport Compliance with the transport regulation has improved, but this remains an area at risk. In the context of a specific project, the Commission audited several Member States on the welfare of animals during transport by road and published an overview report concluding that “the official data indicate a very high level of compliance with transport rules when vehicles are in EU territory.” However, there are still challenging issues associated with long journeys and in particular transport in extreme temperatures and exports to third countries. The same Commission report also points out that “the main concerns for the welfare of animals relate to the non-EU leg of the journey. The available information indicates that most transporters do not meet applicable EU rules after leaving the Union.” Other issues of risk in terms of compliance include low and/or infrequent penalties for non-compliance, transport of unfit animals, breaches in stocking densities, and the insufficient provision of rest, feed, water and bedding. Transport was also the main area reported as lacking compliance by 54% of respondents to a public consultation, with a few stakeholders highlighting long journeys and transport to third countries, high temperatures, non-observance of space requirements and transport of calves and adult bovines as key issues. As regards the transport by sea, another Commission audit overview report highlights insufficient Member States systems in place to approve livestock vessels with the exception of Ireland and Portugal. As main reasons are mentioned the staff qualifications, technical experience and lack of resources to carry out all the necessary specific tasks. Welfare of pigs Compliance with the Directive on the protection of pigs is another important risk area, particularly regarding pig’s tail docking. According to the data collected by DG SANTE, tail-docking of pigs is a routine practice in 26 out of 28 Member States and approximately 150 million pigs annually are subject to this practice. Commission audit reports into several of the big pig’s producing Member States highlight that although actions have been taken they have not yet resulted in better compliance with the provisions of the Pig Directive which prohibit routine tail docking in pigs. With the exception of a few Member States, such as Finland and Sweden, most EU Member States did not comply with the ban or with providing adequate enrichments materials (such as rope, fresh wood, branches and straw);. Protection at slaughter

Audits across Member States have also found compliance risk areas for the Slaughter Regulation. In particular, 43% of respondents to the public consultation and 11 out of 15 NGOs surveyed indicated lack of compliance with this regulation. One of the particular areas identified during Commission audits of 13 Member States was non-compliance with the adequate procedures and with the non-applying the required parameters for electrical waterbath stunning of poultry (widely used method to render poultry unconscious). Such issues were also emphasised in interviews with NGOs regarding use of electrical waterbaths and stunning of pigs using CO2. Additional risk areas included shortcomings in official controls given the prevalence of ‘traditional’ inspection procedures, use of generic SOPs and general risk factors rather than targeted controls on specific slaughter processes, issues in small to medium size establishments in terms of lack of registers of animal welfare officers' activities and non-compliance regarding new equipment due to costs. In addition, the same Commission overview report also highlights wide variations between Member States on applying the derogation for slaughter without stunning. Welfare of broilers Regarding broiler welfare, there is considerable variation across Member States on the effectiveness of systems used to detect poor broiler welfare at slaughterhouse level. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK have used this indicator in practice and used in addition a scoring system introduced for a first time in Sweden . Eleven other Member States who do not have such a scoring system carried out post mortem inspections, but do not systematically make use of this data to prioritise and better target their farm inspections. As mentioned earlier in 2019, the Commission launched a two years project dedicated to animal welfare indicators. The scope of the project targets farming of pigs and broilers, and other livestock sectors where Member State authorities can provide information on effective use of animal welfare indicators. Official controls at farm level Member States carry out official controls procedures of farms to ensure those are compliant with existing animal welfare legislation. The ECA report of 2018 identified some examples of good coordination between national authorities and the Commission at a national level in France, and at a regional level in Germany (North-Rhine Westphalia) and Italy (Sardinia). However, a few issues were reported in some Member States, including a lack of appropriate enforcement actions and a reduction in on-site official controls at farms due to limited resources (e.g. reduced number of veteri