Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the welfare of intensively kept pigs in particular taking into account the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in groups, andthe Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs
Date: 2001-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal welfare, intensive livestock farming, protection of animals, swine, veterinary inspection

C 221/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
the welfare of intensively kept pigs in particular taking into account the welfare of sows
reared in varying degrees of confinement and in groups’, and

— the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum

standards for the protection of pigs’

(2001/C 221/11)

On 29 January 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above mentioned communication
and mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 May 2001. The rapporteur
was Mr Nilsson.

At its 382nd plenary session on 30 and 31 May 2001 (meeting of 31 May), the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 73 votes with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The protection of pigs is a matter of Community
competence. Council Directive 91/630/EEC lays down mini-
mum standards for the protection of pigs. In accordance with
Article 6 of the Directive, by 1 October 1997, the Commission
had to submit a report to the Council dealing specifically with
the welfare of sows. The report was drafted by the Scientific
Veterinary Committee, and provides the basis for the Com-
munication and the revised rules the Commission now pro-
poses in the Communication and proposal for a Directive (1).

1.2.
Article 5 of Council Directive 91/630/EEC provides
that its Annex can be amended under a procedure whereby
the Commission may propose amendments to the Annex
without consulting the EU institutions. The aim, according to
the Directive, is to be able to take account of scientific progress
more rapidly. The Annex contains a number of minimum
rules for pig farming.

1.2.1.
Accordingly the Commission is now putting forward
a proposal for amendments to Directive 91/630/EEC. At the
same time, a proposal for amendments to the Annex of the
Directive is being drafted for submission to the Standing
Veterinary Committee. This second proposal can then be
adopted directly by the Commission if it broadly complies
with the Standing Veterinary Committee’s opinion.

1.2.2.
In recent years there has been an increasingly intense
debate within the EU on animal welfare. The ESC therefore
welcomes the Commission Communication and Proposal for
amendments to the current Directive. However, it regrets that
the proposed amendments to the Annex are not
to be
submitted to the EU institutions for the usual consultation as
part of the legislative procedure.

1.3.
European agriculture is going through turmoil because
of foot and mouth disease which is highly contagious among
animals. Agriculture has been hit by crises such as BSE and
dioxin poison in animal feed, and consumers now question
the safety of food production. It is absolutely crucial to regain
and boost consumer confidence in European agricultural
production methods. Several ESC opinions have expressed
their strong support for this. The Commission proposal to
improve the welfare of sows must be seen as a first step in this
direction.

1.4.
Pig farming in the EU is not strictly regulated. The
common organisation of the market in pigmeat is very liberal,
and only includes two market support measures, i.e. export
subsidies and support for private storage.

1.4.1.
This means that farmers who keep pigs have to live
with the price fluctuations of the market. In 1998 and 1999,
prices were at exceptionally low levels. The crisis reached
unheard of proportions when, in 1998, prices to producers
sank by 27 %, and by 6 % in 1999. They thus reached a new
all-time low, and were below production costs.

1.4.2.
In 1999 the Commission, with a view to reducing
the impact of future price fluctuations, proposed voluntary
arrangements to enable the Member States to establish pro-
ducer-funded regulatory funds (2).

1.4.3.
Pig farming is sensitive to changed production costs.
It must be possible to pass these costs on to the market if
animals are to be reared ethically and sustainably.

(1) COM(2001) 20 final.

20.12.2000, p. 40.

(2) COM(2000) 193 final and CES 1009/2000, OJ C 367,

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/75

1.5.
Consumers are right to demand safe food and ethically
sound production methods which allow livestock to live a
life and meet animal health and welfare
healthy, natural
requirements.

2.3.2.
Some countries also tend to concentrate pig pro-
duction in certain geographic areas, where animal density is
higher than levels deemed to be ecologically sustainable
(1,4 animal units per hectare).

2.

The Commission Communication and proposal

The findings of the report also confirm the Communi-
2.4.
cation’s assertion that 65 % of all pregnant sows are housed
individually, and of these, 60 % do not have access to materials
for rooting.

2.1.
In 1997 the European Commission adopted a report
from the Scientific Veterinary Committee and its section for
animal health and welfare on intensively kept pigs, and various
proposals to amend EU legislation in order to protect pigs and
improve conditions for them.

2.5.
Existing herds will be covered by a ten year transition
period (until 2012) to implement the proposals. However, a
number of key measures will apply from 1 January 2002 to all
newly-built or rebuilt holdings. There will be a derogation for
holdings with less than 10 dry pregnant sows, but this does
not include the point relating to pig feed requirements.

2.2.
The proposal prohibits the confinement of sows during
most of their pregnancy to individual stalls which restrict their
freedom of movement. It also sets out rules to improve the
general
living environment of pigs and especially piglets,
setting requirements for living space, floor surfaces and proper
feeding systems. New requirements for training of pig handlers
are also introduced. In addition the Commission is proposing
tougher regulations for noise and light levels, access to food
and materials for rooting, timing of weaning of piglets, and
minimum flooring surfaces.

2.3.
The Communication reveals the considerable discrep-
ancies in Member State production. Five Member States have
72 % of the total sow population. The biggest producer
countries are:

— Germany (20,4 % of total number of sows) (1)

— Spain (19,8 %)

— France (11,6 %)

— Netherlands (10,4 %)

— Denmark (9,9 %).

2.3.1.
At the same time there is huge variation in herd size.
In the Netherlands, 90 % of herds have more than 100 sows,
whereas in Germany 40 % have less than 10. In Italy 80 % of
the herds have less than 10 sows.

2.6.
Investment in buildings and technology to improve
animal welfare is eligible for support from the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

3. General comments

3.1.
The ESC welcomes the Commission Communication
and Proposal and endorses the broad thrust and proposals.
The ESC regrets, however, that it has taken the Commission so
long to present its proposal since the Scientific Veterinary
Committee submitted its report
in 1997. The ESC also
condemns the fact that the proposal is limited to dry sows and
does not include farrowing and suckling sows. The ESC also
takes a critical view of
that only the Standing
the fact
Veterinary Committee is to be consulted on the proposed
amendments to the Annex, rather than all the EU institutions.

3.2.
EU pig production is dynamic and competitive. The
EU is the world’s largest exporter, and in 1999 it exported
1,5 million tonnes to third countries, mainly at current
world market prices. Imports are less significant and total
65 000 tonnes. The sector is very important economically,
and accounts for some 11 % of the EU’s total agricultural
output.

(1) Eurostat 1999.

At the same time, pig farmers have to adapt to world
3.3.
market prices, and this has brought significant economic
hardship over the last two years.

C 221/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

3.4.
Pigs are social animals. The Scientific Report gives a
comprehensive account of available experience and research
into the welfare of pigs. It describes the consequences of not
respecting the physiological and behavioural needs of pigs.
There can be a conflict of objectives when requirements
relating to behaviour, health, the environment and economic
factors are weighed up. At the same time, rapid structural
streamlining and development of technology is under way.
This, together with requirements on ethically sound animal
husbandry, means that common minimum standards are
needed.

3.9.
The Committee fully endorses the proposal to forbid
definitively the use of confinement for sows and gilts, and
confinement for dry pregnant sows, whereby the animal has
to stay in a fixed position and has no room to turn around.
This does not apply where there are temporary medical
reasons,
for example. This is only fair from the animal
protection standpoint, but a certain amount of space to move
around is still required.

3.5.
In pig farming, there are different needs depending on
which stage of the lifecycle the animal is at. A ‘sow’ has had a
litter. A ‘dry pregnant sow’ is a sow whose previous litter has
been weaned, and which is pregnant again and ready for
farrowing. A ‘gilt’ is a young pregnant sow which is about to
farrow for the first time. Most pigs have been raised as
‘fattening pigs’. Each of these different stages has special
requirements for the animal’s needs.

3.6.
Legislation and regulations for the protection of pigs
also vary between Member States. In some countries, there are
much stricter legal requirements. At the same time, the retail
sector has introduced marketing rules and regulations which
will impact directly on the market and on pig feeding and
production procedures.

The report underpinning the Commission’s position
3.7.
also shows that there are still shortcomings in animal housing,
and that animal protection requirements need tightening up.
The report makes no fewer than 88 different recommen-
dations,
the bulk of which have been endorsed by the
Commission.

3.8.
The increased accommodation requirement for fat-
tening pigs is one major exception. The report proposes that
the minimum space requirements for fattening pigs should be
increased Here, the Commission prefers to wait for the next
report, which is suggested be submitted in eight years’ time.
This is an important issue from the point of view of animal
protection, but also for consumer confidence in production.
Insufficient space for the animals leads to tail-biting, which is
remedied by tail docking. An increased minimum area could
therefore mean that
tail docking is required less often.
However, this presupposes that producers are allowed an
adequate transition period, as is the case with some of the
other proposed amendments to the Directive. In particular, the
case for more spacious accommodation for fattening pigs
could be made when new holdings are being built.

3.10.
The Commission reveals the report’s economic calcu-
lations of its proposals. This is commendable and of consider-
able importance since producers have to live with price/
demand fluctuations, and with very small production cost
margins. However, the ESC calls for a better, more reliable
analysis of how much the proposed measures will cost farmers.

3.10.1.
The calculations do, however, make some strange
assumptions. For example, they say consumers are not willing
to pay for better animal welfare when imports from third
countries where animal welfare standards are lower cannot be
restricted.

Production of any kind can only take place if
3.10.2.
income covers costs. If binding rules increase production costs,
then this must be covered by income, i.e. price. Otherwise
production is neither sustainable nor possible.
It is both
counterproductive and illogical to require European pig far-
mers to comply with certain legal requirements and standards
if consumers are not prepared to pay for these animal
protection requirements.
Intra-EU requirements must also
correspond with those applied to imports.

3.10.3.
The Committee feels that the question of animal
welfare must be tackled and pushed through in WTO nego-
tiations. Regrettably, the report does not address this, since it
is a thorny, complex issue. There is unfortunately reason to
fear that the WTO will not respond to European animal
welfare concerns.

At the same time, requirements which improve
3.10.4.
animal welfare can yield better financial returns, as the animal
is contented and therefore grows faster and better. However,
taken as a whole, the Commission’s proposal will
lead to
increased investment and running costs for pig farmers.

The Committee would also like to discuss the fact
3.11.
that the communication deals with pig welfare in ‘intensive
pig-rearing systems’. In a general sense it could be interpreted

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/77

to mean large holdings. But it is not entirely logical. Inten-
siveness is not always linked to size. Large holdings can have
both well-trained handlers and good animal welfare standards.
But this is not automatically the case either. Logically, the
communication and the proposal should cover all pigs,
regardless of production system.

The Scientific Report also calls attention to the fact
3.12.
that animal health is of vital
importance to good animal
husbandry and animal welfare. It establishes the fact that
infectious diseases are an important problem for animal
protection. Many diseases often have several different causes.
The ESC feels that the importance of preventive healthcare
must be highlighted more clearly, since care for the animal
and an appropriate environment can produce healthy animals,
thus helping to avoid or reduce the risk of disease outbreaks.
These measures also make it possible to avoid preventive
antibiotic treatment. The absence of disease is not just an
important factor in animal protection; it is also important for
good production.

3.13.
As stated above, the Commission intends to propose
at a later stage amendments to the Annex to Directive
91/630/EEC without going through the usual consultation
procedure. The Annex contains a number of rules for different
operations on swine such as tooth-clipping and castration.
Nose rings are still allowed. Rooting is one of the most
deeply-ingrained traits in pigs. The Scientific Report states
categorically that nose rings have a negative impact on animal
is surrounded by
protection, particularly when the animal
stimuli which invite rooting. In Directive 98/58/EC on animal
protection the Commission endorses the five principles of
freedom; these, inter alia, lay down that freedom of movement
must not be restricted to the extent that it causes unnecessary
suffering. The ESC therefore believes there should be a total
ban on nose rings for pigs as it runs counter to the spirit of
the above Directive, since the animal
is subjected for a
long time to an interference which directly hampers normal
behaviour.

4.1.2.
Article 1 also implies that there is to be a transition
period for existing buildings until the year 2012 as regards
requirements for increased pen size for group-housed sows,
and for feed delivery systems which provide sufficient food.
Although the transition period might seem lengthy,
the
Committee can endorse it since rebuilding work will have to
be undertaken, which means great expense and practical
difficulties for many individual producers. The Committee also
endorses the obligation for newly built or rebuilt holdings to
comply with regulations from 1 January 2002.

Article 1 also states that

4.1.3.
the requirements on
improved floor area size, for example, shall not apply to
holdings with fewer than ten dry pregnant sows. The ESC feels
that there could be a case for a derogation for small herds.
However, since the proposal refers to ‘dry pregnant sows’, the
question is how this will be defined on the farm. The statistics
for the number of pigs per agricultural holding are way out of
date, and there is a fairly rapid trend towards larger units. If,
however, we take the statistics given in the scientific report,
73 % of EU 15 holdings have between 1 and 9 pigs. If, as it
seems reasonable to assume, the same applies to dry pregnant
sows, then the improved animal protection regulations will
not apply to a large number of pigs. This is unsatisfactory.
There is no automatic link between bad animal housing/animal
protection and large herds. The ESC therefore calls on the
Commission to clarify the derogation. One option would be
to provide a derogation for holdings with ten sows in
production. Another is to apply the rules to all animals,
regardless of herd size.

4.1.4.
The Committee welcomes the requirements to pro-
vide both manipulable material for all sows, and feed that also
satisfies their need to chew.

4.

Specific comments

4.2. Article 1, insertion of a new Article 5a in 91/630/EEC

4.1. Article 1, amendment to Article 3.2 of 91/630/EEC

4.1.1.
The Committee fully endorses the proposal for a
total ban on the use of confinement for sows and gilts from
1 January 2002. The ESC also notes that farrowing and
suckling sows are not covered by the proposal.

Here the Commission proposes new requirements
4.2.1.
for instructions and guidance, and appropriate training courses
for any person attending to the animals. The Committee
endorses this. But it must be borne in mind that
there
are already properly trained stockmen. Any new training
requirements must be relevant, and build on the stockman’s
existing skills.

C 221/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.2001

4.2.2.
From an employee perspective, it is important to
have proper information and training, and to be offered
continuous training in animal husbandry and animal welfare.
Safety aspects must also be included, since a large number of
serious agricultural accidents happen in connection with
animal husbandry, animal transport, etc.

4.2.3.
Different certification systems must also be taken
into account and efforts made in this area. The need for
adequate training must also be provided for when framing
Member States’ rules.

4.3. Article 1, replacement of Article 6 in 91/630/EEC

4.3.1.
In this Article the Commission lays down that
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare shall
later than
submit a new report
1 January 2008. The report shall cover:

to the Commission not

— the effects of stocking density on welfare;

— further developments of group-housing systems for preg-

nant sows;

— space requirements for adult boar;

— loose-house systems for sows in the service area and for

farrowing sows;

— development of techniques to reduce the need for surgical

castration;

— consumer attitudes and behaviour towards pig meat in

the event of no improvement in welfare.

4.3.2.
In view of the transition period up to 2012, the
2008 deadline would seem appropriate. The deadline might
seem somewhat lengthy, but the ESC would stress that the
changes apply to a very large number of holdings which need
to comply. The necessary investment will be made in a sector
with very small profit margins. As stated above, the economic
situation for producers has been very tight.

4.4. Article 2

Article 2 of the proposal requires the Member States to
transpose these legislative provisions into national law. On
various occasions the Committee has pointed out short-
comings in implementation, e.g. in its Opinion on Sludge in
Agriculture (1).

4.5.
The ESC calls on the Commission to review Directive
92/102/EEC on the identification of animals, with particular
reference to swine. Implementation of this Directive has been
particularly lax, and the current state of the market calls for an
updating.

4.6.
The ESC would also question the Member States’
arrangements for monitoring implementation of the pro-
visions of Council Directive 91/630/EEC. So far, only eight
inspections have been reported, and without covering all
Member States. This weakens the EU’s monitoring system.

4.7. Article 6

Not later than 1 January 2008, the Commission is to submit
to the Council a report, drawn up on the basis of an opinion
from the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare.
The ESC feels that, in addition to the content proposed by the
Commission, the report should also cover the technical and
economic consequences of
implementing the recommen-
dations. A study should also be carried out to ascertain
whether the market can bear the extra costs of the new animal
welfare measures.

5. Conclusions

5.1.
The ESC welcomes and endorses the Commission
proposal. The ESC regrets, however, the fact that it has taken
so long, and that the ESC has not also been consulted on the
Annex to the Directive. Since any proposals to amend Directive
91/630/EEC could lead to a loss of competitiveness for
pigmeat production at European level, the various Community
bodies, i.e. the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament
and the Economic and Social Committee, must always be
consulted on the Commission’s proposals.

The ESC regrets that the proposal does not address the

5.2.
problem of minimum space requirements for fattening pigs.

4.3.3.
However, it cannot be excluded that market demands
from consumers and from the wholesale/retail sector will drive
the change process more rapidly, with demands for better
animal protection in return for access to the market.

(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, p. 141.

7.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/79

The ESC endorses the proposed ban on confinement

5.3.
of sows and gilts, and the use of tethers for sows.

The ESC believes that the proposal should cover all

5.6.
animals, regardless of production system.

The ESC calls for a better, more accurate analysis of
5.4.
the cost of the proposal.
it is essential that
In its view,
consumers should be prepared to pay for better animal
protection and that imports from third countries should be
subject to the same animal protection requirements.

In the international context, production and breeding
5.5.
conditions differ widely from one region of the world to
another. Consequently, production and import regulations
must be consistent, and these concerns must be taken on
board at international level by the WTO.

5.7.
The ESC endorses the proposed requirements on
advice, guidance and appropriate training for animal handlers,
but would stress that this must build on their existing expertise.
Safety aspects and accident risks must also be taken into
account.

5.8.
The ESC would highlight the question of the level at
which control is exercised and the shortcomings in implemen-
tation of the Directive.

5.9.
The ESC would also point out that the next report in
2008 should also contain economic analyses and a study of
the impact of the new rules on the market.

Brussels, 31 May 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS