Table of contents Introduction o Short description of methodology 1.2 Limitations and robustness of findings What was the expected outcome of the intervention? 1.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 1.2 Point(s) of comparison How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? Evaluation findings 4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 4.1.1 Effectiveness 4.1.2 Efficiency 4.1.3 Coherence 4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference? 4.3 Is the intervention relevant? 4.3.1 What are the current needs, interests and expectations of stakeholders and to what extent does the current EU animal welfare legislation address them? 4.3.2 Does the EU legislation on animal welfare remain fit for purpose in the light of the latest developments and ongoing/future challenges?

What are the conclusions and lessons learned? o General conclusions o Evaluation criteria assessment o Lessons learned Annex I. Procedural information Annex II. Methodology and analytical models used Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, Details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion) Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs and Table on simplification and burden reduction Annex V. Stakeholder Consultation - Synopsis Report Annex VI. Intervention Logic Annex VII. Questionnaires used for interviews and the targeted survey Fitness Check - EU animal welfare legislation Annex VIII. Cost-Benefit Analysis of the EU Animal Welfare Legislation Executive summary Table of Content List of Figures Introduction Background Objective Scope

Methodological approach Conceptual challenges Approach Results Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation of the general directive Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation of the farm level legislation Pigs directive Laying hens directive Broilers directive (chickens kept for meat production) Calves directive Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation of legislation on the protection of animals during transport Selected provisions Legislation in total Overview of costs and benefits of identified in the evaluation of the legislation on the protection of animals at the time of killing Selected provisions Legislation in total Recent external assessments: Expert interviews Conclusion Annex Pigs directive: cost of compliance estimates

Manipulable material for weaners and rearing pigs Castration Floor properties for weaners and rearing pigs Group housing for gestating sows Provisions in total Laying hens directive: cost of compliance estimates Ban of unenriched cages Additional requirements for unenriched cages during the transitional period Alternative systems Beak trimming Provisions in total Broilers directive Provisions in total Calves directive Confinement, size/properties of individual pens, floor area for group housing Provisions in total Transport directive: cost of compliance Literature





Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition CAP Common Agricultural Policy COA European Court of Auditors ECJ The Court of Justice of the European Union EFSA European Food and Safety Authority EPRS European Parliament Research Service EUAWS European Union Animal Welfare Strategy (2012-2015) FPD Foot-pad Dermatitis OCR Official Controls Regulation



·Introduction Under the EU Farm to Fork Strategy , , the Commission has committed to revise the following pieces of EU animal welfare legislation by 2023, to ensure a higher level of animal welfare by aligning the current rules with the latest scientific evidence, broadening their scope and making them easier to enforce, as well as to contribute to the achievement of a more sustainable food system: · Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, (the “Farm Directive”) · Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (the “Laying Hens Directive”), · Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production (the “Broilers Directive”), · Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (the “Calves Directive”),

· Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (the “Pigs Directive”), · Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport (the “Transport Regulation”), and · Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (the “Killing Regulation”). In 2020, in order to implement this commitment, the Commission initiated a fitness check of the above-mentioned legislation which targets the welfare of food producing animals (hereafter also referred to as “EU animal welfare legislation”). This fitness check aims to assess whether the existing rules are still fit for purpose, in particular the extent to which they are relevant, efficient, effective, coherent, and have an added value. The Fitness Check covers the period from the adoption of each legislative act up to and including 2020, and all EU Member States, including the UK up to the end of its EU exit transition period. The outcome of the fitness check will inform the revision of the EU animal welfare legislation. oShort description of methodology The Commission published a roadmap setting out the scope and approach for the fitness check on 20 May 2020 for a four-week feedback period. Feedback was received from 172 citizens and organisations and was considered for the purpose of the fitness check. A wide range of primary and secondary data sources have been used to collect evidence and answer the fitness check questions. An independent study to support the cost-benefit analysis was commissioned and launched in 2021, undertaken by an external expert, referred to as ‘the CBA study’ (see Annex VIII). Stakeholders’ views were gathered through a public consultation and targeted consultation activities, such as interviews with stakeholders - including exchanges with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU Animal Welfare Platform - and a targeted survey. A Stakeholder Conference held on 9 December 2021 provided an additional opportunity to gather input on the shortcomings and achievements of the current EU animal welfare legislation. All stakeholder groups were reached, covering the supply chain from producers to consumers. A synopsis report summarising all consultation activities, as well as their results, is provided in Annex V. The desk study comprised an extensive literature review, which included among others the analysis of scientific and policy documents produced by European institutions and bodies (such as scientific opinions from EFSA, audit reports from the European Commission, and impact assessments), reports and scientific publications from non-governmental organizations and dedicated research institutes, as well as academic literature. 1.2 Limitations and robustness of findings Several challenges and limitations have been identified in the context of the activities referred to above. -Data available at EU level is not extensive and reliable enough to convey meaningful information about levels of compliance with the legislation on animal welfare at farm, during transport and at the time of killing, as confirmed by the European Court of Auditors in its Special Report on Animal Welfare in 2018. This conclusion is exacerbated by different interpretations of vague provisions by public and private stakeholders, which also affects the data reported by Member States in their annual reports to the Commission on the results of their official controls on the respect of the existing rules along the agri-food chain. As a result, the annual reports are not sufficiently complete, consistent, reliable or sufficiently detailed to draw robust conclusions on compliance with the legislation across the EU. -There is no single generally agreed indicator to measure animal welfare (and not even any common definition of animal welfare). Hence, a detailed quantitative analysis of improvement in animal welfare because of EU legislation is difficult. This conclusion has been reached also by the European Commission in it its “Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the Future”, published in 2010, which covered the same scope. In order to mitigate this, statistics on the incidence of injuries and certain diseases and on the sales of antibiotics were used to assess the level of animal welfare, as well as slaughterhouse statistics on mortality rates. -The reconstruction of the situation prior to the adoption of the current EU animal welfare legislation is mainly descriptive and based on reports, studies and information underpinning the various legislative acts. This is largely due to the lack of agreed welfare indicators to build solid points of comparison with time-span starting from the nineties, and also to the difficulty to collect data so many years later. To mitigate the lack of quantitative data to measure the situation at the time the current EU animal welfare legislation was adopted, i.e. mainly in the nineties, focus has been put on providing a qualitative description as solid as possible, based on the limited data available, such as statistics on the incidence of injuries and certain diseases and on the sales of antibiotics, as well as slaughterhouse statistics on mortality rates, to assess developments in animal welfare over time. -The lack of animal welfare indicators and data - including a lack of coherent production and price datasets – was a major impediment to the cost-benefit analysis. Many costs could not be monetised, and benefits could in general not be quantified.. For the reasons of trade secrecy and a lack of pan-European data, interviewed stakeholders were generally not in a position to share detailed information on their sector’s business activities and market share. As a result, the consultation activities produced limited quantifiable evidence as regards the costs of compliance with the EU animal welfare legislation. Hence, the cost-benefit analysis rely to a large extent on literature available, including peer-reviewed publications and grey literature. Despite the scarcity of data described above, the available literature and other evidence, including from on-site audits in the Member States, allow the fitness check findings to remain overall sufficiently robust as regards the development of animal welfare in the EU. However, to some extent assumptions had to be made, for instance as regards the environmental benefits provided by the current EU welfare legislation. A detailed presentation of the methodological approach followed (including limitations and mitigation measures) can be found in Annex II. ·What was the expected outcome of the intervention? 1.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives

The adoption of the current EU animal welfare legislation was primarily intended to improve animal welfare, to an economically acceptable extent , by avoiding to expose animals to unnecessary suffering and pain and provide an environment corresponding to their needs, in light of new scientific knowledge available at the time when the legislative acts were adopted . The expectations at the time of adoption of the animal welfare legislation (mostly in the 1990’s) were therefore focussed on triggering a shift from the objective of promoting food production to that of ensuring that animals did not suffer beyond what was necessary to ensure the viability of the production system, with a focus on improving the quality of the meat. Embedding the protection of animal welfare into the objectives of EU legislation governing food producing animals was an important political achievement, and the expectations were that the main practices identified as unnecessary for the viability of the food production, e.g. pigs kept in isolation, poultry kept in high densities and killing without stunning, would cease to exist. Another general objective was to reduce differences among the Member States in the rearing, transport and killing of farmed animals that distorted competition among operators and created obstacles to cross-border exchanges, by introducing common minimum standards across the EU. In addition, specific objectives were to address societal demands, considering animal welfare to be a Community value, and to improve the knowledge and competence among animal handlers. At the time of adoption of current rules, animal welfare was understood as “avoiding unnecessary suffering of the animals”, based on the Five Freedoms principle s. Earlier, animals were not even considered to feel pain. As explained in section 4.3.2.1, such an understanding is not in line with the current perspective of animal welfare, which is reflected in the “Five Domains” principle and in which animal welfare is understood as the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies. Before the adoption of the current EU animal welfare legislation, many animals were not protected from unnecessary suffering and pain across the EU, and there was an uneven playing field for EU business operators, because of outdated and incomplete animal welfare legislation at EU level, and the fact that the legislation was differently applied across the EU Member States. There was a lack of enforcement by the Member States of the EU legislation in some areas, with important pieces of EU legislation not having been fully applied or not having the intended effects on the welfare of animals . There was also a lack of knowledge of what animal welfare means among stakeholders dealing with animals, with consequences for the conception of modern production methods and more animal-friendly, alternative systems of production and practices. Triggered by raising expectations from citizens and higher demands from business operators, and inspired by actions at international level, the current EU animal welfare legislation was adopted to address these problems. Legal and political commitments, as well as and societal concerns, as expressed in the EU Treaties and in European Conventions on animal welfare, were contextual to the adoption of the current EU animal welfare legislation. In addition, the legislation has changed, for instance for slaughterhouses, with the adoption of a series of EU legislative acts on food safety which emphasised the responsibilities of business operators. Animal welfare at farm level The current EU legislation on animal welfare at farm level primarily covers intensive farming – or rather industrial - sectors (pigs, calves, laying hens and broilers). When it was adopted, the expectations were that it should improve animal welfare by providing an environment corresponding to the needs of the animals, established according to the scientific evidence available at that time. It therefore introduced rules on housing and especially as regards space allowances, addressing the tethering of calves, group housing of sows and the ban on battery cages for laying hens. For pigs, for example, it established the requirement to provide enrichment material. For laying hens, “enriched cages” and “alternative systems” were defined and established as alternatives to unenriched (“barren” or “battery”) cages. Calves were to benefit from an environment corresponding to their needs as a herd-living species. For that reason, it was provided that calves are to be reared in groups beyond a certain age. The legislation was also expected to reduce differences in the rearing of livestock that distorted competition among operators established in different Member States, and created obstacles to those active in several Member States, by introducing common standards, higher than the standards in place at that time. Finally, the Farm Directive introduced rules applicable to all species of farmed animals: at the time rules existed only for pigs, calves, and laying hens. In this respect the expectation was that animal welfare of species not covered by a specific legislation would increase. The rules have been modified in different occasions and evolved over time towards a less prescriptive and towards more animal oriented approach, since 2007 complemented by animal based indicators, e.g. measuring food pad dermatitis on broilers (see also section 3.1). Animal welfare during transport In 1991, the EU established common minimum rules on the protection of animals during transport, replacing old rules from 1977. Those rules abolished the systematic checks at the internal borders of the Community and aimed at regulating the long transport of animals as far as possible. Such legislation was replaced by the current one, adopted on the basis of the experience gained by implementing 1991 rules and in particular the difficulties encountered due to the differences in transposition of that Directive at national level, as well as new scientific evidence available. The objective was to improve animal welfare by requiring further training of transporters and prior approval of the means of transport and limit long journeys as far as possible. However, contrary to the European Commission’s proposal tabled in 2003, the provisions on maximum journey times remained unchanged from previous rules laid down in 1991 due to the difficulties in finding a political agreement. By replacing a Directive with a Regulation, it was also expected that differences in implementation among Member States would be reduced. Welfare at the time of killing When Council Directive 93/119/EC was adopted, the objective was to avoid unnecessary suffering of animals when being slaughtered. For this purpose, the Directive laid down detailed rules on e.g. the construction, facilities and equipment of slaughterhouses. It also required that persons engaged in the handling and killing of the animals have the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the tasks “humanely and efficiently”. The Directive was replaced in 2009 by the Killing Regulation establishing common and directly applicable rules on the welfare of animals at the time of killing, because of the important discrepancies between the Member States’ transposition and implementation of the Directive. For instance, the Regulation increased the operators’ responsibilities and introduced new training requirements. Furthermore, technical standards and scientific knowledge had evolved since 1993 and there was a need to incorporate import related requirements, further to the adoption of the OIE international animal welfare standards in 2004. Similarly to the rules on transport, it was expected that animal welfare would improve and differences in implementation among Member States would be reduced (by replacing the Directive with a Regulation).

For a more detailed illustration of the intervention logic, see chart in Annex VI. 1.2Point(s) of comparison The situation before the adoption of the current EU animal welfare legislation in the three main welfare areas is taken as a point of comparison for the purpose of the fitness check. In the early nineties, many animals in Europe were subject to unnecessary suffering and pain as they were kept and transported under conditions that did not allow them to express their natural behaviour, killed in a way that did not sufficiently protect them from pain, and often handled by people without sufficient competence about animal welfare. In general, the systems for animal husbandry, transport and slaughter were largely driven by economic reasons with very little consideration of animal needs. Sometimes, in the absence of common standards for animal welfare, Member States’ national legislation differed, adopting stricter welfare standards, to the extent that they negatively affected the common market, causing unfair competition and hampered the productivity of the EU agri-food sector. As for farm level welfare, calves were provided a poor diet to make their meat white enough to interest consumers, keeping them in individual stalls for all their life, often in complete darkness. To increase the productivity of animals at farms, pregnant sows were confined in stalls and tethered, without any possibility for normal social interactions with other animals or to turn around, laying hens were kept cramped in small battery cages that did not permit them to flap their wings. For instance, in 1996, 93% of laying hens in the EU lived in battery cages (of a size of an A4 page), and only 7% in alternative systems. In short, the requirements were not adapted to the animals’ needs. The use of antimicrobials and other veterinary medicines was widespread, chronic diseases and mortality rates were high and injuries were frequent. As described in section 2.1, the current EU Directives were expected to allow animals to express their natural behaviour to a greater extent. As for animal transport, in 2005, around 72 000 long journeys (between 8 and 24 hours) and very long journeys (more than 24 hours) were performed in the EU. Many animals arrived to slaughterhouses with injuries, transported by companies that were not specialised in animals transport and handled by people without sufficient knowledge of animal welfare, which in some cases resulted in low quality meat and being rejected for human consumption. The Transport Regulation was expected to address these problems, for instance by requiring that training should be a prerequisite for any person handing animals during transport (see also section 2.1). As for slaughter, the killing of animals was a process that caused stress for the animals, jeopardized the work safety of slaughterhouse staff and reduced the quality of the meat. The Killing Regulation was in particular expected to address the problems identified related to a lack of harmonised methodology for new stunning methods, a lack of clear responsibilities for operators, insufficient competence of personnel or insufficient conditions for the welfare of animals during killing for disease control purposes (see also section 2.1). ·How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? 3.1 Developments concerning animal welfare Animal welfare at farm level During the last two decades, there has been a decline in livestock populations across the EU. Between 2001 and 2020, the EU’s total livestock count for pigs, bovine animals, sheep and goats fell by an estimated 8.9 %. In 2020, there were 146 million head of pigs, 76 million head of bovine animals (such as cattle or buffaloes), and an estimated 75 million head of sheep and goats on EU farms. Broilers, egg-laying hens and turkeys in the EU are estimated around 4.5 billion . A vast majority of the EU’s livestock are reared on very large farms, and that share has been increasing in recent years.The number of farms is in steep decline: in 2016 there were 10,3 million agricultural holdings in the EU-27, which is 4,1 million fewer farms than in 2005. Amendments to the original EU animal welfare legislation did not change the initial architecture of the EU animal welfare legislation, anchored at the definition of animal welfare as simply the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. However, since the nineties, not only the farm structure but also the assessment of animal welfare has been changing. When the current legislation was adopted, welfare was still assessed ‘on the basis of the housing and resources that have been provided to animals (input- or resource-based measures)’. It was assumed that the primary source of unnecessary suffering was related to certain type of housing and the lack of a certain quantity of resources, depending on the species. In the last 15 years, with the evolvement of the concept of animal welfare, also the focus of the assessment has shifted from a focus on structural requirements to ‘outcome- or animal-based measures (variables that are measured directly on animals, e.g. injury or lameness) as valid indicators of animal welfare, since welfare is a characteristic of the individual animal, not just of the system in which animals are farmed’ . Regarding the implementation of the Directives, certain Member States have introduced stricter requirements than those set out at EU level, while others followed the minimum requirements. The European Court of Justice has delivered several judgements in recent years, in which animal welfare is recognised to be an objective as a legitimate public interest for Union legislation to pursue. Animal welfare during transport

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, has clarified that the operators of transports to third countries shall ensure that such transports comply with the EU animal welfare standards until their final place of destination in a non-EU country. It seems that most transporters do not meet applicable EU rules after leaving the Union. A vast majority of respondents (94% - 55 564 out of 59 281) considered that the export of live animals to non-EU countries for slaughter should be prohibited. Such an option was supported by one-third of the business organisations (32% -211 out of 660). In 2016, the exports of live cattle and sheep were worth more than 4 billon euro according to Eurostat. In 2018, the EU's beef exports were estimated to be 1.24 billion euro. Over the last years, exports of live animals and meat have increased. Live animals go mainly to the Middle East and North Africa. For instance, 1 102 827 live beef animals were exported from the EU in 2018. Market dynamics are the main factor for animal transports. One of the main reasons for this trade is still to exploit price differentials between Member States. In particular, the cost of feed is one of the most important cost factors in animal production, and this cost varies between Member States and regions. Furthermore, a limited slaughter or processing capacity in some Member States as well as the fact that regional production of meat within the EU does not equal regional consumption, may also encourage intra-Union trade in live animals. In this sense, the Transport Regulation objective to reduce long journeys have not been fully met. Animal welfare at the time of killing The development of meat production in the EU seems rather stable since more than a decade. For instance, the pig meat production in the EU increased from 21,1 million tons in 2004 to 23 million tons in 2020, and poultry meat production increased from 9,4 million tons in 2004 to 13,6 million tons in 2020. At the same time, however, the production of bovine meat has decreased from 7,6 million tons in 2004 to 6,8 million tons in 2020. Every year nearly 360 million pigs, sheep, goats and cattle as well as several billion poultry are killed in EU slaughterhouses. The European fur industry adds another 25 million animals to the figure . As regards the compliance with the Killing Regulation, significant problems with water bath stunning in the poultry sector have been identified. Scientists have recognised fish as sentient beings, which is not reflected in the EU animal welfare legislation in the sense of specific requirements. As regards the killing of fish, some processes are pointed out to be particularly inhumane. Killing of farmed fish by taking them out of the water takes a long time before fish die and it is frightening and painful to the fish. 3.2. Compliance and enforcement Official controls of compliance with the EU animal welfare legislation is primarily the responsibility of the Member States. Such controls have been performed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 up to 2019, and are currently carried out in accordance with the Official Controls Regulation (OCR) (EU) 2017/625. At EU level, audits performed by the Commission allow for recommendations to be made to the Member States, if necessary followed up by infringement procedures. The initiation of such proceedings against those Member States that had failed to ensure implementation of the ban on unenriched cages for laying hens in 2012, led to several Member States taking accelerated corrective actions, averting the need for court action to proceed in most cases. According to the findings of the evaluation of the EU Animal Welfare Strategy (2012-2015), in 2021, 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 pigs’ tail docking) and protection at the time of killing . Welfare during transport Compliance with the Transport Regulation in the EU has improved over time. However, there are still challenging issues associated with long journeys and in particular transport in extreme temperatures and the transport of vulnerable animals, such as unweaned calves and pregnant animals . The main concerns for the welfare of animals relate to the part of the journey outside of the EU. Available information indicates that there are still challenging issued regarding transporters’ compliance with the applicable/relevant EU rules after leaving the Union, e.g. as regards transport of unfit animals, breaches in stocking densities, and insufficient provision of rest, feed, water and bedding . Other issues in terms of enforcement include non-deterrent penalties for non-compliance. The measures adopted following non-compliances with animal welfare rules during transport are decided by national competent authorities and therefore differ throughout the EU and so are the triggering levels for sanctions and penalties and the amounts imposed for non-compliances. There are also practical challenges to impose penalties on transporters who are registered in another Member States, as different national administrations are involved.

54% of respondents to the public consultation undertaken in the context of the evaluation of the EU Animal Welfare strategy (2012-2015) confirmed that compliance is an issue in the transport area, 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, Member States’ systems in place to approve livestock vessels and authorise transporters are insufficient (with the exception of Ireland and Portugal). Main reasons for this are the lack of technical experience and resources to carry out all the necessary specific tasks . Welfare of pigs Available data show that tail-docking of pigs is still a routine practice in almost all Member States, although this is forbidden by current legislation, and approximately 150 million pigs annually are subject to this practice. With the exception of Finland and Sweden, and although actions have been taken by the EU Member States, such actions have not yet resulted in better compliance with the provisions of the Pig Directive which prohibit routine tail docking in pigs or with providing suitable enrichments materials (such as rope, fresh wood, branches and straw) in sufficient quantity . The lack of serious and uniform enforcement is a challenge for stopping routine tail docking of pigs. In addition, the very active internal market for pigs has been identified as a reason for non-compliance, since Member States’ authorities and producers are afraid of losing competitiveness if they strengthen enforcement towards others who are competitors. Welfare at the time of killing National or regional authorities carry out checks on slaughterhouses because of the food safety and disease transmission legislation as well as the animal welfare legislation. The requirements for such checks are therefore more demanding than those for checks on farm. As a result, the enforcement of animal welfare regulations at slaughterhouses is often a more efficient tool than the enforcement of animal welfare regulations on farms . There is evidence of a lack of compliance with the Killing Regulation, for instance as concerns the application the required parameters for electrical waterbath stunning of poultry . In addition, in 2019 there were documentations by NGOs and media regarding fraudulent treatment of animals at slaughterhouses in some Member States indicating a lack of regular supervision of some areas by official services. As a follow-up, the European Commission is performing a series of audits in certain Member States, the results of which are published on the Commission’s website (including the recommendations made in relation to the implementation issues observed). ·Evaluation findings 4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why? As described below, the current EU legislation has improved the welfare of many animals, although not for all species, for instance by improving the competence of certain animal handlers. It has also to some extent helped to ensure fair competition for EU business operators, although the adoption of differing national animal welfare requirements in recent years weakens this achievement. Business operators, in particular farmers, often consider the market return on their costs of compliance to be insufficient. While the consistency between the respective pieces of EU animal welfare legislation, and the coherence with other policy areas, in general is good, there is still room for further synergies. 4.1.1 Effectiveness As mentioned in section 2.1, the expectations were mainly related to the elimination of “bad” practices which were considered unnecessary for the viability of the production, as illustrated in the table below. For farming, it was the practice of keeping calves and sows in isolation and keeping laying hens in small, unenriched cages. For transport, it was the long journeys. For slaughter, it was the slaughter without stunning and better animal handling at the slaughterhouse. Focus was put on addressing matters of political importance, recognising citizens’ expectations and the protection of the welfare of food producing animals as a legitimate public objective: the Directives in particular set general “obligations of result” rather than laying down detailed prescriptions governing farming practices and left room for interpretation and manoeuvre to the Member States, which, in the vast majority of instances (influenced also by national factors), transposed EU rules keeping their generic language and without “operationalising” them. This, in turn, made the monitoring of implementation very difficult. Clearly, the expectations were very limited in terms of concrete and measurable outcomes relating to the improvement in animal welfare: those expected outcomes can be described as a significant reduction of certain type of major injuries and diseases (at farms, during transport and at the time of killing) for the main categories of food producing animals on which the political debate was concentrated. Therefore, the “success” of the animal welfare legislation has been measured by the extent to which the animals are allowed to express their natural behaviour, on the basis of certain measurable indicators such as mortality rates, the use of antibiotics, and the prevalence of certain injuries and diseases. Available evidence suggests an improvement of animal welfare if compared to the situation before the application of the current EU animal welfare rules. This is in line with the expectations on how the objective of improving animal welfare would be achieved, as described above. However, the degree of such improvement is not the same for all the species and across the different welfare areas.

Expectation Objective (key requirements) Indicators Outcome

(level of success, maximum: 5 +) To improve animal welfare by eliminating “bad” practices, but only to the extent that a viable food production system is still ensured. Farming: group housing for sows and calves; enriched cages for laying hens; better environment for pigs allowing not to dock their tails without triggering a tail biting outbreak; less lesions for broilers. Injuries (foot-pad dermatitis), diseases (mastitis, bronchitis), mortality rates, use of antimicrobials (data from ESVAC), use of cages. ++++ (tail docking still practiced routinely in most Member States) Transport: fitness for transport; limit long journeys as far as possible; exchange of information between competent authorities Injuries (keel-bone fractures, leg disorders), medical condition (lameness), mortality rates, exchanges of communication between Member States regarding non-compliance. +++ (long journeys not reduced; limited communication, in particular in cases of export by road) Killing: Stunning; better animal handling Number of animals stunned before killing; Presence of Animal Welfare Officers in all large slaughterhouses; Certification of competence for all slaughterhouse staff handling live animals. ++++ (waterbath stunning of poultry and CO2 stunning of pigs remain as difficult areas) Concerning welfare at farm, the housing system has a major impact on animal welfare. Based on requirements introduced by the Pigs Directive for all holdings (from 1 January 2013), sows and gilts are group-housed for certain period of their breeding lives. Previously, breeding females could be kept their whole lives within individual stalls, without being able to move or turn. Regarding laying hens, from 1 January 2012, cages without enrichment materials and very little space to move (less than an A4 page) were banned in the EU and are no longer used. The ban brought an improvement in the life of the approximatively 360 million laying hens kept in the Union. In 1996, 93% of laying hens in the EU lived in battery cages, and 7% in alternative systems. In 2020, 48% live in enriched cages, 33,9% in barn/aviary systems and 18,1% (of which 6,2% in organic systems) are free range . This results in a 93% increase of animals kept in alternative systems, allowing for a greater extent of natural behaviour to be expressed. The only animal based indicators of welfare currently required by EU law to be monitored by animal handlers, and reported to the competent authorities, are found in the Broilers Directive: It refers to "poor welfare conditions such as abnormal levels of contact dermatitis, parasitism and systemic illness in the holding". Slaughterhouse inspections of footpad dermatitis (a condition characterised by lesions on the feet of poultry) are considered best at demonstrating whether animal welfare of broilers must be or has improved in a specific holding, as it is the first contact dermatitis that appears. Data received from the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration show that since 2002, the occurrence of footpad dermatitis in broilers has been monitored in all Danish slaughterhouses for broilers and has decreased. The development since 2002 has been favourable. Similarly, in Sweden, the occurrence of footpad dermatitis decreased from 11 % in 1994 to 6 % in 1996. And with an almost constant decrease since the entry into force of the Broilers Directive, the occurrence of footpad dermatitis in Sweden nowadays seems negligible. Corresponding data could exist in all Member States, but this is not collected in any structural or regular manner across the EU (since no such requirements exist). Another indicator is represented by mortality rates. For instance, statistics from the Netherlands suggests a reduction in piglet mortality (from 13,5% in 2015 to 12,2% in 2019). Somatic cell count is widely used in the EU to monitor milk quality, as an indicator of milk hygiene. It is also an indicator of sub-clinical mastitis, a disease which is more common among high-yielding cows in intensive production systems. Data collected from certain Member States show a constant reduction in the average somatic cell count over a period of many years, which could indicate a certain improvement of the welfare of dairy cattle in the EU in this regard. However, some data also suggests an increase of somatic cells in recent years, for instance in Sweden. Despite the lack of commonly agreed indicators to measure improvements of welfare, it can be considered that the implementation of legislative requirements, such as those on group housing of calves, sows and gilts, and the ban of unenriched cages, have contributed to improve the environment in which the animals live, and therefore improved the welfare of animals as it allows them to behave more naturally. This reasoning seems to be supported by a reduction of number of certain injuries and chronic diseases that are conditioned to the environment, i.e. by the type of farming, such as mastitis in cows, and bronchitis in pigs, if compared to the situation a number of years ago. Data also seems to support the picture of an improved animal welfare during transport in the EU if compared to the situation prior to 2005 . For instance, the number of animals reported "dead on arrival" decreased significantly from 2005 to 2009. The difference in death rates was greater for long journeys than for shorter ones. Compared to the situation prior to 2005, there has also been a significant decrease in the number of animals "observed unfit for travel upon arrival at destination". For instance, in Romania the Transport Regulation is considered to have improved many conditions related to animal protection and welfare, such as loading surface, transport duration, lesion and mortality rate upon arrival at destination. Still, compliance with animal welfare requirements remains a challenge. In 2020, 7 703 administrative sanctions were applied by the Member States’ competent authorities, as a result of their official controls on animal transports. The main issues were the fitness of the animals (cattle and pigs), transport practices (poultry) and transport documentation. The absence of clear, easy channels of communication and feedback between public and animal health authorities and legal services for cases involving the transport of unfit animals hinders effective enforcement. Strict competence barriers and poor inter-departmental communication, including absence of feedback, were frequent weaknesses in the systems which hindered free discussion and progression of such cases. Furthermore it has been noted, e.g. by Belgium, that foreign transporters are responsible for a significant proportion of the infringements, something which is posing further difficulties for enforcement for the competent authorities. From 2011 to 2020, the sales of antimicrobial veterinary medicines in the EU was reduced by 43%. This seems to indicate an improved animal health, to which higher standards of animal welfare have contributed. In particular, there is evidence that the need to use antimicrobials (other than coccidiostats) for treating common conditions has been substantially reduced, or avoided altogether, in those Member States which have a strong focus on welfare, health and hygiene issues. As regards slaughter, there is also evidence of improvements. A series of Commission audits in 13 Member States indicated that business operators had acted on their new responsibilities in the Killing Regulation and designated animal welfare officers, put standard operating procedures in place and monitored their implementation. There was generally better compliance and better animal welfare in the red meat sector whereas there were significant problems with waterbath stunning in the poultry sector.

The improvement in animal welfare is supported by literature, and reflected in all stakeholder interviews. In addition, the current EU animal welfare legislation is considered to have provided important ecosystems services and contributed to better public health (less incidence and spread of animal-born diseases) as well as to a better working experience for staff and an improved sectoral image . In the public consultation, more respondents agreed (49% - 28 875 out of 59 281) than disagreed (40% - 23 999) that, compared to 25 years ago, there is more uniform protection of farmed animals across EU countries. However, the result appears to indicate that more could be achieved. Indeed, 92% of respondents in the public consultation declared that the EU legislation does not ensure adequate and uniform protection of all animal species in need. This is also supported by literature.



Compared to the period prior to its adoption, the EU animal welfare legislation seems to have improved the welfare of many of Europe’s animals, in particular those that are covered by targeted legislation, such as pigs, calves, laying hens, and animals during transport. As an example: Around 360 million laying hens are no longer kept in unenriched cages. The welfare of animals such as turkeys and dairy cows for which species-specific legislation exists, does not seem to have improved sufficiently. Even after the adoption of the current EU rules, many animals cannot express natural behaviour because of their restriction to move, e.g. animals kept under individual confinement and in cages. Also, the current legislation does not require calves to be kept with their mothers after birth, although that would be their natural needs and broilers are kept in dimmed light to decrease aggressive behaviour that could easily appear when kept in high stocking densities and in natural light. Mutilations such as routine tail docking, beak trimming and dehorning are still practiced. Many dairy cows suffer due to inappropriate conditions e.g. tethering, too short stalls for size of body, cement flooring responsible for lameness and injuries. Intensification of milk production still leads to regular mastitis and metabolic problems resulting in pain and suffering and finally a reduced longevity . This is due to a compromise between economic factors (the “rational development of production”) and animal welfare objectives, reflected in the objectives of the legislation currently in force.

Evidence supports that EU animal welfare legislation has contributed to a fairer competition among EU producers. This seems to be confirmed by the results of the public consultation. More respondents (48% - 28 579 out of 59 281) agreed than disagreed (32% -18 914 out of 59 281) that having common rules on animal welfare has facilitated trade and improved competition in Europe, by removing obstacles to trading animals and products of animal origin in the single market. This corresponds well with the targeted survey, in which 49% (20 out of 41) of the respondents considered that the EU animal welfare legislation has strongly or relatively contributed to a better functioning of the EU internal market. Expectation Objective (key requirements) Indicators Outcome

(level of success, maximum: 5 +) Improve the functioning of the internal market. Common minimum standards. The extent to which fair competition among operations active in different Member States is ensured, as indicated by complaints related to access to other Member States’ market and the level of intra-EU trade. +++ In the targeted survey, a vast majority of the respondents (85% - 35 out of 41) considered that the EU animal welfare legislation has contributed to some extent (little, relatively or strongly) to a better functioning of the EU market. Those data are supported also by literature, such as the European Parliament’s Research Service’s evaluation of the EU animal welfare legislation, performed in 2021. In the public consultation, a majority of business organisations (51% - 337 out of 660) strongly agreed or tended to agree to the claim that the EU animal welfare rules has facilitated trade and improved competition in Europe, for instance by removing obstacles to trading animals and products of animal origin in the single market. Only 15% (102 out of 660) of the business organisations strongly disagreed to that statement. Those data are also supported by literature, including the evaluation of the EU animal welfare legislation performed by the Commission in 2010. However, it also follows from the majority of interviews with pan-European producers and business organisations that the more restrictive national legislations of some Member States are problematic since those national rules also must be respected to be able to operate on that market, which increases their production costs and affect the single market. Another interviewed business organisation explained that the uneven implementation of the Transport Regulation has a negative impact on their costs. One example given was related to transports in high temperatures during summer: While transports are halted in many countries due to the heat, they still take place in some other countries. Furthermore, while the legislation has in general helped to reduce distortions in the internal market caused by differences in national standards, there is a lack of action on enforcement. In addition, certain Member States have taken more and more national measures going beyond an EU animal welfare legislation that remained unchanged for more than 10 years. Because of this, despite the improvement, it cannot be considered that the objectives of the legislation were fully achieved. To a considerable extent, the shortcomings of the current EU animal welfare legislation are caused by a lack of precision of some of the current rules, lack of species-specific provisions and lack of tools for monitoring and a consistent, uniform enforcement. Vagueness of current rules A certain lack of precision of current rules has been identified as a barrier to fully achieve the objective of improving welfare as it impedes an effective harmonisation and constitutes one of the obstacles to the success of the legislation. Different interpretations and implementation of EU animal welfare legislation led to differing levels of animal welfare in the EU and resulted in ‘a lack of consistency around enforcement’. Whilst numerous questions have been clarified by the Court of Justice through the preliminary ruling procedure, in the area of animal transport and stunning, numerous issues remain. Certain requirements are too vague to allow proper enforcement. For example, in a case related to Directive 91/629/EEC laying down obligatory minimum standards for the protection of calves, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice considered that “the conditional nature of the rules precludes them from being recognised as having the slightest binding force and that where, on the other hand, a standard is laid down in mandatory terms, its imprecision renders it unenforceable” . In the context of an evaluation of the animal welfare Directives performed by the European Parliament Research Service in 2021, most stakeholders interviewed consider that the wording of the legislation is often ‘inadequate, too vague, or providing exceptions or derogations to requirements’. Examples of vague terminology such as ‘sufficient’ or ‘appropriate’ exist in all areas of EU animal welfare legislation, i.e. farm level, transport, and at the time of killing. While the use of words like “sufficient” or “adequate” can be necessary when legislating at EU level to leave margin for necessary local adaptations, the use of these words in the EU animal welfare legislation is so widespread that it is an obstacle for effective and coherent enforcement. As an example, in the Transport Regulation, the word “sufficient” is used 21 times, the word “adequate” 14 times and the word “appropriate” 39 times. Similarly, some transport rules have been interpreted differently by Member States, including as regards the fitness of animals to travel. The absence of definitions sometimes accentuates the lack of precision(e.g. on what is to be considered an “end of career animal”).

To some extent, the use of vague terms as “appropriate” follows naturally from the use of Directives, as these need to be transposed and implemented at national level and include “obligations of results” for the Member States. However, the Farm Directive is so vague that it gives too wide a margin for implementation. Furthermore, as mentioned above, also the directly applicable Regulations contain these vague terms. This is usually the result of the political context during the legislative process. One example of this is the rules on journey times in the Transport Regulation. Another example is the Pigs Directive, where the Commission proposed a prohibition on castrations and mutilations, while the legislator opted to allow for flexibility and derogations. However, also the Commission proposals contained vague terminology. This can best be explained by the fact that the introduction of objectives related to the protection of animal welfare in EU secondary legislation was already an important political achievement, and that the EU animal welfare legislation itself recognises the protection of animal welfare as an objective only to the extent to which animal welfare does not compromise the viability of the production as the result of a compromise between different interests (welfare of animals vs economic viability of food business operators). Hence the need to leave some margin for interpretation to Member States in certain cases in order for the Member States to be able to take into account national factors. In the public consultation less than a quarter of the respondents strongly agreed (3%, 1 998 of 59 281) or tended to agree (18%, 10 547 of 59 281) that the current EU animal welfare legislation is clear and easy to apply. And in the targeted survey, a clear majority (64% - 53 out of 83) considered the current EU animal welfare requirements to be unclear and difficult to apply. A view that was shared by 49% (322 out of 660) of business organisations. The Farm Directive has to some extent established a common framework for the welfare of farmed animals in the EU . However, the vagueness of some requirements and large margins of interpretation makes it difficult to directly attribute changes in welfare to certain provisions. For instance, the requirements on the level of competence of animal handlers are not specified clearly enough, which allows animals to be handled by people without sufficient knowledge about animal welfare. Examples of vague terminology such as ‘sufficient’ or ‘appropriate’ exist in all areas of EU animal welfare legislation, i.e. farm level, transport, and at the time of killing. With regard to welfare of pigs, the reference to “routine” tail-docking may be interpreted in different ways. Furthermore, the Pigs Directive states that: ‘[pigs] must have permanent access to a sufficient quantity of material to enable proper investigation and manipulation activities’. Here, the term ‘sufficient quantity’ is not sufficiently precise and open for interpretation, which reinforces the problems of implementation of the Directive. Certain practices, such as mutilations or keeping animals in high stocking densities have remained widespread because of exceptions built e.g. into the Pigs Directive or into the Broilers Directive. Diverging national requirements or tolerances for the application of such exceptions have created ‘significant distortions’. These distortions are due to certain Member States going beyond the EU minimum requirements. Evidence collected through interviews illustrates ‘differences in the level of political commitment to achieving better on-farm animal welfare’ in the way some countries have implemented the legislation. For instance, in 2019 Italy and Spain provided virtually no regulation that goes beyond the EU requirements (and in these countries the enforcement of these EU requirements was also weak, resulting in several proceedings by the EU, e.g. as regards the use of battery cages for poultry), while in Germany, regulations exist independently from EU demands, reflecting a high level of public concern for animal welfare. In the past, and still to a certain extent today, Member States of the North West of the EU have been at the forefront of animal welfare. However, due to increased awareness, political commitment and activism in member states such as Italy, France and Czechia, the image of a leading North and West and a lagging South and East has begun to change. Social media, which did not exist when the current EU legislation was adopted, has also contributed to greater awareness about animal welfare, often through shocking images from intensive farming systems, animal transports and slaughterhouses. Judging from complaints addressed to the European Commission, the fact that Member States are allowed to adopt stricter national rules - provided among other that these do not have a negative impact on the internal market and are proportionate - and have a margin of discretion as regards EU animal welfare legislation, causes practical problems for EU business operators involved in cross-border animal transport. For instance, in 2005 an organisation of pig producers brought an action before a court in Denmark, arguing that the Danish legislation relating to the transport of pigs imposed certain standards in respect of the minimum height of compartments, minimum inspection height and maximum loading densities which were contrary to various rules of the Transport Regulation. In the light of the above, a common understanding of existing animal welfare rules and how they are to be applied and enforced seems needed. This is supported by views expressed by interviewed business organisations, representing farmers and food processors. Species-specific provisions Many provisions in the Farm Directive are too generic to protect the welfare of certain animals, such as farmed fish, turkeys, rabbits, equines and bovines, as they are not adapted to their specific needs. For example, the Farm Directive is silent as regards the practice of extracting blood serum (to produce PMSG) from pregnant mares, while certain stakeholders consider this practice to be incompatible with the welfare of the animals. Also the practice of force feeding is questioned by stakeholders. However, foie gras production is legal in the European Union, and it is up to Member States to decide whether to ban the production within their own territories provided that the marketing of foie gras remains permitted. This is in line with Article 13 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, which requires that “customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage” must be respected. Absence of harmonised species-specific requirements also resulted in the adoption of differing national legislation, e.g. on rabbit farming, leading to diverging animal welfare in Member States and in unequal baselines for competition (see examples in Annex III). According to most stakeholdersthe absence of species-specific protection is a key problem for dairy cows, broiler and hen breeders, rabbits, sheep, and turkey. The “lack of more specific requirements for housing of cattle has been linked to low-cost housing solutions that do not provide a proper level of protection in case of adverse weather, and to overcrowding in confined housing”. Another example is “the absence of more specific requirements on tethering has been linked with tethering of dairy cows for long periods of time in some parts of Europe”. Similarly, more specific requirements would be needed in order to increase the welfare of some fish species, such as the European sea bass and gilthead sea bream, at the time of killing . The issue of lack of species-specific legislation, both at farm level and during transport and at the time of killing, is raised by the interviewed organisations. Furthermore, although in the Open Public Consultation, 92% of the respondents (54 504 out of 59 281) considered that the current EU animal welfare legislation ensures an adequate and uniform protection of all animals in need, 89% of the respondents (52 593 out of 59 281) considered that specific requirements for further animal species should be introduced. Another objective of the current EU animal welfare legislation was to better address the societal demands at the time of its adoption. Those demands are reflected in the European Parliament’s resolution of 20 February 1987 on animal welfare policy, which called on the Commission to make proposals on the rearing of livestock, including minimum standards for the intensive farming of pigs and veal calves, and on the protection of animals during transport. Another reflection of the political context is provided by the Council of Europe’s Conventions on the Protection for Animals in International Transports (1964), for Animals kept for Farming purposes (1976) and for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter (1979). The “bad” practices targeted by the current EU animal welfare legislation represent the areas of greatest political and societal concern in the early 1990’s, as expressed in these documents.

Expectation Objective (key requirements) Indicators Outcome

(level of success, maximum: 5 +) Better address societal demands. Provisions targeting “bad” practices, such as the ban on the unenriched cages for laying hens, the ban on routine tail docking of pigs and the rules on group housing of sows. The extent to which the notion of animal welfare as a Community value, as expressed through political conventions and resolutions, is reflected in the legislation. +++ (routine tail docking of pigs remains a problem). To note is that the expectations have evolved to also include the full range of needs of the animals, including socialisation. Monitoring systems and enforcement tools It is assumed that a high level of enforcement of the current EU legislation improves compliance and hence contributes to achieving higher levels of animal welfare and similar - if not the same - conditions for EU operators. As explained in section 3.1, slaughterhouse inspections have been found to be the most efficient and effective way of prioritising farm investigations with the aim to check the level of animal welfare. Also, authorities and keepers are able to measure progress and maintain standards based on real animal welfare outcomes, e.g. through scoring footpad dermatitis . The lack of commonly agreed indicators has been considered as one of the main factors hampering compliance and enforcement, specifically for what concerns the Laying Hens Directive, the Pigs Directive and the Calves Directive. From the Commission’s report on the overall application of official controls carried out in Member States (2019-2020), it follows that most EU countries have difficulties in demonstrating the level of, or trends in, compliance regarding animal welfare, due to the absence of specific objectives and defined indicators to monitor. Some Member States, such as for instance the Netherlands, are developing measurable performance criteria for checking animal welfare, for instance when carrying out dairy farm inspections. But still, there is a lack of harmonised criteria and indicators, which undermines the capability of competent authorities to identify cases in which animals are not sufficiently protected and to take measures to ensure a high animal welfare. The obligation for competent authorities to monitor implementation has been introduced relatively recently. They are provided by the EU rules on official controls. In addition, Article 32 of the Transport Regulation requires the Commission to present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the impact of that Regulation. Similarly, Article 6(2) of the Broilers Directive contains an obligation for the Commission to submit a report on the application of that Directive. Other than that, no proper monitoring framework with indication of clear indicators has been established at the time of adoption of the existing texts. One important source of information is the (more than 150) reports from the audits and fact-finding missions performed by the Commission, primarily in the Member States, which has formed the basis of a series of overview reports. For instance, those reports show that the Netherlands has an advanced system to verify compliance with the Laying Hens Directive, combining targeted inspections with information from a quality scheme and cross-checking data from various sources, which allows to the competent authorities to establish baselines and see trends. While enforcement procedures are in place, both in Member States and at EU level, ‘variations in enforcement undermine progress towards uniformly high standards across the EU’. The fact that such high level of enforcement has not been reached in all Member States, leads to differences in compliance with the EU animal welfare legislation, which is harming the level playing field for transport companies. This also reflected in interviews, where several stakeholders mentioned that the legislation has not been effectively enforced across the Member States (hence a need for the Commission to take infringement actions), e.g. as regards animal transports. It follows from the targeted survey that the majority of responding Member States consider that the current rules are difficult to enforce (in particular as regards animal welfare at farm level and during transport). Also, according to feedback received on the Fitness Check roadmap , there is a need to better coordinate competent authorities’ controls at the European level. As regards animal transport, the Member States' authorities and the Commission do not have IT systems or software to readily monitor the route, temperature or driving hours of vehicles transporting animals. Certain transport related data is made available to the competent authorities through TRACES, which contains the results of official checks. However, TRACES has certain access and design restrictions which make it difficult to get an overview of the general situation regarding transport of animals for export, to identify the most risky situations and to target the controls more effectively. In 2011, EFSA made recommendations to develop better tools for monitoring of animal welfare during transport, such as: -“On the navigation systems, temperature monitoring systems should be incorporated. -Minimum standards should be established regarding data type to be recorded, the system and the on-board architecture”. Moreover, EFSA concluded that documentation and manual monitoring in the journey logs are ‘often incomplete and/or not returned to the competent authority of departure to allow for verifying compliance’. Similarly, in 2013, EFSA published four scientific opinions on the welfare of cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, and poultry during the slaughter process. The opinions proposed practical means of complying with the requirement of monitoring indicators and using sampling protocols in slaughterhouses. However, none of these EFSA recommendations have been reflected in the EU legislation so far. It may be assumed that this lack of monitoring tools has a negative impact on compliance and enforcement. Inadequate enforcement, in turn, has additional negative impacts on compliance, as there may be economic incentives for operators not to comply with some provisions, like in the case of transport of unfit animals (where having to dispose of an animal as fallen stock could entail a cost of around 500 euro). Consequently, the lack of monitoring has a negative impact on animal welfare and the competition among EU food business operators.

Training and competences Since the competence of people handling animals is important to ensure animal welfare , the current EU animal welfare legislation introduced several new training requirements. EU law requires formal training for the pig and broiler sectors, and (more detailed and demanding, e.g. by requiring certificates) in the transport and slaughter sectors, which has implications for farmers and workers on 317,920 pig farms and some 23,360 large broiler farms, 2,721 companies transporting animals between Member States, with many more transporters operating domestically, and staff in slaughterhouses killing some 360 million mammals and several billion poultry every year. However, the method of training or length of the courses is not specified in any EU legislation, and there are great variations between the Member States. Despite the high level of training on animal welfare for slaughterhouse staff (due to previous national licensing requirements) prior the Killing Regulation, its impact assessment identified as specific problem “the insufficient competence of personnel handling animals”. Thanks to the Killing Regulation the requirements for training were more consistent and demanding across all slaughterhouses after 2013, resulting in reduced stress and injuries amongst the animals . In addition, training has supported the practical implementation of the Killing Regulation and increased the technical competence of the slaughterhouse personnel, which had a positive impact on the animals’ welfare to some extent . Various livestock sectors find training on animal behaviour very beneficial not only to avoid animal welfare problems, but also ‘to improve production, avoid mutilations and reduce the use of medicines’. Moreover, training courses help to establish high standards and pride in work. Also, one of the most widely mentioned positive impact of the implementation of the Broilers Directive are the training provisions, according to surveyed competent authorities. In 2017, only three Member States appeared to not offer adequate training courses. This was an improvement on the situation pre-implementation. Training courses in countries such as Spain, Italy, and Ireland have been mentioned as ‘key contributors to improving practices’ at farm-level. In Denmark, in the broiler sector, keepers were trained and found a better understanding of stress particularly useful. The fact that all drivers have to hold certificates of appropriate training courses is an important improvement of the Transport Regulation compared to the former Directive of 1991, as it helps to ensure animal welfare competence. Similarly, the Killing Regulation requires that certain slaughter operations may only be carried out by persons holding a certificate of competence for such operations. Expectation Objective (key requirements) Indicators Outcome

(level of success, maximum: 5 +) Improve the competence by animal handlers. Require training and competence of people handling animals at farms, during transport and in slaughterhouses. The level of trainings provided by the Member States and the methods and procedures of certifications. ++++ (harmonisation missing, in particular at farm level) Although it is mandatory in the EU for pig and broiler producers to take part in animal welfare training, not all farmers do. A study on education and information activities on animal welfare, commissioned by the Commission and concluded in 2016, showed differences between the Member States with regards to the percentage of professionals trained as well as the quality of information on legislation received during the training courses. According to the study, while a high percentage of farmers, lorry drivers and slaughterhouse personnel had received up to date information on animal welfare (with the exception of lorry drivers in Spain and slaughterhouse personnel in Greece and Spain), many showed poor knowledge of EU animal welfare legislation associated with their professions. Furthermore, the study identified a lack of harmonisation in training activities for professionals and a lack of consistent assessment of the validity and efficiency of the certifications awarded at the end of the trainings. Still, evidence points to a need for further training. For instance, in 2017, one-third (35%) of Danish livestock drivers had doubts regarding the fitness for transport of specific cows 'at least frequently', and only half of them could answer questions about fitness for transport correctly’. Also, according to EFSA, the lack of appropriate skills among the staff is the origin of most (29 out of 30) animal welfare hazards that occur during slaughter, mainly in relation with stunning and bleeding. This is confirmed by the evaluation of the EU Animal Welfare Strategy (2012-2015), concluded in 2021, according to which 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 under the Finnish 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. 4.1.2 Efficiency Costs

A cost-benefit study was performed in 2021-2022 to assess the costs and benefits of the EU animal welfare legislation for businesses, consumers and public authorities, regarding the dimensions animal welfare, environment and public health. Due to limited data availability, hypothetical scenarios had to be established in order to approximate absolute values for changes in production costs. These hypothetical scenarios might not correspond to the real developments. They represent the best estimates that could be made based on several assumptions derived from the limited available literature. The study shows that a direct costs of compliance with the EU animal welfare legislation occurred for businesses and public administrations. To note is that there is no evidence on the costs of implementing the Farm Directive, since its provisions are too generally formulated. In terms of economic importance, only costs of compliance for businesses and administrative/enforcement costs of public authorities could be monetised. Even though the available evidence does not allow to provide a full picture of costs incurred by concerned stakeholder groups in relation to the legislative requirements in place, it helps assessing the economic importance of the legislations for the different stages of the production process. For instance, according to the study’s estimations, the direct costs of compliance account to about: -404,9 million EUR per year (i.e. 1,47% of an annual average pig production value) for the Pigs Directive. -35,8 million EUR per year (i.e. 0,26% of an annual average broiler meat production value) for the Broiler Directive. -Between 23 million EUR and 49 million EUR per year (i.e. less than 0,11% of an annual average production value for the slaughterhouses) for the Killing Regulation. The cost items that are included in direct compliance costs only include adjustment costs, as no charges or administrative costs for businesses could be found in the literature used in the CBA study. A distinction has been made between “recurrent” costs (estimated to 40% of the total costs) and “one-off” costs, the latter being costs related to provision that require a conversion of housing systems. In the case of the Pigs Directive, the one-off costs for farmers are estimated to 157,6 million euro, while their recurrent costs amount to 247,3 million euro per year. In the case of the Laying Hens Directive, the recurrent annual costs for farmers is estimated to 152 million euro, while the one-off costs amount to 440 million euro per year. These values have to be taken with utmost care, as they are based on average annual values, contain many assumptions, and are only one snapshot in time. Nevertheless, they show that the cost burden of improving animal welfare differed considerably between the different actors in the production process. Clearly, the EU animal welfare legislation has led to increased costs and additional administrative burden. These costs are mainly borne by the farmers. For example, an interviewed organisation representing farmers has estimated that the Pigs Directive entailed an average cost of 300-350 euro per sow. However, the situation as regards compliance costs differs considerably between the Member States. Not only are there differences in the implementation of common requirements, but some countries have more stringent rules which also must be complied with by those who want to operate on their markets. In addition, costs are also stemming from other policy areas, such as environmental requirements. For instance, one interviewed organisation representing the meat trading industry estimates that the EU’s Nitrate Directive (which prohibits the use of animal manure beyond a certain amount, which implies buying chemical fertilizers and using more soil) leads to an additional cost of 5 cent per pig kilo alive weight. For farmers, the costs of compliance with the EU animal welfare legislation stem from infrastructural and/or equipment adaptations/substitutions, reduction of stocking densities, extra materials (e.g. feed), labour (e.g. need for extra staff, training), administration (e.g. paperwork and record-keeping), transaction costs (e.g. information gathering on legislation; coordination with other farming activities and legislations). According to the CBA study, the main compliance costs for pig farmers are related to manipulable materials for weaners and rearing pigs, while for poultry farmers, the largest compliance costs were related to the ban on unenriched cages for laying hens. The Pigs Directive, the Laying Hens Directive and the Calves Directive (although only for veal production) implied structural changes (ban of gestation and veal crates, ban of unenriched cages). The Broilers Directive implied a fundamental change in the principle of animal welfare regulation by introducing the systematic monitoring of animal-based indicators at slaughterhouses but cost estimates for this particular provision are scarce and the available studies suggest that costs might have been limited. At the farm level, the Broilers Directive led to mostly incremental changes. According to one interviewed pan-European organisation representing the poultry sector, the production costs per kilo of live bird have increased by 2-3% due to the reduction in stocking densities required by the Broilers Directive. In 2010, the additional cost imposed on the livestock sector by the EU animal welfare standards were estimated at around 2% of the overall output of this sector, most of which derived from the transport sector. For animal transports, the main compliance costs are the recurrent costs related to the drawing up and keeping of transport and planning information. Due to lack of data, for the Transport Regulation, no percentage of compliance costs in relation to economic importance could be estimated in the cost-benefit study. In a study from 2010, however, the Transport Regulation was estimated to impose costs as high as 1 726 million euro annually. The available limited evidence suggests that costs to public authorities (inspection costs) have increased in the range of 5 % to 15 % due to the Transport Regulation. According to a study from 2011, the Transport Regulation increased the administrative costs for Member States’ competent authorities as well as for transport companies. While no reliable evidence was available on the additional administrative costs for the authorities, they were estimated to 25 euro per journey, 515 euro for transporter authorisation and 26 euro per certificate of approval for a vehicle. Since these costs were mainly labour costs, they differed between Member States. Although considerable savings of administrative cost for transport operators are conceivable through the use of digital tools, this potential seems largely unused up to date. It has been suggested that an online database for registration of transport of animals could yield cost savings of 627 million euro. The use such a system would also allow collecting reliable data on the state of compliance of operators in the Union and allow addressing enforcement weaknesses in a more efficient way, compared to today’s system which is mainly paper based. . The potential of potential of digitalisation as a tool for reducing burdens also for farmers and slaughterhouse operators as well as competent authorities could be further explored.

For slaughterhouses’ costs of compliance, there is very little evidence, but the main inspection costs for the competent authorities to verify compliance with the Killing Regulation are due to the setting up of national reference networks and the certification of its staff (the latter partially recovered from slaughterhouses via fees). Costs due to the Killing Regulation are considered limited compared to the output of the sector. However, the waterbath stunning electrical parameters that ensure effective stunning are associated with more haemorrhages and therefore less revenues for the operator. There can thus be a trade-off between animal welfare and economics..



The EU animal welfare legislation contains several exemptions of relevance for small and medium sized companies (SMEs). In addition to the exemption from the Laying Hens Directive and the Broilers Directive for smaller holdings, described in footnote 22, the Transport Regulation only partially applies to the transport of animals carried out by farmers themselves. And the Killing Regulation exempts e.g. small slaughterhouses from the requirement of having an animal welfare officer. It follows from the recent study on CAP Measures and Instruments Promoting Animal Welfare and Reduction of Antimicrobials Use that it is difficult to state that introducing new animal welfare requirements for pigs and laying hens have had any effect on the size of farms. This seems to suggest that the negative impact on SMEs, at least in those sectors, has been very limited. However, as explained above, evidence from Commission audits in the Member States suggest that certain provisions in the Killing Regulation are disproportionally burdensome for smaller slaughterhouses. Areas for simplification were identified in the targeted survey (the main one being rules on monitoring and registration, suggested by 24%, or 10 out of 41, of the respondents). However, the majority of respondents (54% - 22 out of 41) did not consider that the Killing Regulation could be simplified for SMEs without compromising the standards of animal welfare. And while a vast majority of business organisations responding to the public consultation (65% - 428 out of 660) consider that the current EU animal welfare rules are disproportionally burdensome and/or costly for SMEs, that view was only shared by 30% (25 out of 83) of the public authorities and 16% (8 624 out of 54 611) of the EU citizens. In order to reduce costs and administrative burden, the Killing Regulation exempts workers who have three years’ experience from its training requirements. However, some of its other provisions, such as the requirement of recording the electrical parameters for head only stunning, could be considered as unpractical and disproportionate for small slaughterhouses, where staff is limited . Concerning animal welfare related inspection costs more in general (for which fees may be collected), in the targeted survey Member States indicated that the requirements most costly to enforce for competent authorities are those related to administration (21% - 3 out of 14) and to infrastructure (14% - 2 out of 14). Benefits While many potential benefits for the animals, consumers, the environment or public health could be identified and linked to the implementation of the current legislation, due to lack of animal-related indicators, or clear evidence on what had been achieved in practice, these benefits may not be quantified and safely attributed to the change in animal welfare legislation. Still, evidence suggests that an improved welfare of animals, to which the EU legislation contributes, has ethical benefits, but also brings several other (economic, social) benefits for farmers, such as higher productivity and product quality, (savings due to) lower use of antibiotics and lower incidence of injuries and chronic diseases (such as mastitis). Further benefits include enhanced ecosystems services, reduced green gas emissions, better public health (less incidence and spread of animal-born diseases and antimicrobial resistance), better working experience for staff (job satisfaction, pride, work safety), and improved sectoral image. For instance, one interviewed industry organisation estimates that the Pigs Directive has increased the yield of pig production by 1% and considers that there has also been an increased job satisfaction and work safety for farmers. According to one interviewed industry organisation, higher meat quality has led to 5 % increase in sales volumes for pig meat. Costs versus benefits In the targeted survey, around a third of the respondents could not provide an answer on whether the costs of compliance with the EU animal welfare legislation are outweighed by the benefits. Of those that did reply, a majority considered that the benefits for slaughterhouses (54% - 13 out of 24) and retailers (67% - 16 out of 24) outweigh the costs. For farmers and transporters the opinions are more split, with somewhat less than half of the respondents considering that the benefits outweigh the costs. In the public consultation, a vast majority (72% - 476 out of 660) of the companies/business organisations and business associations who responded to the public consultation believed that abiding by (certain) animal welfare requirements set in EU rules are (too) burdensome and costly for producers (e.g. farmers). These costs should also be seen in relation to the costs of non-compliance. An interviewed consumers’ organisation considers that the benefits of the EU animal welfare legislation is higher than the costs, since the negative impacts on non-compliance are also costly and should not be underestimated. For instance, meat rejections in slaughterhouses due to bad animal welfare (resulting e.g. in skin lesions, bruises or abscess in limbs or defect in meat maturation – PSE/DFD meat) is estimated to represent 43% of the profit margin for the producers and poses a serious threat to the viability of pig farms in Ireland. It follows from the cost-benefit study that, since consumers frequently emphasise that animal welfare is of high importance, any legislative improvement in animal welfare may be considered beneficial for them. However, studies also show that consumers do not consider the current level to be sufficient. Hence, consumers’ actual benefits from the studied legislative changes are likely rather limited. Interviewed industry organisations jointly consider that, while the consumers’ interest for animal welfare has increased in later years, the market return is still not sufficient to recover investments made in animal welfare (because consumers are not aware of the standards under which their food is produced, and that price is the most important factor for their food choices) . According to an interviewed pan-European organisation representing farmers, the costs of compliance with current EU animal welfare requirements has resulted in an increase in consumer prices of 1,0% or 1,2%. It should be noted, though, that the situation is different in different Member States. For example, regarding commercial rabbit farming, market demands have been the driver behind the development of different production methods. The Netherlands and Hungary use cage-free system, in spite of this not being a legal requirement in their country, as a way to access external markets that demand higher animal welfare during production (e.g. Belgium, Germany and Switzerland).

Stakeholders concerns for a lack of market return were also identified in the impact assessment for the EU Animal Welfare Strategy in 2012. However, according to the recently published study on animal welfare labelling, there is evidence that consumers are willing, up to a certain extent, to pay a higher price for animal welfare compared to a standard product, and that their willingness to pay may be maximised through an information campaign, combined with animal welfare labelling. Furthermore, while the effects of animal welfare requirements are indeed not easily quantifiable or translated financially , it has been suggested that the socioeconomic impact of the EU animal welfare legislation seems limited and/or has been compensated in medium/long term . It has also been suggested, although evidence collected is limited, that the costs of implementing the animal welfare legislation were, in general, justified given the positive impacts they had . This seems to be confirmed by the CBA study, whose overall assessment is positive, , and by the recent CAP study according to which the implementation of new animal welfare requirements did not impact the economic viability of laying hen and pig farms. In fact, the EU animal welfare legislation seems to have a very limited effect on the competitiveness of EU food business operators. Instead, differences in production costs seem mainly driven by “productivity, land and labour cost and feed price”. Hence, it would seem that the objective to ensure the viability of the food production system has been achieved. 4.1.3 Coherence Under the coherence criterion, it has been assessed whether/to what extent the different components of the legislation operate well together to achieve the given objectives (internal coherence). The assessment allows identifying synergies and complementarities which increases effectiveness; or contradictions which affect the way the policy area delivers. It has also been explored whether the animal welfare legislation is coherent with other relevant EU legislation, relevant initiatives taken in third countries and international organisations (external coherence). 4.1.3.1 Internal coherence

Overall, evidence suggests that the EU legislation on the welfare of farmed animals is coherent. The various components of EU animal welfare legislation are broadly complementary, mutually supporting and consistent. There is limited evidence of incoherence in and between EU Directives and Regulations on animal welfare. However, in the targeted survey, only around half (49 %, or 20 out of 41) of all respondents replied that the provisions contained in current EU animal welfare legislation are consistent with each other and that there are synergies between the different areas of welfare. Another example is the Farm Directive. It states that 'no animal shall be kept for farming purposes unless it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype or phenotype, that it can be kept without detrimental effect on its health or welfare'. Despite this, many genotypes and phenotypes have been selected which have negative welfare consequences, such as laying hens with a high rate of keel-bone fractures because they are too small compared to their eggs and lay too early. These inconsistencies show the inherent tension between animal welfare principles and their practical implementation. This tension is mainly due to a compromise between societal expectations and business operators’ interests, which varies overtime. 4.1.3.2 External coherence While no major conflicts with other EU policies have been identified, evidence demonstrates certain tensions and differences, which are further elaborated upon below. In particular, stakeholders advocated for a better integration between animal welfare legislation and international trade policy, aquaculture policy and agriculture policy. Also, in the targeted survey, only 12% (5 out of 41) of stakeholders agreed that the current EU animal welfare legislation is consistent with other EU policy areas. EU animal health legislation recognises the link between animal health and animal welfare. The rules designed to prevent and control animal diseases are to be implemented by taking into account animal welfare (including the sparing of any avoidable pain, distress or suffering). The fact that the EU animal welfare and animal health legislations were developed in a coherent and complementary way can be illustrated by the provisions on depopulation of the Killing Regulation. These ensure that, when a group of animals are culled for animal health reasons (due to an outbreak of a contagious disease), this is done in respect of animal welfare rules. In addition, the protection of animal health is also one of the objectives of the Transport Regulation and potential tensions have been directly solved by the legislator (see e.g. recital 13 on specific measures safeguarding the health and welfare of animals when resting at control posts, to avoid the spreading of contagious diseases). Some representatives of national farmers’ organisations for the pig and poultry sectors have argued that there were certain tensions. For instance, it was claimed that enrichment material for pigs such as straw or wood would pose some African Swine Fever or contamination risk from wild boars, or phasing out cages would bring more risk from the point of view of Avian Influenza. However, this is not supported by evidence as these welfare requirements can be easily combined with the necessary biosecurity measures. For examples, no increases in influenza outbreaks have been observed in poultry farms with alternative systems (i.e. without cages) compared to farms using enriched cages (i.e. in case of avian influenza outbreak, free range and organic hens have to be kept indoor in line with biosecurity measures). And, as pointed out by an interviewed pan-European organisation representing veterinarians, biosecurity measures are taken in a particular situation, in which such procedure is normal, and cannot be considered as an inconsistency per se. The EU animal welfare legislation is broadly coherent with the EU animal health legislation. Even though some stakeholders called for greater integration, evidence suggests that the areas of current EU animal welfare legislation where cages are banned (i.e. for a large part of pigs and calves’ lives) consistently complemented animal health rules.

Regarding transport, the social regulation for drivers provides for resting times for drivers that are different from those provided for animals in the Transport Regulation. These requirement are difficult and costly to reconcile. For the sake of the animals, the length of the journey should be minimised, while drivers need to rest and sleep. According to Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, the daily driving time may not exceed 9 hours, but may be extended to maximum 10 hours not more than twice during the week. On the other side, the Transport Regulation allows transporting animals for long journeys under certain conditions – up to 19 hours for young animals, 24 hours for horses and pigs and 29 hours for adult bovines. Therefore, while these provisions are legally compatible with each other, the requirement to minimise the animals’ journey implies that there should be more than one driver for journeys of more than 9 hours, which generates additional costs. This is an area where a higher level of coherence is expected by stakeholders, including NGO’s. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides a number of measures and instruments with a potential effect on animal welfare such as: 1) the cross compliance scheme, 2) the marketing standards for egg production, 3) the rural development legislation which has specific animal welfare related measures and financial instruments, and 4) the rules on organic farming. To some extent, in the 2014-2020 period, the CAP instruments and measures contributed to Member State promotion of animal welfare, depending on the implementation choices. In particular, specific rural development measures for animal welfare was the most effective for improving animal welfare as it could be used to foster a set of coherent practices (involving housing conditions, feeding, enhancement of natural behaviour and/or health management practices). As for the marketing standards for eggs, the rules for indicating the farming methods applied for laying hens (Regulation (EC) No 589/2008), have to some extent contributed in promoting animal welfare friendly production methods for eggs, and alternative uses of egg production in the EU. In most Member States/regions studied, the cross-compliance scheme was effective in influencing farmers’ practices, especially in Member States and regions where animal farms do not yet fully meet the requirements of the EU directives on animal welfare. As a whole, the CAP appears to have helped improve animal welfare locally, in specific sectors and/or Member States and regions, depending on the implementation choices. However, the overall effect is not significant, as only a limited number of successful cases were identified. And while the CAP instruments and measures have the ability to contribute to animal welfare, the extent to which this has been the case varies across the EU depending on Member States’ and Regions’ implementation choices for direct payments and rural development programmes. Member States having stricter national rules than EU ones (Denmark, the Netherland, Austria, Finland and Sweden) tended to make more use of these instruments to reach animal welfare objectives. Many animal welfare problems are linked to highly intensive farming systems. However, the sectors that use the most intensive farming systems (pigs, poultry, rabbits, and to a certain extent dairy cows) are usually not the main beneficiaries of the CAP measures. These sectors are not sufficiently addressed by the CAP measures targeting welfare aspects. Animal welfare issues can arise from intensive indoor production systems. i.e. systems with animals in high stocking density, when increased pressures on animals are not managed properly (unbalanced diet, use of rapid-growth breeds, use of antimicrobial group treatments, inappropriate flooring and manure management, mutilations, etc.). Such intensive indoor systems are often not subject to cross-compliance as they are not eligible to direct payments. As concluded in the evaluation of the EU Animal Welfare Strategy (2012-2015), there is a clear need to further optimise synergies with the CAP for the period 2021-27 and to make better use of the instruments offered by it to strengthen CAP beneficiaries’ awareness on animal welfare requirements, to improve animal welfare standards in animal husbandry, and to mainstream them into the regulatory framework governing agricultural activities. In other words, the challenges identified in improving animal welfare are not always targeted by Member States with CAP instruments/measures. This is reflected in views expressed by interviewed NGO’s, who consider that the available subsidies under the CAP have not been fully exploited by Member States to take some of the economic burden off from producers. In the targeted survey, only 9% (1 out of 11) of the business and professional organisations, and 14% (2 out of 14) of Member States, consider that there are inconsistencies between the EU animal welfare legislation and agricultural policy. The relationship between animal welfare and EU environmental policy (as part of a sustainable food system, addressed in the European Green Deal ), is complex. Literature suggests that EU animal welfare legislation has in general avoided conflict with environmental policy. However, at a time when reducing greenhouse gas emissions is becoming a major challenge , it is necessary to further reinforce the relationship between animal welfare and the environment to contribute even more to a sustainable food production system. Farmers and competent authorities seem to disagree on the extent to which the animal welfare legislation is coherent with enviro