Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Animal Welfare Legislation on farmed animals in Third Countries and the Implications for the EU
Date: 2002-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU law, animal welfare, international standard, livestock farming, national law, protection of animals, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 18.11.2002
COM(2002) 626 final

.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on Animal Welfare Legislation on farmed animals in Third Countries
and the Implications for the EU

I.

1

2

3

OVERVIEW

There is a growing appreciation of the insistence of consumers that animals used in
food production should be well treated. In response, the body of EU legislation on
animal welfare has increased steadily in recent years. This trend is likely to
accelerate, especially in the light of the Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam which
raised the ambitions of all EU institutions to do more to raise welfare standards.
There is also a growing appreciation that high welfare standards have both a direct
and indirect
impact on food safety and quality and that regulatory and support
systems in agriculture must adapt accordingly.

However, this process has also resulted in costs to producers. It is clear that any
requirement implying investments and changes to existing production systems has an
impact on production costs. However, it is difficult to quantify it in general terms. In
a Communication on the welfare of pigs1, the Commission estimated the costs arising
0.02 per kilogramme
from the abolition of individual sow stalls between
pig carcase, depending on the length of transitional periods. A far more significant
increase of production costs is expected in the case of egg production. A study
presented by animal welfare organisations2 suggests an increase of 8 per cent from
2003 (more space in battery cages) and further 16 per cent by 2012 (ban on battery
cages). The Commission will have a closer look to these economic consequences
before opening the debate on a revision of the laying hen Directive, foreseen for
2007.

0.006 to

€

€

Costs implied by higher welfare requirements should be recovered, in part at least,
due to the premium placed on high standards by consumers. There is a concern,
that any costs where are not directly recovered could place EU
nonetheless,
producers at a competitive disadvantage relative to imported products from third
countries. This in turn could also undermine the higher standards in question. Arising
from these dual concerns, Member States asked the Commission to carry out a
communication on comparable animal welfare standards in third countries and to
look at the implications arising from disparities in these standards.

1

2

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the welfare of intensively
kept pigs in particularly taking into account the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in
groups, COM(2001) 20 final, 16.01.2001, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2001/com2001_0020en01.pdf
“Hardboiled reality – animal welfare-friendly egg production in a global market”, 2001, presented by RSPCA
(Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and Eurogroup for Animal Welfare

2

4

5

The resulting study is largely inconclusive. There is no international consensus on
the role of animal welfare and the measures in place in the EU cannot be readily
compared with standards in third countries. One of the reasons is the difficulty to
define precisely the effects of animal welfare on animal health and food safety. The
approach to animal welfare science is at present under revision world wide in
particular
factors are determining its
understanding3. Nonetheless,
there is a growing trend towards
improved standards, led by consumer demands in this direction. This consumer led
approach can only be encouraged. The question of the competitive disadvantages
arising from any disparity in measures is also complex. The evidence that is available
suggests that competitive distortions are most likely to arise in the more intensive
forms of agricultural production, notably the pig and poultry sectors.

to evaluate how ethical and cultural
it

is clear that

The Commission considers that it is entirely legitimate to pursue these concerns.
Competitive distortions – whether to the advantage or disadvantage of EU producers
- arising from differences in standards have the clear potential to undermine higher
animal welfare standards. The means to address these distortions are nonetheless not
immediately evident. The Commission considers that they can be addressed through
a number of channels:

–

–

–

–

Through the normal market mechanisms as consumers and retailers attach an
ever increasing premium to higher standards and this works its way through the
price chain.

In the context of dialogue at the international level as the EU engages its trade
recognition to animal welfare in a
partners on how to afford greater
for
constructive and non-trade distorting manner. A promising prospect
furthering this process appears to lie with the OIE and the Council of Europe.

The EU also needs to continue its bilateral efforts with individual trading
partners to promote animal welfare standards. This is especially the case in
relation to the veterinary and phytosanitary provisions of bilateral
trade
arrangements. This process could serve over time to improve the prospects for
parallel efforts at the multilateral level.

Labelling regimes, whether voluntary or mandatory, also have an important
role to play. Consumers are increasingly insistent on higher standards and ways
have to be found to provide them with the required information on such
standards. The egg-labelling provisions recently put in place are a positive step
in this direction which could perhaps be followed in other fields. Further
improvements with a view to secure international recognition seem to be
necessary.

3

See: D.
– Farm Animal Production: Changing
Journal of applied Animal Welfare Science, 4(3), 2001, p. 175-190

Fraser

agriculture

in

a

changing

culture

–

3

–

The focus of EU agricultural policy is increasingly on quality rather than
quantity. This quality concept embraces a range of priorities including
improved food safety, environmental protection,
the
preservation of
and animal welfare. Traditional price
mechanisms do not always allow for important considerations like animal
welfare to be properly recognised in the prices paid to producers. If it is to
receive the priority demanded by citizens, new mechanisms need to be
explored to address this deficiency.

rural development,

landscape

the

6

This communication does not come down decisively in favour of any single one of
the above possibilities. Instead, efforts must concentrate on all these fronts. This is
entirely in keeping with the diverse nature of measures to promote animal welfare. It
also reflects the intention of the Protocol to the Treaty on Animal Welfare that since
1999 requires the European Institutions and the Member States to take full account of
animal welfare when drafting and applying the Community’s policies on agriculture,
transport, internal market and research. This Protocol defines animals as “sentient
beings” (i.e. capable of feeling pain) - a significant landmark.

II.

BACKGROUND

MANDATE

7

8

9

10

11

4

5

When the Council of Ministers discussed Directive 98/58/EC on farm animal
protection4, the Member States highlighted the issue of animal welfare law in the
Union’s third-country trading partners. Accordingly Article 8 of that Directive
required the Commission to send the Council a communication comparing legislation
in other countries with that in the EU and exploring the implications for EU law and
for competition. This is that communication.

The Union’s own animal welfare legislation goes back several decades already,
beginning with a 1974 Directive on the stunning of animals before slaughter5.

From 1986 onwards Directives on pigs, calves and laying hens and on animal
transport were adopted (and later refined in the light of new scientific data). A
Directive banning the keeping of pregnant sows in segregation was adopted in June
2001.

A 1998 Regulation made export refunds for live cattle conditional on compliance
with Community law on animal protection during transport.

Directive 1999/74/EC lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying
hens, and a Council Regulation in December 2000 introduced a mandatory labelling
system for eggs based on these standards (a system also applicable to imported eggs).

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20.7.1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes;
OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23-27
For a list of the EU’s main animal welfare legislation see Appendix 5

4

12

13

14

15

16

17

the
In order to make comparisons with the situation in non-member countries,
Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection (SANCO)
collected a considerable body of data from and about these countries. Section I
summarises what
this survey revealed. Section II draws conclusions on the
implications for future action. There are also six appendices containing a summary of
the data received and other background information.

MAIN FINDINGS OF SURVEY OF THIRD-COUNTRY LEGISLATION

received replies from 73 countries (the most

SANCO contacted the main countries supplying the Union with live animals and
animal products and requested information on their farm animal welfare legislation.
relevant are summarised in
It
Appendix 1). The variable quality of the information supplied and the diversity of
conditions in the countries concerned makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions.
Nonetheless, the following broad observations can be made:

NO GENERALLY RECOGNISED, SPECIFIC STANDARDS AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL

The bulk of
the information sent concerned cruelty to animals in general.
Comparatively little referred specifically to farm animal welfare (the focus of this
communication).

In the vast majority of countries, individual acts of cruelty to animals are deemed
ethically unacceptable (though to varying degrees) and may even be punishable by
law. And the law in many cases treats animals as sentient beings.

However, there is little evidence of a convergence of legislation worldwide on the
basis of identical or similar principles. There is also a lack of shared scientific
standards. The definition of farm animal protection varies from country to country
according to the cultural, scientific, religious, economic and political context.

In the absence of shared standards, most of the legislation reported refers to the
increasingly widely disseminated “five freedoms”. Defined in 1979 by the UK
Agriculture Ministry’s advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, these are:
●

proper and sufficient food and water,

●

●

●

●

adequate shelter,

opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour,

minimisation of pain or distress during handling,

protection from disease.

SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN LAST DECADE, PARTICULARLY IN NON-EU EUROPE
AND SOME OECD COUNTRIES

18

Media campaigns and lobbying by an ever-increasing number of NGOs have
heightened public awareness in many (mainly developed) countries, resulting in
considerable legislative progress especially in the last five years.

5

19

20

21

22

23

The EU enlargement process is motivating the candidate countries to adopt new
legislation at an accelerated rate; likewise increased public awareness in those
countries is causing their governments to move more quickly toward adoption of
mandatory EU animal welfare standards. Also,
the participation of the same
countries in Council of Europe initiatives is facilitating the harmonisation of animal
welfare legislation. Specifically the Council of Europe is continuing to develop five
Conventions (the earliest dating back to 1968) on various aspects of animal welfare,
in particular during international transportation, on the farm and at slaughter (see
Appendix 2).

TWO TYPES OF ANIMAL WELFARE CODES: BINDING AND SELF-IMPOSED

Animal welfare measures in the different countries tended to take either of two
forms: mandatory provisions or voluntary (i.e. self-imposed) codes of conduct (see
Appendix 1).

Countries in the first group generally have binding national rules adopted in
implementation of an umbrella “animal welfare” or “animal protection” Act. (Most
countries of the (British) Commonwealth, for example, fall into this category.) Such
Acts usually include very general provisions on the care and treatment of animals,
including pets, and animals kept (besides food production) for scientific purposes or
for their pelts or for extraction of other products. They do not usually contain specific
provisions on farming methods (e.g. stocking densities), but they do usually provide
the legal framework or bases for more specific regulations and recommendations in
that area.

The emphasis in the second category of countries (the majority) is on private,
voluntary initiatives rather than public, regulatory framework, with a wide variety of
codes and guidelines being self-imposed by producers. Many of these are designed to
ensure consumer confidence about the provenance of livestock products. They are
often developed in collaboration with competent public authorities or with NGOs
(especially consumer associations). They commonly take the form of labelling
systems subject to inspection for certification of conformity.

Worldwide marketing strategies confirm that producers and retailers today are ready
to apply new criteria so as to provide consumers with extra value. The perception is
that “changes in the market will see fewer people going to the supermarket for the
cheapest cuts of meat and instead being prepared to pay higher prices for sustainable
produced quality products”6. A clear example of this evolution is the recent inclusion
of animal welfare requirements in many existing quality assurance schemes for
poultry meat. This reflects the perception by consumers that they are choosing a
healthier and safer product. Conversely, producers are particularly fearful of loss of
market share if products acquire a poor safety or welfare image. These trends are
especially strong in the EU where there is a growing consumer insistence on high
animal welfare standards and on high quality standards generally.

6

Financial Times: “NZ venison producers find a ready market for safe meat” by T. Hall (29.3.2001)

6

24

25

26

27

In an interesting example of this trend, the US Department of Agriculture recently
announced plans to issue stricter slaughterhouse guidelines following pressure from
animal rights groups and from a world-wide food company. Calling for zero
tolerance for animal welfare violations at slaughterhouses, the company had said,
“We believe that people eating our products are assuming the animals … are treated
in a humane manner.” In a letter to the company, the US Department of Agriculture
said that the proposed rules would meet the fundamental issues that it had raised7.

EU LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES HAVE AN INSPIRING EFFECT ON OUR TRADING
PARTNERS

The level of animal welfare legislation in the EU compares well with third countries
even if compliance with this legislation is often lacking8. Moreover, this legislation
has served as an example for many other countries to follow. One example of how
EU law can stimulate changes, with better animal welfare being achieved by
consensus at international level, is the action plan drawn up in 2000 after discussions
with the Chief Veterinary Officers of the candidate countries. This plan foresees the
enforcement
term of key requirements of EU law on animal
transportation, notably as regards horses. Soon afterwards the Slovenian authorities
they were applying the plan. In other candidate countries the
announced that
transposition is under preparation; Lithuania and Hungary have already notified the
application of equivalent rules.

in the short

The candidate countries’ progress with adoption of the “acquis communautaire” is in
turn enhancing Council of Europe activity in the field of animal protection: ongoing
work in Strasbourg on several animal welfare issues is encouraging a Europe-wide
convergence on uniform principles.

Another example of EU legislation inspiring animal welfare standards elsewhere is in
the framework of the OIE (for this “World Animal Health Organisation” see
Appendix 4). Its recommendations on protecting animals during transport were
certainly based on current Community legislation as well as on Council of Europe
initiatives. Also, the recent inclusion of animal welfare in its work plan was in
response to the evolution of animal welfare issues in the last few years all over the
world but particularly in the EU. And the OIE’s work on animal welfare standards
will surely be cross-fertilised by ongoing discussions at EU level and by negotiating
activity in this area with the candidate countries. The EU has also been the most
the World Trade
supportive of
Organisation where it is not currently recognised as a legitimate concern.

including animal welfare in the agenda of

7

8

Animal Farm N° 487 of 22.2.2002: Dr Bernard Vallat: Opening up the OIE. 9 CFR Ch. III (1-1-01 Edition)
Part 313 – Humane Slaughter of Livestock. On the Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html#page 1
Shortcomings in enforcement of the legislation by national authorities are, for example, highlighted in a report on
the experience acquired by Member States with the application of the Directive on animal transport, presented by
the Commission to the Council in January 2001, COM(2000) 809 final, 6.12.2000,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/transport/report_en.pdf

7

28

29

Regarding the situation in developing countries, an important increase of livestock
production is to be expected in the coming decades, which will require much more
intensive forms of agriculture. The Community is engaged to accompany this
evolution by various development programmes aiming at sustainability of this
process. Beside environmental concerns regarding the use of natural resources,
animal welfare issues related to intensive farming, industrial slaughter and transport
conditions will become increasingly important in international development support.

In the framework of the international Initiative “Livestock, Environment and
Development” – LEAD9 - the Commission jointly with UK is carrying out a study in
Asia and Latin America to equip policy- and decision-makers to apply improved
livestock
knowledge for environmentally sustainable and equitable forms of
development
there is a broad
consensus that high priority should be given to animal welfare and that development
aid should not support the creation or promotion of farming systems that have
negative effects on it.

including animal welfare issues. Furthermore,

III.

IMPLICATIONS, FUTURE ACTION

30

31

9

10

11

12

Where should EU action in the area of animal welfare go from here? In this section
we will try to outline possible EU strategies, firstly as regards relations with the
outside world10, then in the inter-related areas of research11 and labelling and lastly
direct payments to producers as envisaged in the proposal for the reform of the
common agricultural policy (CAP).

WHY ANIMAL WELFARE IS AN INTEGRATED ELEMENT OF EU’S FOOD SAFETY
POLICY

Research indicates that animals that are well treated and able to behave naturally are
healthier than animals treated badly. An accumulating body of knowledge (dating
back to the 1970s) shows how continuous physical stress on animals (e.g. from their
housing conditions) affects not just their behaviour but their physiology, and can
result in pre-pathological or even pathological states. And studies are ongoing to
develop and standardise methodologies for scientifically measuring animal welfare12.

The LEAD (Livestock, Environment And Development) Initiative is an inter-institutional project with the
secretariat in FAO. This initiative is supported by the World Bank, the European Union (EU), the Ministère des
Affaires Etrangères (France), German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development via GTZ
(Germany), the Department for International Development (United Kingdom), the US Agency for International
Development (USA), the International Development Agency (Denmark), the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (Switzerland), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Its main goals
are to increase awareness, knowledge and understanding of livestock and environment interactions; to identify
appropriate options for livestock and environment management at regional and national level and to convey
livestock and environment concepts into government and donor policies and projects
Bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements including WTO, OIE and CoE
Links between animal welfare, animal health and food safety
COST Action 846 :”Measuring and Monitoring Farm Animal Welfare” Dr H.J. Blokhuis - Institute for Animal
Science and Health (ID-Lelystad) – Netherlands

8

32

33

34

35

36

37

There are currently various scientific initiatives focussing on animal welfare as an
active constituent of animal health, or, more accurately, on extreme farming
conditions (associated with more intensive production) as a source of animal illness.
One of the most extreme cases is that of poultry: the faster growth of broiler chickens
means a higher metabolic rate and higher oxygen requirement, seemingly in excess
of the birds’ respiratory and circulatory capacity. The result is increased mortality
from ascites (fluid in the abdomen) and other related problems13.

Meantime research has extended to the link between various animal welfare factors
and the quality of products, for example, the effect of transport and slaughterhouse
conditions on the quality of meat. The mechanism whereby transport stress impacts
the health of animals is very complex. Commonly referred to as “shipping fever
syndrome”, such stress can lead to depression of the immune system during and after
transport. This means increased susceptibility to infection, through the lowering of
the infection threshold (i.e. the quantity of pathogen required to cause illness).

Various pathogens (microbes, virus, parasite) that do not lead to illness under good
husbandry conditions can become more aggressive, proliferating and causing disease,
in animals after transport. Transport stress can reactivate pathogenic agents present
leading to
in latent (symptomless) carrier animals and provoke their excretion,
clinical illness in other animals. Again this means increased morbidity and mortality
rates. According to a recent opinion by SCAHAW (the EU’s Scientific Committee
on Animal Health and Animal Welfare), transport stress may enhance both level and
duration of pathogen shedding in sub-clinically infected animals, thereby rendering
those animals more infectious.

While further work is needed in this area, all over the world more and more retailers
are recognising animal welfare as a constituent aspect of product image and quality.
This in turn creates a need for reliable systems for on-farm monitoring of animal
welfare status and risks aimed at providing guarantees on production conditions.

So there is increasingly wide acceptance of the link between animal welfare and
animal health, and even, by extension, between animal welfare and food safety and
food quality.

In its White Paper on Food Safety14,
the European Commission advocates a
“comprehensive, integrated approach” to food safety, covering not just the entire
food chain (“farm to table”) but extending also to the EU’s external interface and its
involvement in international fora. (The Member States have indicated their support
for this approach.) The integration of animal welfare in food safety policy and its
promotion at international level would seem to be good examples of this approach in
action. It would also be consistent with the requirement of the Protocol to the Treaty
which requires full account to be taken of animal welfare in relevant EU policies.

13

14

Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on the welfare of chickens kept for the
production of meat (2000)
COM(1999) 719 final, 12.1.2000, http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/ pub06_en.pdf

9

38

39

40

41

42

43

15

16

WORKING TOWARD INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS

THE ISSUES - AS REFLECTED IN RELATIONS WITH THE WTO

The EU fully subscribes to the view that animal welfare provisions must not be used
for protectionist purposes. However, this should not serve as an obstacle to greater
efforts at the international level to win recognition for the EU’s standards in this area
and to ensure that they are compatible with trade obligations. The Agreements of the
World Trade Organisation - most relevantly here the GATT (“General Agreement on
Traiffs and Trade”), AoA (“Agreement on Agriculture”), TBT (“Technical Barriers
to Trade”) and SPS (“Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures”) - make it illegal to
resort to measures that unnecessarily restrict trade or discriminate among members or
between imported and domestic products. As there are diverging views on the extent
to which animal welfare constitutes a legitimate policy objective and also taking into
account the absence of interpretative guidance by dispute settlements, unilateral
application by the EU of its animal welfare standards as condition for the importation
of products from third countries15 could risk being challenged by the EU’s trading
partners.

By way of highlighting the issue, the EU submitted to the June 2000 special session
of the WTO Committee on Agriculture a paper on “Animal welfare and trade in
agriculture” (reproduced in Appendix 6)16. The ensuing discussion revealed that a
number of non-EU countries around the world, rather than associating the measures
taken by the Union with social concerns, fear them as a source of major trade barriers
in the future. In addition there is a perception in some quarters that this is just an
issue for “rich countries”.

Despite such reticence, the Doha 2001 conclusions (unlike the discussions in Seattle)
did see some progress, with non-trade concerns, including animal welfare, being
included on the agenda for future agriculture negotiations.

But further progress is needed to ensure general recognition of such non-trade
concerns as globalisation proceeds. And there are already signs of a shift in attitudes
from negative to neutral. The growing concern of consumers and retailers about high
animal welfare standards is making its impact increasingly felt not only in the EU but
in third countries. The focus of the Commission’s efforts, therefore, should be on
building on this trend among WTO members towards the EU position.

There are two reasons why this strategy should be pursued: on purely ethical
grounds, and in recognition of the higher costs that EU standards entail for both our
producers and consumers.

Achieving consensus through the WTO is, however, inherently difficult due to
ethical, cultural, economic and political divergences (as shown by the data collected
for this communication). While pursuing direct progress via the WTO agriculture
negotiations, therefore, it is equally important to pursue other avenues in parallel.

Relevant data on trade flows in animal and animal products are set out in Appendix 3
See also the following WTO documents: EU: comprehensive negotiating proposal G/AG/NG/W/90; EU: food
quality: improvement of market access opportunities G/AG/NG/W/18

10

44

45

46

47

These parallel activities could take various forms - for example, promoting non-trade
concerns in international fora, organising workshops and conferences - and should
have two overriding goals: establishing the link between animal health, animal
welfare and food safety (this issue is dealt with in a later section) and arriving at
multilateral animal welfare standards, which clearly could serve as a reference in the
WTO context at a later stage.

MULTILATERAL ANIMAL WELFARE STANDARDS: AN INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

There are two ways in which common welfare standards could be arrived at: under
the aegis of an appropriate international organisation, or through the conclusion of
bilateral or multilateral agreements.

ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF OIE

The OIE (or World Animal Health Organisation - see Appendix 4) has played a key
role in international trade negotiations and veterinary agreements since its creation in
Paris in 1924. Its Animal Health Code, developed from the 1960s onward on a
voluntary basis, by 1995 had become an international reference on animal health that
is recognised in the SPS Agreement. The Codex Alimentarius - a food code jointly
created by the FAO and WHO in 1962 - plays a similar role in the area of food
safety.

While it is generally agreed that there is no equivalent reference body specifically for
animal welfare, the OIE Code does include a number of recommendations on animal
transport. (Several third countries referred to these in their replies to SANCO.)
Furthermore the OIE International Committee adopted a resolution in 2001 including
animal welfare in its work-plan for the next five years. An ad hoc working group of
animal welfare experts met for the first time in April 2002 to discuss the new OIE
responsibility. The group comprised veterinary and animal welfare experts
representing a broad range of countries and cultures. The Commission is represented
in this group. The group prepared a set of detailed recommendations considered at
the OIE's annual General Session of Member Countries in May 2002 (see
Appendix 4). The recommendations address the possible scope of OIE activities and
priorities in relation to this new task.17 Working via the OIE has a number of
advantages.

48

The aim of the OIE is to establish welfare standards. Internationally agreed standards
are an essential element in functioning of the TBT and SPS agreements and could
also be an useful reference for bilateral negotiations18.

17

18

OIE Press release of 15.4.2002, http://www.oie.int/eng/press/a_020415.htm
Report of
(Paris, 26-31.5.2002) – International Committee of the OIE
Animal Pharm N° 487, 22.2.2002: “Dr Bernard Vallat: opening up the OIE”

the meeting of

the OIE ad hoc group on animal welfare – 70th General Session

11

49

50

51

52

53

54

19

20

Besides this long-term goal, the existence of OIE standards could have positive
effects on any efforts to address the animal welfare issue internationally. The fact
that a science-based body like the OIE is dealing with this matter would facilitate
other negotiations. Assurance that animal welfare considerations are not disguised
restrictions on international trade would also be more credible. This could be relevant
for all external measures envisaged in this communication, such as negotiations on
labelling in the framework of the TBT Agreement or the allocation of resources in
the context of the CAP reform which has to be justified as non-trade-distorting
measure (“Green Box”) under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

On a practical level, the OIE offers a readymade forum for the exchange of scientific
knowledge and its dissemination to a maximum number of countries. And the fact
that future OIE standards will probably be lower than those applied in the EU means
that they would entail no additional burden for EU producers. The existence of
international technical standards would encourage producers and retailers to apply or
to demand the application of higher standards for marketing reasons.

Therefore, the Commission with all Member States of the EU should continue to
fully support and follow up on to the OIE initiative. On the operational side it should
be remembered that the EU is not a member of the OIE and it is therefore necessary
to evaluate the level of EU participation, for example,
in providing technical
assistance to the working group and specialist sub groups.

MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL AGREEMENTS

Another means of promoting animal welfare internationally - complementing
progress via international reference bodies like the OIE - is through the negotiation
of bilateral or multilateral agreements.

A starting point could be agreements in specific sectors (as for example the trade in
eggs) with our major trading partners, open to all relevant WTO members. However,
an important consideration here is guarding against high standards already adopted
by the EU being compromised. Past experience in other areas (e.g. the “humane
trapping” agreement signed with Canada and Russia) points to the danger of a
lowering of standards established in the Community.

Since such agreements - dealing specifically with animal welfare - are not yet a
reality, the Commission intends to incorporate animal welfare standards in the
bilateral veterinary agreements (covering trade in animal products and live animals)
to be negotiated (notably with the Mercosur countries19) or already in place (notably
with Canada, New Zealand and the United States). The recently signed agreement
with Chile already contains provisions in relation to animal welfare standards20.

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay
The “Agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures applicable to trade in animals and animal products, plants,
plant products and other goods and animal welfare” states in Article 2 that reaching a common understanding
between the Parties concerning animal welfare standards constitute one of its objectives

12

55

56

57

58

59

60

In the sanitary agreements with the USA (1997) and Canada (1998) no reference to
animal welfare standards was made. In the EU/Canada and EU/New Zealand
agreement (1997) the scope may be broadened to “veterinary issues other than
sanitary measures” applicable to trade in live animals and animal products. With
New Zealand it was understood that this could include animal welfare standards. For
equivalent products, New Zealand agreed to specifically certify compliance with EU
animal welfare standards concerning stunning and slaughter.

As regards future agreements the Commission aims at including animal welfare as an
issue, with the objective to commonly develop standards later on, taking also into
account future evolutions at multilateral level.

REINFORCING LINKS BETWEEN ANIMAL WELFARE, ANIMAL HEALTH AND FOOD
SAFETY

As mentioned before, there is increasingly wide acceptance of the link between
animal welfare and food safety. However, further scientific work is needed in this
area.

The EU should encourage efforts to research and detail these links between animal
welfare and animal health and between animal welfare and the quality and
healthiness of foodstuffs - and to have them recognised.21 For the latter purpose, the
most appropriate forum would again seem to be the OIE, given the content of its
5-year work programme as alluded to earlier.

Further efforts would be necessary to understand how the developments in the
modern farming could be redirected to ensure that in the future this activity could
become more socially acceptable without being detrimental to the health of the
animals and the safety of the products.

In the mean time, all EU legislation on veterinary subjects should be drafted and
enforced in a way that integrates the dimensions of animal welfare and public health.
A Commission proposal on meat hygiene, for example, already contains provisions
on ante mortem animal welfare inspections at the slaughterhouse or on the farm,
which will also be a condition for the signing of the health certificates.

21

DG Research and Technical Development - Seminar on Farm Animal Welfare. Press: Commission supports
research into better conditions for animal breeding and better food quality
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/animal-welfare/seminars/index_en.html

13

61

62

63

64

65

22

23

24

THE LABELLING OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS

Labelling is becoming increasingly important as more and more consumers want to
know about the foodstuffs they are buying. This interest is partly met by existing
mandatory labelling (ingredients, nutritional values, “best before” dates, etc.). But
recent sociological studies show that concern among many EU consumers today
about food production methods goes beyond these criteria and extends also to animal
welfare. Indeed, a recent EU sociological study revealed that a lack of labelling on
production methods was preventing consumers from possibly shifting toward
“animal friendly” products22.

Labelling is probably the least trade-distorting means of meeting the specific demand
for products produced in accordance with acceptable animal welfare standards.
Nevertheless an immediate problem with the issue is the suspicion it arouses among
some of our WTO partners that it could be used as a disguised restriction on imports
from third countries. Conversely, the labelling of animal welfare aspects could even
facilitate the placing of products derived from extensive farming on the EU market,
since consumers tend to attach great value to this form of production. Many third
countries have a comparative advantage in this respect which could be exploited to
commercial advantage.23

The extra production costs that labelling entails is a lesser problem, as these can
usually be recouped in part by higher retail prices.

Labelling can take one of two forms: mandatory or voluntary. The latter subdivides
in turn into supervised schemes to which producers freely subscribe (e.g. organic
labelling) and labelling self-imposed by producers or traders.

MANDATORY LABELLING

To date only one EU instrument making animal welfare -related labelling
compulsory has been passed. It is a Regulation24 - effective from 1 January 2002 - on
eggs that will require specification of the rearing method applied (in replacement of
current voluntary practice). An initiative in this area was necessary as the methods by
which hens are farmed had become a major factor for EU consumers when buying
eggs. Existing labelling provisions were considered inadequate and there were
justified claims that consumers were being misled regarding the rearing methods
concerned. There were also concerns that the efforts incurred by some producers in
raising standards were being undermined by the confusion arising from the lack of
clarity in labelling requirements.

“Consumer Concerns About Animal Welfare And The Impact On Food Choice” - EU FAIR-CT36-3678 -
Dr Spencer Henson and Dr Gemma Harper -Centre for Food Economics Research -Department of Agricultural and
Food Economics - The University of Reading
The presentation of the policies on animal welfare of New Zealand could be regarded as an example how to
promote the positive image of extensive animal production,
http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-in-nz.pdf
Council Regulation (EC) 5/2001 of 19.12.2000 amending Regulation (EEC) n 1907/90 on certain marketing
standards for eggs – OJ L 2 of 5.1.2001.

14

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

25

26

27

28

The effects of the different farming systems on production costs in the EU, USA and
Switzerland were recently studied and point to the clear potential for competitive
disadvantages arising from differences in standards.25

In the case of eggs produced in non-EU countries (though only for direct
consumption), an indication of the farming method may be replaced by certain other
indications where the third-country procedures are not sufficiently equivalent to the
technical rules and standards applying in the Union. The Council Regulation
therefore says that, where necessary, the Commission is to negotiate with countries
exporting eggs to the EU so as to arrive at appropriate ways of proving compliance
with labelling standards equivalent to those in the EU.

These new rules reflect the fact that product traceability has become a high priority
for Europe’s consumers, and that
there is wide public support for compulsory
labelling.

Such mandatory labelling rules raise, however, the possibility of conflict with our
external trading partners. The Commission presented a note26 on mandatory labelling
to the December 2001 session of the WTO Agriculture Committee (an initiative
should follow up within both TBT and Agriculture Committees)
which it
highlighting that
the right of WTO Members to choose a level of consumer
information and protection as regards the characteristics and the production and
processing methods of food and agricultural products should be maintained.

On a more general level, the Union should seek to develop a comprehensive policy
on mandatory labelling and to secure international recognition of its legitimacy. This
should include ensuring that all stages of the development of labelling schemes take
place in a transparent manner, especially the definition of criteria and the operation
of such schemes. All interested parties should have the opportunity to be involved in
a meaningful way as early as possible.

The mutual recognition of other countries’ labelling schemes as well as the
recognition of animal welfare standards applied within third-countries as being
equivalent to those contained in EU law (as foreseen, e.g., for the purposes of the egg
marketing Regulation) should be treated as a priority by the Commission.

VOLUNTARY LABELLING

Voluntary labelling appears to be on the increase worldwide. As indicated earlier, it
subdivides into supervised public schemes to which producers freely subscribe and
labelling self-imposed by producers and traders27. Organic farming is probably the
most popular subject of voluntary labelling28. However, its impact on animal welfare
is in certain respects limited, since other major aims of those schemes, as the
preservation of the environment and sustainability of agriculture, could conflict with
animal welfare objectives. Worldwide, such guidelines and codes of conduct
outweigh mandatory legislation.

“Hardboiled reality – animal welfare-friendly egg production in a global market”, 2001, presented by RSPCA
(Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and Eurogroup for Animal Welfare
“Mandatory Labelling for Agricultural Products – Note by the European Communities”, Appendix 7
See for example the “Free farmed label” in the USA, www.freefarmed.org
See for example: US National Organic Program, on the Web: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/index.htm

15

73

74

75

76

77

78

The usual motive for such schemes is to exploit a market for higher-quality products
commanding higher prices. In practice voluntary labelling has a very positive effect
in raising standards to higher levels. And consumer interest
in such products
(e.g. organic produce) is increasing.

Such consumer pressure is strongest in areas where farming methods are the most
intensive and, therefore, less welfare-friendly. This is the case of pig and poultry
production, where squeezed profit margins (due to international competition) have
increases in average animal numbers per holding and in the
caused significant
proportion of large-scale holdings. This has led to several voluntary labelling
schemes being launched across the EU to reassure consumers about how animals are
farmed (including environmental concerns).

Further reflection is needed on the approach to adopt towards non-governmental
schemes, which, judging by the data received for this communication, are becoming
increasingly widely disseminated world-wide.

In the absence of international harmonisation, recognition of equivalency has the
potential to increase trade flows by labelling requirements. Accordingly, mutual
recognition of voluntary labelling schemes with non-EU countries is desirable,
possibly on the basis of criteria to be worked out by the TBT Committee of the
WTO.

Animal welfare only features in some of the existing labelling schemes relating to
production methods (e.g. the Community’s organic label). This dimension should be
further developed - again with the involvement of all interested parties at all stages.

DIRECT PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS FOR ANIMAL WELFARE - REVIEW OF THE CAP

The reform of the common agricultural policies foreseen by Agenda 2000 follows
the trend of more market oriented measures decoupling subsidies from production. In
July 2002 the Commission adopted the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the Agenda
2000, putting it into the wider context of the recent public debate about the CAP and
its future29. Europe’s citizens no longer want systems which encourage more
production of food to the exclusion of other priorities. Instead, farming is seen as
fundamental to other key societal goals such as food safety and quality, animal
welfare, environmental protection, sustainability, rural development and the upkeep
of the countryside. There is an increasing acceptance that these wider objectives must
be promoted but existing price mechanisms do not necessarily allow for the recovery
of the associated costs. This has inevitable implications for the competitiveness of
farming. Farmers contend that
they should be compensated for any loss in
competitiveness which they might suffer because of higher welfare standards.

79

The decisions taken in Doha in November 2001 fully safeguard the rights of
governments to take measures like this which they deem necessary to protect their
consumers’ interests.

29

COM(2002) 394 final

16

80

81

82

83

84

One priority for the Community is therefore to define this “multifunction” role of
agriculture and to find the right way to make it work in a sustainable fashion. As for
the implications of animal welfare for international trade, the reallocation of financial
resources in particular would help preserve the acquis and support
further
development of the level of protection. Furthermore the enforcement of “good
farming practices” as outlined in the MTR of the CAP will promote the supporting of
animal welfare encompassing mandatory standards.

Turning to future initiatives, the EU’s proposal to the WTO in June 2000 highlighted
the possibility of making direct payments to producers to offset costs incurred due to
higher welfare standards. An example for such an increase in production cost is
described in the earlier mentioned study30 on egg production. It concludes that the
higher welfare standards for laying hens recently adopted in the EU will lead to
higher costs, compared to third country trading partners.

The Commission believes that it is legitimate that compensation for additional costs
of this kind should be exempted from subsidy-reduction commitments whenever it
can be clearly shown that these extra costs stem directly from the higher standards in
question and thus have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects. This initiative
fully respects the principle agreed in Doha that the commitment to reforming the
trading system in agriculture is paired with a commitment to recognising non-trade
concerns, and as consequence the reform of farm support must
leave room for
accompanying measures that are minimally or not at all trade-distorting. Clearly, any
solutions in this area to meet the concerns for one country should not create problems
for others.

A clear difficulty is in identifying and quantifying any additional costs arising from
animal welfare legislative requirements. The extent to which such costs are recouped
through the higher prices paid by consumers needs to be taken into account. Options
other than direct compensation are available, such as investment aids to install
upgraded facilities through the structural and rural development funds. National
funding can also be provided for this purpose provided the relevant state aid
provisions are respected.

In this perspective, priority should be given to assessing the impact of animal-welfare
measures on the cost of end-products. Another aspect to be looked at is the form of
payments to farmers which will apply welfare standards beyond mandatory
requirements. Studies are under way but no reliable economic parameters are yet
available in this field. Accordingly, efforts should be made by the EU to develop
models for evaluating the additional costs of animal welfare requirements, starting
with the most intensive systems of farming such as for pigs and poultry.

85

In addition, determining the costs and form of payments to farmers would probably
clarify the EU position in the WTO negotiations.

30

See footnote 25

17

86

87

88

89

90

the proposed MTR are considerable:

in particular direct
The benefits of
compensation would increase the acceptability of higher animal-welfare standards to
producers themselves. A positive attitude among producers would lead to a faster
acceptance of animal-welfare higher standards. The inclusion of food safety and
animal health and welfare in cross-compliance and their systematic monitoring
through the farm audit framework will improve transparency and give consumers
greater confidence. Once modern production systems become more widespread, the
management practices employed will develop further. This would have positive side-
effects on all kinds of related issues, including food safety and animal health, since
hygiene conditions for example constitute a link between them. In addition the MTR
foresees that decoupling will encourage farmers to respond to market signals
generated by consumer demand rather than by quantity-related policy incentives.

The MTR proposals will help address citizens’ concerns as the one for animal
welfare. Dynamic modulation will allow a shift towards the increased provision of
public goods such as environmental services and animal welfare, as well as measures
focused on improving the competitiveness of the sector.

Furthermore, the broad application of advanced standards could lead to a stronger
defence of animal-welfare issues by the agricultural sector in the international
context.

Later on, it will be necessary to define which measures call for compensation and to
whom it would be paid. Politically sensitive decisions would be needed in this
context.

Any direct payments to producers have to be justified under the Agreement on
Agriculture within WTO. The so-called “Green Box” is the interface for addressing
internal support schemes geared to societal goals. Negotiations with our trading
partners will be necessary. The Commission has already taken a first step by
presenting a non-paper on Green Box issues at the special session of the Committee
on Agriculture in September 2001. This needs to be followed up by actively
maintaining a close relationship with all the other areas of action set out in this
communication.

18

APPENDIX 1

ANIMAL WELFARE LAW IN 30 COUNTRIES
- DATA RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION

The Commission contacted 106 third countries, 73 of which replied but only 30 with
information directly relevant to the survey. This information is organised in the table below as
follows:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Animal welfare (or animal protection) act: does the country have an “umbrella”
animal welfare (or animal protection) act (i.e. an act covering all animals - including
pets and those kept for scientific purposes - but usually not
including specific
provisions on methods of farming animals, e.g. stocking densities)?;

animals on farms: do any rules exist on the farming of animals, and, if so, do they
take the form of (binding) legislation or (voluntary) guidelines/codes of conduct?;

transportation of animals: do rules exist, and,
(voluntary) guidelines/codes of conduct?;

if so, (binding) legislation or

killing of animals: do rules exist, and, if so, (binding) legislation or (voluntary)
guidelines/codes of conduct?

Relevant information received on animal protection rules (at 1999)

COUNTRY

An animal
welfare act?

animals on
farms:

Transport of
animals:

Argentina
(1)
Australia
(2)
Botswana
(3)
Bulgaria
(4)
Canada
(5)
Cape Verde
(6)
Chile
(7)
Croatia
(8)
(9)
Cyprus
(10) Czech Republic
(11) Estonia
(12) Hong Kong
(13) Hungary
India
(14)
(15)
Japan
(16) Latvia
(17) Lithuania
(18) Malta
(19) Mexico
(20) Namibia
(21) New Zealand
(22) Norway
(23)

Philippines

yes

yes
yes
yes
yes

yes
yes

yes
yes
yes

x
●

●
●
●

x
x
x
x

x

●

x
x
x
●
●

x
x

●

●

x
●

x
●

●
●
●

x
x

●
●

x

19

Slaughter of
animals:
Х
Х
●

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
●
●

X
X

COUNTRY

An animal
welfare act?

animals on
farms:

Transport of
animals:

Slaughter of
animals:

Poland
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
Swaziland
Switzerland

(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30) U. S. A.

X

indicates legislation;

●

yes
yes
yes

yes
yes

x
●

x
●

x
●

x
x
x
●
●

x
●

indicates guidelines and codes of conduct.

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

(Where both exist, legislation takes precedence.)

20

APPENDIX 2

COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTIONS ON FARM ANIMAL PROTECTION

Founded in 1949,
15 EU Member States.

the Council of Europe has 43 member countries,

including all

Over the years it has drawn up, and continues to develop, five conventions on various aspects
of animal welfare. The following are relevant to farm animal protection:

–

–

–

The European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport
(Paris, 13/12/68);

The European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes
(Strasbourg, 10/03/76);

The European Convention for the protection of animals for slaughter (Strasbourg,
10/05/79).

these (“on animals kept

specific
The second of
recommendations for the protection of the main species of animals farmed in Europe, and the
specific aim of Directive 98/58/EC was to give effect to the principles contained in the
Convention and ensure their uniform application throughout the EU.

farming purposes”) contains

for

To date the Community has itself ratified the same Convention as well as that on “animals for
slaughter”. And during 2001 the Commission received authorisation from the Council to
negotiate a modified version of the Convention on “animals during international transport” on
behalf of the Community.

The following table indicates which of the three Conventions have been signed by other
Council of Europe members.

Non-EU Countries and the Council of Europe animal protection conventions

Non-EU member of the
Council of Europe

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Hungary
Iceland
F.Y.R.O.M.
Malta
Norway
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Switzerland
Turkey
Yugoslavia

Convention on
protection of animals
kept for farming
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X

21

Convention on
protection during
international transport

Convention on
protection of animals
for slaughter
X
X

X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X

X

X

X
X

X

APPENDIX 3

EXTERNAL TRADE IN LIVE ANIMALS & ANIMAL PRODUCTS COVERED BY
EU ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION

This Appendix contains data on trading flows with third countries for collation with the
information on legislation. It also contains data on changing farm structures within the EU.
Data concerning trade in agricultural products not derived from animals (as cereals) are
shortly presented to demonstrate the relevance of animal trade in relation to the all sector.

EC live animals trade and slaughter (year 2000) (*)

Species

EC trade live animals

Total trade (a)

Intra-community

Import

Export

EC
slaughtering (b)

Bovines

heads

3.767.369

2.965.784

501.401

300.184

26.847.000

tonnes

975.506

740.101

Pigs

heads

11.957.246

11.869.227

579.582

576.945

62.931

57.247

1.157

172.474

7.393.343

30.772

203.021.000

1.480

17.563.320

tonnes

heads

tonnes

Sheep
and
Goats

Equidae

heads

4.193.501

2.567.720

1.564.951

60.830

77.585.000

110.741

212.935

76.973

65.028

25.545

30.730

138.309

63.996

3.038

1.954.000

9.598

6.207

359.000

84.347

tonnes

95.748

TOTAL tonnes

1.761.577

1.419.564

158.815

183.199

26.995.010

Source: EUROSTAT

(*)

The table describes the amount of live animals transported over a distance of 50 km
subject to EC legislation on animal protection during transport.

22

Value of imports of live animal and animal products from Third Countries
- Average 1992/2001 in 1000 ECU -

Live animals

Meat

Dairy products
and eggs

TOTAL EXTRA EU
New Zealand
Hungary
Brazil
Argentina
Poland
USA
Switzerland
Australia
Uruguay
Thailand
Switzerland
China
Canada
Czech Rep.
U.A.Emirates
Romania
Botswana
Bulgaria
Other countries

Source: EUROSTAT

646.155
2.080
71.817
411
3.652
139.078
157.605
5.376
6.808
572
50
4.658
5.667
11.589
23.872
54.302
34.718
98
5.169
118.634

2.611.365
648.680
293.362
378.310
329.160
114.734
88.736
8.390
119.501
99.774
98.495
1.710
45.981
29.607
15.313
21
4.667
44.552
31.066
259.306

960.659
222.478
20.772
751
35.708
33.005
17.934
198.860
44.887
5.807
470
87.266
37.527
35.303
23.337
118
7.462
5
7.580
181.389

Total

4.218.180
873.238
385.951
379.473
368.519
286.816
264.275
212.626
171.196
106.153
99.014
93.634
89.175
76.499
62.522
54.441
46.847
44.654
43.815
559.329

23

Detailed value of imports of certain animal products from Third Countries - Average 1992/2001 in 1000 ECU

Bovine
fresh meat

494.624
1.788
60.884
195.584
10.019
30.715
12.434
1
34.026
4.488
27.875
1.236
30.164
24.361
33
61.017

Bovine
frozen
meat

295.338
11.327
139.415
46.917
2.468
5.119
2.800
23
36.576
5.670
16.674
203
7.805
7.030
11
13.300

TOTAL EXTRA EU
New Zealand
Brazil
Argentina
Hungary
Australia
USA
Thailand
Uruguay
Poland
Botswana
Canada
Namibia
Zimbabwe
Bulgaria
Other countries

Sources: EUROSTAT

Pork meat Sheep or
goat meat

Horse and
alike meat

Offals

Poultry
meat

salted or
dried meat

Eggs in
shell

Eggs not in
shell

TOTAL

85.539
300
24
5
55.396
10.567
10.084
0
7
1.089
0
80
0
0
144
7.844

645.473
554.035
58
3.720
3.020
50.919
122
1
11.852
155
0
5
9
0
10.845
10.732

196.614
1.063
21.405
57.562
585
7.135
52.140
5
10.689
13.575
0
26.046
0
0
0
6.410

67.194
22.361
5.095
10.487
1.090
9.434
7.697
0
5.148
858
0
1.623
0
11
14
3.376

493.716
34
104.079
1.093
194.831
15
2.137
53.580
90
65.292
0
337
0
0
19.279
52.949

102.047
2
46.908
87
371
15
210
44.775
2
86
0
10
0
0
24
9.555

26.126
0
161
0
1.577
4
9.403
83
0
86
5
8.623
278
11
26
5.869

6.325
0
53
68
138
8
2.719
105
1
18
0
327
0
0
553
2.335

2.412.996
590.909
378.081
315.524
269.496
113.930
99.746
98.574
98.390
91.318
44.553
38.489
38.257
31.413
30.929
173.387

24

Supply balance - pigmeat

1 000 t (1)

1997

1998

1999

2000

2

16 290
6.8
21.0
291
16 276
3
70
948
3 583
15 178
40.8

107.3

3
17 657
16.7
12.2
386
17 662
161
44
1 139
3 861
16 227
43.3

108.8

4
18 065
1.2
27.9
501
18 038
4
68
1 524
3 957
16 350
43.4

110.5

5
17 564
0.7
0.5
343
17 564
0
48
1 260
2 928
16 384
43.5

107.2

% TAV
2000
1999
6
-2.8
-39.6
-98.1
-31.6
-2.6
x
-28.4
-17.4
-26.0
0.2
0.2

-3.0

1
Gross internal production
Imports – live animals
Exports – live animals
Intra-EU trade
Usable production
Change in stocks
Imports
Exports
Intra-EU trade
Internal use (total)
Gross consumption in
kg/head/year
Self-sufficiency (%)

(1) Carcass weight

25

World production and gross domestic production of principal pigmeat-producing or exporting countries

1997

1998

1999

2000

1997

1998

1999

2000

%

1 000 t

1
World
- EU-15
- Peop. Rep. China
- USA
- Russia
- Poland
- Japan
- Brazil
- Canada
- Romania
- Hungary

Sources: FAO

2
100.0
19.8
45.2
9.5
1.9
2.4
1.6
1.8
1.5
0.8
0.7

3
100.0
20.1
45.5
9.8
1.7
2.3
1.5
1.9
1.6
0.7
0.6

4
100.0
20.1
45.7
9.7
1.7
2.3
1.4
1.9
1.7
0.7
0.7

5
100.0
19.3
47.4
9.4
1.4
2.1
1.4
2.0
1.7
0.7
0.7

6
82 146
16 249
37 155
7 835
1 546
1 981
1 283
1 518
1 257
667
581

7
87 647
17 636
39 899
8 623
1 505
2 026
1 286
1 652
1 390
620
569

8
89 867
18 026
41 048
8 758
1 485
2 043
1 277
1 752
1 562
610
664

9
90 909
17 564
43 058
8 532
1 250
1 900
1 270
1 804
1 525
626
664

% TAV
2000
1999
10

1.2
-2.6
4.9
-2.6
-15.8
-7.0
-0.5
3.0
-2.4
2.6
0.0

26

EU-15

Belgique/
België

Danmark

2

1 552
1 276
1 152
:

x

x

3

15
13
12
11

4

27
21
19
15

-5.2

-9.8

-4.4

-11.8

Deutsch-
land

5

294
239
205
:

x

x

1
Holding
(x 1 000)
1993
1995
1997
1999

% TAV
1999
1993

% TAV
1999
1997

6

51
23
21
:

x

440
301
285
236

-10.4

x

-9.4

Changing structure of pig farms, by Member State

Elláda

España

France

Ireland

Italia

7

8

9

3
3
2
:

x

x

10

273
280
250
252

-1.3

0.4

Luxem-
bourg

11

1
1
1
0

x

x

Nederland

12

27
22
21
16

-8.7

Öster-
reich

13

125
112
100
86

-6.2

Portugal

Suomi/
Finland

Sverige

United
Kingdom

14

150
139
130
130

15

11
7
6
5

16

12
11
8
6

17

17
13
14
12

-2.4

-13.1

-11.6

-5.8

-13.6

-7.5

0.0

-9.1

-14.4

-7.7

106
90
78
:

x

x

27

Animals
(x 1 000)
1993

1995

1997

1999

% TAV
1999
1993

% TAV
1999
1997
Average
number of
animals per
holding
1993
1995
1997
1999

121
227
117
812
121
954
:

x

x

7 165

11 568

26 486

1 144

18 188

14 291

1 487

8 348

7 268

11 084

24 674

7 313

11 383

24 250

7 706

11 626

1.2

0.1

2.6

1.1

:

x

x

916

939

:

x

x

18 126

14 531

1 542

8 063

19 556

15 473

1 717

8 281

8 414

22 418

3.5

6.8

:

x

x

:

x

x

72

68

74

84

14 964

2 822

2 665

1 381

2 777

7 869

14 398

3 706

2 402

1 394

2 305

7 335

15 189

3 680

2 365

1 444

2 351

7 939

13 567

3 433

2 350

1 493

2 115

7 010

0.1

2.6

-1.6

3.3

-2.1

1.3

-4.5

-1.9

0.8

6.3

-5.6

-3.5

-0.3

1.7

-5.3

-6.2

78.1
92.3
105.8
x

477.7
557.3
629.1
703.2

428.4
517.5
604.7
750.9

90.1
103.1
118.1
x

22.4
39.1
44.7
x

41.3
60.2
68.7
95.0

135.0
161.5
198.5
x

495.7
514.1
858.5
x

30.6
28.8
33.1
33.4

107.6
121.8
138.1
187.6

554.2
643.1
722.9
825.9

22.6
33.1
36.6
39.8

17.8
17.2
18.2
18.1

125.5
189.4
239.1
307.0

231.4
214.4
277.0
351.7

462.9
545.1
557.4
573.5

Source: European Commission, Eurostat

28

1999 world production and trade in the principal agricultural products – The EU share of the world market

World production
(1 000 t)

World trade (1)
(1 000 t)

1
Total cereals (except rice) (3)
of wich: - total wheat
Feed grain (except rice) (3)
of which – maize
Oil seeds (by weight produced)
of which – soya
Wine
Sugar
Total milk
Butter
Cheese
Milk powder
(skimmed and whole)
Total meat (except offal)
- beef and veal
of which:

- pigmeat
- poultrymeat
Eggs

2

1 468 979
586 422
882 556
605 016
329 482
157 783
28 405
134 062
481 997
7 031
16 092
5 905

228 547
56 196
88 838
65 109
53 823

3
205 035
106 337
98 698
69 451
55 651
38 771
2 670
39 249
709
782
1 234
2651

16 028
5 572
3 177
6 363
469

(1)

(2)

(3)

Exports (excluding intra-EU trade) and excluding processed products.

Net balance EU trade/world trade.

Cereals as grain; processed products excluded.

Sources: FAO

Proportion of
production traded
(%)
(3/2) x 100
4

% of world trade

Imported by EU

Exported by EU

5

6

Net EU share of
world trade (2)
(6–5)
7

14.0
18.1
11.2
11.5
16.9
24.6
9.4
29.3
0.1
11.1
7.7
44.9

7.0
9.9
3.6
9.8
0.9

3.0
3.1
2.8
3.2
34.4
35.9
24.3
4.5
6.7
16.4
13.0
3.2

7.6
7.1
2.4
5.8
1.8

13.1
15.1
11.0
0.2
3.5
0.1
41.5
13.3
20.2
20.5
31.9
32.0

20.4
16.7
41.6
15.7
27.6

10.2
12.0
8.2
-3.0
-30.9
-35.8
17.1
8.8
13.5
4.1
18.9
28.8

12.8
9.6
39.2
9.9
25.8

29

1

World
- EU-15

- USA
- Russia
- Brazil
- Argentina
- Uruguay
- Australia
- New Zealand
- Peop. Rep. China
- Canada
- Mexico
- Colombia
- Poland
- India
- Japan
- South Africa
- Switzerland
- Hungary
- Norway

1997

2
100,0
13,9

20,1
4,1
9,0
0,0
0,8
3,8
1,1
7,3
2,6
2,5
1,2
0,8
2,4
0,9
0,8
0,3
0,1
0,2

20,2
3,8
9,1
4,0
0,8
3,8
1,0
7,6
2,7
2,8
1,2
0,8
2,4
0,9
1,1
0,3
0,1
0,2

21,6
4,0
11,1
4,7
0,8
3,6
1,0
8,4
2,2
2,5
1,3
0,7
2,5
0,9
0,9
0,3
0,1
0,2

(1)

Net production.

Sources: FAO and other international organizations (GATT)

World production and production of principal beef/veal producing/exporting countries (1)

%

1998

3
100,0
13,4

1999

4
100,0
13,8

1 000 t

2000

5
100,0
12,9

1997

6
55 309
7 896

1998

7
55 078
7 657

1999

8
55 962
7 697

2000

9
57 170
7 401

% TAV
2000
1999
10
2,2
– 3,8

1,6
13,8
4,5
9,3
– 1,1
– 1,1
11,1
6,6
1,8
1,0
4,1
– 11,4
1,5
– 1,1
6,7
– 10,3
0,0
2,2

11 714
2 394
5 921
2 712
454
1 810
646
4 105
1 076
1 340
763
429
1 378
530
484
152
55
89

11 803
2 247
5 794
2 452
449
1 955
634
4 485
1 148
1 380
766
430
1 401
529
518
147
47
91

12 123
1 868
6 182
2 653
458
2 011
561
4 711
1 238
1 401
724
385
1 421
540
553
146
45
91

12 311
2 126
6 460
2 900
453
1 988
623
5 023
1 260
1 415
754
341
1 442
534
590
131
45
93

21,5
3,7
11,3
5,1
0,8
3,5
1,1
8,8
2,2
2,5
1,3
0,6
2,5
0,9
1,0
0,2
0,1
0,2

30

APPENDIX 4

THE OIE AND ANIMAL WELFARE

The World Organisation for Animal Health, or OIE (“Office International Des Epizooties”) is
an intergovernmental organisation set up under the International Agreement of 25 January
1924, which was originally signed in Paris by 28 countries. By May 2001, the OIE had a total
158 members.

It operates under the authority and supervision of an International Committee comprising
delegates designated by the contracting governments - on the egalitarian basis of one delegate
per country. The Committee at least once a year.

Several third countries indicated as main animal welfare requirements recommendations on
the protection of animals during transport from OIE (Office International Des Epizooties). It
should be noted that the OIE’s current International Animal Health Code (10th Edition - 2001)
contains a section devoted specifically to the protection of animals during transport.

The OIE Code provides guidelines and recommendations on the following aspects:
●

general principles to be observed common to all forms of transport;

●

●

special considerations according to methods of transport;

general recommendations on air transport.

31

RESOLUTION No. XIV

Animal Welfare Mandate of the OIE

(Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 29 May 2002)

CONSIDERING THAT

At the 68th General Session in May 2000 the International Committee examined and approved
the OIE Third Strategic Plan,

At the 69th General Session in May 2001 the International Committee adopted the Director-
General’s Work Programme to implement the recommendations of the Third Strategic Plan
for the period 2001–2005. The Work Programme indicated that new areas identified in the
Third Strategic Plan would be given special attention,

An OIE Ad hoc Group on Animal Welfare met from 2 to 4 April 2002 and drafted
recommendations for the consideration of the International Committee concerning the scope
of OIE involvement in the area of animal welfare, priorities for the OIE and a modus
operandi,

This Ad hoc Group noted the OIE’s 75-year history of achievement as the international
reference organisation for animal health with an established infrastructure and international
recognition. Recognising the essential link between animal health and animal welfare, the Ad
hoc Group believed that the OIE was well placed to provide international leadership on
animal welfare,

THE COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDS THAT

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

As animal welfare is a complex, multi-faceted public policy issue that includes
important scientific, ethical, economic and political dimensions, the OIE develop a
detailed vision and strategy to incorporate, balance and take account of these
dimensions.

The OIE then develop policies and guiding principles to provide a sound foundation
from which to elaborate specific recommendations and standards.

The OIE establish a Working Group on Animal Welfare to coordinate and manage
animal welfare activities in accordance with the tasks listed below, and the Working
Group advise on specific tasks to be carried out by Ad hoc Groups.

In consultation with the OIE, the Working Group develop a detailed operational plan
for the initial 12 months, addressing the priority issues identified.

The Working Group and its Ad hoc Groups consult with non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) having a broad international representation and make use of all
available expertise and resources,
the research
community, industry and other relevant stakeholders.

including those from academia,

The scope of OIE involvement
following:

in animal welfare issues be grouped into the

32

•

•

•

•

•

animals used in agriculture and aquaculture for production, breeding and/or
working purposes,

companion animals including ‘exotic’
species,

(wild-caught and ‘non-traditional’)

animals used for research, testing and/or teaching purposes,

free-living wildlife, including the issues of their slaughter and trapping,

animals used for sport, recreation and entertainment, including in circuses and
zoos,

and that, for each group, in addition to essential animal health considerations, the
topics of housing, management,
transportation and killing (including humane
slaughter, euthanasia and killing for disease control) be addressed.

The OIE give priority to animal welfare issues regarding animals used in agriculture
and aquaculture and, regarding the other groups identified, the OIE establish relative
priorities to be dealt with as resources permit.

Within the agriculture and aquaculture group, the OIE firstly address transportation,
humane slaughter, and killing for disease control, and,
later, housing and
management. The OIE also consider the animal welfare aspects as issues arise in the
areas of genetic modification and cloning, genetic selection for production and
fashion, and veterinary practices.

When addressing zoonoses, the OIE give priority to addressing the animal welfare
aspects of animal population reduction and control policies (including stray dogs and
cats).

The OIE incorporate within its communication strategy key animal welfare
stakeholders, including industry and NGOs.

The OIE incorporate animal welfare considerations within its major functions and
assume the following specific roles and functions:

•

•

•

development of standards and guidelines leading to good animal welfare
practice,

provision of expert advice on specific animal welfare issues to OIE stakeholder
groups, including Member Countries, other international organisations and
industry/consumers,

maintenance of
international databases on animal welfare information,
including different national legislations and policies, internationally recognised
animal welfare experts, and relevant examples of good animal welfare practice,

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

33

•

•

•

•

identification of the essential elements of an effective national infrastructure
for animal welfare, including legislation/legal tools and the development of a
self-assessment check list,

preparation and circulation of educational material
among OIE stakeholders,

to enhance awareness

promotion of the inclusion of animal welfare in undergraduate and post-
graduate veterinary curricula,

identification of animal welfare research needs and encouragement of
collaboration among centres of research.

_________

34

APPENDIX 5

PROTECTION OF FARM ANIMALS: MAIN EU LEGISLATION

Farming:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for
the protection of laying hens - Official Journal L 203, 03.8.1999 p. 53 – 57

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals
kept for farming purposes - Official Journal L 221, 08.8.1998 p. 23 – 27

Council Directive 97/2/EC of 20 January 1997 amending Directive 91/629/EEC
laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves - Official Journal L 025,
28.1.1997 p. 24 – 25

Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum
standards for the protection of calves - Official Journal L 340, 11.12.1991 p. 28 – 32

97/182/EC: Commission Decision of 24 February 1997 amending the Annex to
Directive 91/629/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves -
Official Journal L 076, 24.02.1997 p. 30 - 31

Council Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum
standards for the protection of pigs - Official Journal L 340, 11.12.1991 p. 33 – 38

Council Directive 88/166/EEC of 7 March 1988 complying with the judgement of
the Court of Justice in Case 131/86 (annulment of Council Directive 86/113/EEC of
25 March 1986 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens
kept in battery cages) - Official Journal L 074, 19.03.1988 p. 83 – 87

78/923/EEC: Council Decision of 19 June 1978 concerning the conclusion of the
European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes –
Official Journal L 323, 17.11.1978 p. 12 – 13

Transport:

–

–

–

Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals
during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC - Official
Journal L 340, 11.12.991 p. 17 – 27

Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 90/628/EEC
concerning the protection of animals during transport - Official Journal L 148,
30.6.995 p. 52 – 63

Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 of 25 June 1997 concerning Community
criteria for staging points and amending the route plan referred to in the Annex to
Directive 91/628/EEC - Official Journal L 174, 02.7.1997 p. 1 – 6

35

–

–

Council Regulation (EC) No 411/98 of 16 February 1998 on additional animal
protection standards applicable to road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on
journeys exceeding eight hours - Official Journal L 052, 21.2.1998 p. 8 – 11

Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific
detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the
welfare of live bovine animals during transport - Official Journal L 082, 19.3.1998
p. 19 - 22

Slaughter and killing:

–

–

Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at
the time of slaughter or killing - Official Journal L 340, 31.12.1993 p. 21 – 34

88/306/EEC: Council Decision of 16th May 1988 on the conclusion of the European
Convention for the protection of animals for slaughter – Official Journal L 137,
2.6.1988 p. 25

36

APPENDIX 6

EU SUBMISSION TO WTO ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND AGRICULTURAL
TRADE

In order to highlight the issue of animal welfare, the EU made the following submission in
June 2000 to the special session of the WTO’s Committee on Agriculture. The aim of this
paper is to ensure that the liberalisation of trade does not undermine EU efforts to improve
the protection of farm animals.

G/AG/NG/W/19

28 June 2000

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES PROPOSAL

ANIMAL WELFARE AND TRADE IN AGRICULTURE

Introduction

Animal welfare is an issue of growing importance, notably in the European Community (EC).
The European Commission is currently finalising a Report which analyses the provisions on
animal welfare in non-EC countries which supply the EC with live animals and animal
products. The information received from non-EC countries demonstrates that animal welfare
is not only an “EC concern”.

There is an increasing awareness among consumers and producers about the effects that
breeding and farming techniques may have on animals, on their health and welfare and, not
least, on the environment. More and more, consumers claim their right to make informed
choice between products, including products produced to different welfare standards. To
enable them to make such a choice they want to be informed about how farm animals are
kept, transported and slaughtered. The producers, on whom such demands are made, want a
stable and coherent basis on which to provide such information.

The EC has progressively adopted a body of legislation on the protection of animals, covering
farming, transport, slaughter and experimentation. The EC and its Member States have also
played a pro-active role in the development of international conventions for the protection of
animals (e.g. during international transport, kept for farming purposes, for slaughter, for
experimental and scientific purposes).

The objectives of the European Community:

Ensuring that trade does not undermine our efforts in improving the protection of the welfare
of animals:

37

The EC believes that there are limits to the ways in which it should produce its food. The EC
has established such limits in its legislation, in many cases based on the work of international
conventions such as the Council of Europe. Many other countries have also established
legislation in such areas. But there is a growing concern along consumers, producers, as well
as welfare organisations, that while the WTO is working to enhance the framework for the
liberalisation of international trade, which is the primary purpose of the WTO, the WTO does
not provide a framework within which to address animal welfare issues. They particularly fear
that in the absence of such a framework, animal welfare standards, notably those concerning
farm animal welfare, could be undermined if there is no way of ensuring that agricultural and
food products produced to domestic animal welfare standards are not simply replaced by
imports produced to lower standards.

Different countries have varying cultural and ethical attitudes towards animals, and husbandry
practices. The impact of high animal welfare standards on the relative competitiveness of their
agriculture may be very different.

As a consequence, when a country provides for animal welfare standards that go beyond those
applied by other trading partners, this can have a number of effects. Consumers may not be
provided with coherent information on the welfare standards to which imported products are
produced, and domestic producers may be economically disadvantaged.

This is why the EC believes that there is a genuine need to discuss animal welfare in the WTO
context. The questions are real, whether from consumers or producers, and the WTO, as the
leading international trade organisation, must be ready to address these questions. Given the
interrelationship between animal welfare measures and international trade in agriculture and
food products of animal origin, the EC considers that this issue must be addressed in the
negotiations on agriculture within the framework of Article 20, while not excluding that
animal welfare should be considered under other aspects of the WTO.

Avoiding trade protectionism:

The objective of the EC in raising animal welfare issues in the context of the WTO
negotiations is not to provide a basis for the introduction of new types of non-tariff barriers.

The European Community has been and is often strongly criticised for referring to animal
welfare. The EC is accused of hidden protectionism, and yet the EC no more applies its
domestic animal welfare rules to imports from other WTO Members than other WTO
Members. Where the EC has openly taken a different stance, is in drawing attention to the
need to address the question of animal welfare within the WTO.

The EC is the world’s second largest exporter of agriculture and food products, and the EC
has no interest in allowing WTO members to adopt unjustified non-trade barriers. Our
objective is to promote high animal welfare standards,
to provide clear information to
consumers, while at the same time maintaining the competitiveness of the EC farming sector
and food industry.

38

Some of our competitors argue that the EC is trying to have established in the WTO
provisions that could allow WTO members to refuse imports of animals and animal products
from countries which did not apply the same welfare legislation as they do. Such an approach
could end up dividing the world into different trading blocks, with exporters matching their
animal welfare legislation to that of their principal import markets, and possibly some
importers adopting high animal welfare standards for protectionist reasons. This is not what
we are aiming at, as this would not further animal welfare.

Equally, the EC does not want to turn back or neglect the need to use trade to improve world
prosperity, in particular the prosperity of the least developed countries. The EC is the world’s
biggest importer of agricultural products, from a vast range of countries, including many
developing and least developed countries. We fully recognise the role of trade in helping to
raise human living standards in developing countries. We only want to ensure that the process
of liberalising world trade supports what we are building in the EC about the protection of
animals.

In practice, our concerns with animal welfare are most acute in relation to highly-intensive
and industrialised production methods for certain species, in particular poultry and pigs. This
type of production is most often found in developed rather than developing and least
developed countries.

Several ways of addressing the issue in the WTO framework:

The issue of animal welfare is a complex issue, which is at the crossroads of economic,
ethical, animal health, public health, food production and legal issues. It is evident that the
importance attached to animal welfare varies amongst WTO members. Nevertheless, the fact
that animal welfare is an emerging trade issue has been recently acknowledged by the OECD,
and the international conventions already in place and ongoing work within the Organisation
des Epizooties confirm this.

We fully recognise the complexity of this issue, and the fact that each WTO member has the
right to choose its own animals welfare measures adapted to their own circumstances.
Nevertheless, the impact of trade liberalisation on animal welfare, in particular the welfare of
farm animals and the transport of live animals, cannot be denied. WTO members should not
hamper trade in agriculture and food products because of animal welfare. But equally, it is
important to secure the right of those WTO members that apply high animal welfare standards
to maintain them.

The existing WTO Agreements (Agreement on the application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
measures, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and Article XX of GATT, as well as
Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture) already provide a basis on which some of the
issues related to animal welfare can be discussed. However, we are of the view that animal
welfare should be globally addressed in a consistent manner within the WTO. The debate in
recent times has shown very clearly the need to establish common ground and understanding
on this important issue. That is why the EC wishes to raise animal welfare as an important
non-trade concern in the current negotiations.

39

There are a number of ways in which animal welfare could be addressed. These are not
mutually exclusive, and an outcome could be envisaged which encompasses a combination of
a number of actions. These include:
●

the development of multilateral agreements dealing with the protection of animal
welfare. This approach would be facilitated by the achievement of greater legal
clarity on the relationship between WTO rules and trade measures taken pursuant to
provisions of multilateral animal welfare agreements;

●

●

appropriate labelling, compulsory or voluntary, as provided for under Article 2.2 of
the TBT Agreement, could facilitate the wish of consumers to make an informed
choice as regards food products, whether domestically produced or imported,
including as regards the production conditions, e.g. products produced in compliance
with certain animal welfare standards;

high animal welfare standards can increase costs to producers over and above any
possible increased returns from the market. Trade liberalisation can exacerbate this
effect and lead to unequal conditions of competition, and even to drive down welfare
standards in exporting countries. This could fuel opposition to trade liberalisation
and the WTO. It may therefore be necessary to consider whether it would be
legitimate to provide for some sort of compensation to contribute to the additional
costs where it can be clearly shown that these additional costs stem directly from the
higher standards in question. For any such compensation to be acceptable, it would
have to have no or at most minimal effects on trade and production.

To conclude, the EC believes that detailed examination of the approaches set out above would
allow WTO members to develop an approach to address adequately the issue of animal
welfare within the WTO, without conflicting with the long-term objective of
trade
liberalisation in agricultural and food products. The EC’s work on animal welfare is
continuing, and the EC reserves its right
to make further submissions in the light of
developments.

__________

40

APPENDIX 7

EC SUBMISSION TO THE DECEMBER 2001 INFORMAL SESSION OF THE WTO
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

1.

2.

3.

________

MANDATORY LABELLING FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Note by the European Communities

The question of labelling of food and agricultural products whose objective is to
provide information and protection of consumers is of growing interest and
importance to many WTO members. Labelling in general has been discussed several
times mainly, but not exclusively, in the TBT Committee. As Article 1 of the TBT
Agreement specifies that agricultural products are subject to its provisions, it is
appropriate in the context of the Article 20 negotiations on agriculture to examine
developments on this issue under the TBT Agreement to see to what extent existing
rules need clarification. The fact that this paper deals only with mandatory labelling
in the context of the TBT Agreement is merely in order to focus on this type of
labelling and should not be construed as implying a policy preference for mandatory
over voluntary labelling nor that other WTO Agreements, like the SPS Agreement,
may not be applicable to labelling requirements in certain specific circumstances.

trade. At

thereby supporting market

through labelling requirements for

The aim of clarifying TBT rules as they pertain to mandatory labelling should be to
ensure that members can pursue their legitimate policy objectives, including relevant
food and
agriculture non-trade concerns,
agricultural products,
trade restrictive
least
approaches to international
the same time, clarification should avoid
creating scope for allowing mandatory labelling to be applied in a way which would
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between members or a
disguised restriction on international trade. Clarification should, therefore, be sought
in full conformity with the basic concepts and principles of existing WTO
agreements and should incorporate the relevant findings of WTO dispute settlement
bodies. Moreover, clarification should neither add to nor diminish the basic rights
and obligations of members, and should take into account, to the fullest extent
possible, the needs of developing and least developed participants.

led,

While this paper focuses on issues under TBT provisions, it is important not to lose
sight of the close links between the WTO and the discussions in other relevant
international fora in this field, such as the Codex Alimentarius. Where international
standards for labelling of food and agricultural products exist, they should provide
the basis for national labelling schemes in accordance with the provisions of the TBT
Agreement. Accordingly, the EC continues to support efforts for the development of
multilateral guidance on mandatory labelling for food and agricultural products.
Whilst such work is ongoing, it is nevertheless important to clarify the situation
regarding in particular the relationship between TBT rules and mandatory labelling
schemes.

41

4.

From the EC perspective, there are some developments since the TBT Agreement
was concluded which may be relevant to this issue:

(a)

The right of consumers to be fully and accurately informed is now more easily
for a broad range of
and widely acknowledged. Consumer demands
information relating in particular
to food and agricultural products has
substantially increased in nearly all WTO members.

(b) The Appellate Body in its report of 12 March 2001 on “EC – Asbestos”, while
considering for the first time some provisions of the TBT Agreement, in
particular the definition of ‘product characteristics’ in relation to technical
regulation, refrained from ruling on the claims based on Article 2 of the TBT
Agreement, leaving still untested the interpretation of the provisions of this
Agreement. However, the same report confirmed consumers’ tastes and habits
as a general criterion for determining the ‘likeness’ of a product. Providing
accurate and full information through labelling requirements may, therefore, be
essential
in allowing consumers to make an informed choice. Consumers
perceive this information aspect as particularly important and sensitive for food
products. Such labelling may also avoid consumer deceptive practices.
Mandatory labelling schemes will, therefore, allow WTO members to set the
level of consumer information and the level of enforcement they wish to
achieve by their laws and regulations in their territory in conformity with the
TBT Agreement.

(c)

It appears increasingly necessary to dispel a misperception in some quarters
that TBT rules could represent an obstacle to governments to address, via
information tools such as labelling requirements, fundamental societal values
or concerns relating to the way agricultural and food products are produced,
processed and marketed.

(d)

Similarly, concerns expressed in particular by some developing countries over
the potentially negative effect of mandatory labelling schemes on trade, would
also need to be addressed.

5.

It was against this background that the EC in its comprehensive negotiating proposal
called for the development of labelling schemes relating to the production and
processing of food and agricultural products in order to meet consumers’ concerns
and to ensure that these schemes are appropriately covered by the WTO.

The EC proposes the following guidelines for
labelling
requirements, which it believes to be consistent with Article 2 of the TBT
Agreement.

the introduction of

(a)

Firstly, the right of WTO Members to choose a level of consumer information
and protection as regards the characteristics and the production and processing
methods of food and agricultural products should be maintained.

(b) Depending on the level of consumer information and law enforcement chosen
by a TBT member, mandatory labelling schemes for food and agricultural
products can be the least trade restrictive alternative and they should also be
presumed not to create as such an unnecessary obstacle to international trade.

42

(c) WTO members should ensure that, at all stages, the creation of a mandatory
labelling scheme is conducted in a transparent manner,
in particular the
drafting of criteria and the operation of schemes. All interested parties should
have the opportunity to be involved in a meaningful way as early as possible.

(d) Whilst the details of a mandatory labelling scheme depend on the particular
agricultural product or category of products to which it applies, it would need
to be able to provide information to consumers on the characteristics of a
product, its process and production methods, including ways animals or plants
are reared or grown, the organic or non-organic nature of the production
process, the modified properties of agricultural products, etc.

6.

As regards the problems that labelling measures concerning food and agricultural
products may pose for developing countries, the EC believes that:

(a)

(b)

appropriate mandatory labelling schemes for food and agricultural products
could actually facilitate trade and improve market access, by reinforcing
transparency and consumers’ confidence and,
increasing the overall
commercial value of products.

thus,

aid to developing countries for the development of regulatory initiatives in the
field of labelling for food and agricultural products should be considered as an
important element of development assistance.

7.

To conclude, the EC believes that it is important for Members to reach a common
interpretation or guidance on the criteria and guidelines for the
understanding,
food and
implementation of mandatory labelling requirements in respect of
agricultural products, as described under paragraph 5 above.

__________

43

AoA

CAP

EC

EU

FAO

GATT

LEAD

MTR

NGO

OECD

OIE

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Agreement on Agriculture

Common agricultural policy

European Community

European Union

Food and Agriculture Organisation

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

"Livestock, Environment and Development"

Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy

Non-governmental organisation

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

International Office of Epizootics

SCAHAW

Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare

SPS

WTO

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards

World Trade Organisation

44