COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2012-01-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural holding, animal welfare, protection of animals, slaughter of animals, transport of animals

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.1.2012 
SEC(2012) 55 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the 
European Economic and Social Committee 

on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 

{COM(2012) 6 final} 
{SEC(2012) 56 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2. 

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

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

2.3. 

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

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

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

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

2.4. 

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

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

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

2.5. 

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

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 32 

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

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

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

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

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

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

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

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

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

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

Methodology .............................................................................................................. 37 

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

5.2.1. 

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

5.2.2. 

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

5.2.3. 

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

5.2.4. 

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

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

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

5.3. 

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

5.3.1. 

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

5.3.1. 

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

5.3.2. 

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

5.3.3. 

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

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

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

5.4. 

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

5.4.1. 

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

5.4.1. 

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

5.4.2. 

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

5.4.3. 

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

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

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

5.5. 

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

5.5.1. 

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

5.5.2. 

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

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
5.5.3. 

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

5.5.4. 

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

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

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

5.6. 

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

6. 

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

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

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

7. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EN 

4 

   EN 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5F - Option 4: Streamlining requirements for competence and using animal welfare indicators114 

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

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

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

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

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1. 

1.1. 

POLICY CONTEXT  

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties1 

Over the past 30 years the European Union has adopted a series of laws on protecting 
animals (Annex 2B). Most of this legislation concerns food-producing animals (farm 
animals) and animals used for experimental purposes. Animal welfare is not in itself 
an objective of the EU Treaties, and the first motive for legislating in this area was to 
prevent distortion of competition between activities involving animal use2. 

In 2006,  the Commission  adopted  a  Community Action  Plan on  the Protection  and 
Welfare  of  Animals  2006-2010  (the  "2006  Action  Plan")3,  setting  out  strategic 
guidelines  and  describing  future  action4.  The  2006  Action  Plan  was  the  first 
document  to  bring  together  in  a  single  text  the  various  aspects  of  EU  policy  on 
animal welfare. It is the "First Animal welfare Strategy" to which this initiative aims 
to provide the follow-up for the next five years period. 

On  5  May  2010,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution5  expressing  its 
opinion  on  the  results  of  the  2006  Action  Plan  and  on  the  prospects  for  a  new 
strategy  on  animal  welfare6.  This  impact  assessment  will  consider,  in  particular, 
options suggested by the European Parliament. 

In  December  2009,  the  Commission  asked  external  experts  to  evaluate  the  EU’s 
policy  on  animal  welfare.  The  detailed  terms  of  reference  of  this  evaluation  ("the 
evaluation")  have  been  published  on  a  website7.  The  evaluation  investigates  eleven 
questions  (see  Annex  2F).  One  of  its  objectives  was  to  indicate  possible  directions 
for the future of EU animal welfare policy. Much of the material collected during the 
evaluation has been used for the purposes of this impact assessment. 

Concerning  the  welfare  in  farmed  fish  a  more  specific  evaluation  is  foreseen 
according  to  the  EU  Aquaculture  Strategy8.  Past  experience  indicated  that  general 
welfare  provisions  which  were  made  for  terrestrial  animals  are  inadequate  for  fish. 
Moreover,  problems  and  difficulties  may  be  different  than  those  presented  in  this 
document as well as the approach to solve them. 

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

1 
2  

3  
4  
5  
6  
7   
8  

All abbreviations are explained in a glossary in Annex 1. 
EU initiatives on animal welfare are detailed in the annex of the Terms of Reference of the evaluation 
which can be consulted at www.eupaw.eu . 
COM(2006)13 final. 
See Annex 5 for a description of the areas of action identified in the 2006 Action Plan. 
P7_TA(2010)0130. 
See summary of the European Parliament's resolution in Annex 6.  
www.eupaw.eu. 
See  the  2009  Commission  Communication  "  Building  a  sustainable  future  for  aquaculture-  A  new 
impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture" 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2. 

Consultation of stakeholders 

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

The evaluation also included an eight-weeks-long public web consultation aimed at 
gathering the views of citizens and organisations that had not been consulted face-to-
face or via telephone interviews9. 

Stakeholders were also consulted on the future of the EU policy at a specific meeting 
held to discuss the outcomes of the evaluation and the policy options set out below10. 
They  were  also  consulted  within  the  framework  of  regular  consultative  committees 
such  as  the  Animal  Health  Advisory  Committee11  and  specific  agricultural 
committees.  The  stakeholders’  contributions  have  been  published12  on 
the 
Commission’s website. 

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

The  results  of  the  evaluation  and  the  policy  options  were  presented  to  the  Member 
States in a specific working group on 17 January 2011. In addition, the Commission 
presented  the  options  for  the  strategy  to  the  Council  Working  Party  of  Chief 
Veterinary  Officers13.  The  evaluation  report  was  presented  to  the  farm  ministers  at 
the Agricultural Council meeting on 17 March 2011. 

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

1.3. 

Inter-Service steering group on the impact assessment 

Commission  inter-service steering groups took  place as early as December 2008 to 
prepare  the  various  stages  of  the  evaluation  (terms  of  reference,  kick-off  meeting, 
inception  report,  progress  report,  final  report)  and  to  draw  up  the  strategy14.  The 
following directorates-general as well as EFSA15  actively contributed to the steering 
group: DG AGRI, DG ENV, DG TRADE, DG MARE, DG RTD, SG and LS. DG 
MARKT and ENTR provided occasional contributions. 

9  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  

9086 responses were collected through the web consultation between 3 June and 31 August 2010.  
All main stakeholders including fish farmers were invited to a one-day meeting on 31/1/2011. 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/animal_health_advisory_committee_en.htm. 
Only contributions from stakeholders who have agreed to have their comments published. 
Held in Brussels on 18/2/2011. 
The inter-service steering group was consulted consulted five times, at different stages of the process. 
European Food Safety Authority. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.4. 

Follow-up to the opinions of Impact Assessment Board 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
4. Improve the assessment of impacts 

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

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

Furthermore, a glossary has been added in Annex 1. 

2. 

POLICY PRINCIPLES, CONTEXT, AND PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Animal welfare: Definition and guiding principles 

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

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

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

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

1. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition, 

2. Freedom from fear and distress, 

3. Freedom from physical and thermal discomfort, 

4. Freedom from pain, injury and disease, 

5. Freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour. 

16  

17  

See  the  International  Terrestrial  Animal  Health  Code  of  the  World  Organisation  for  Animal  Health 
(OIE), Chapter 7.1. 
See Annex 2A for the full text of the definition and references. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

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

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

2.2. 

EU policy on animal welfare   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 

– 

– 

Fishing for commercial purposes (capture fisheries) 

Hunting or fishing for recreational purposes (private activity) 

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

EN 

10 

   EN 

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

The 2006 Action plan proposed five strategic actions: 

(1)  Upgrading  existing  minimum  standards  in  line  with  scientific  evidence  and 

socio-economic assessments; 

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

protection and welfare; 

(3) 

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

(4)  Ensuring that animal keepers/ handlers as well as the general public are more 

involved and informed on current standards of animal protection and welfare; 

(5)  Continue  to  support  and  initiate  further  international  initiatives  to  raise 

awareness and create a greater consensus on animal welfare. 

The  legal  framework  is  based  on  Directive  98/58/EC18  which  applies  to  all  farmed 
animals,  providing  them  with  protection  through  general  principles19.  In  addition 
there  are  four  specific  directives  on  the  keeping  of  certain  species  (calves,  pigs, 
laying hens and broilers covering in total 48 % of the EU farmed mammals and 80 % 
of the birds).  

Furthermore, there is a directive on the protection of animals at the time of killing20, 
and a regulation on animal transport21 in the context of an economic activity. 

There is also a directive covering the welfare of animals used for experimental and 
scientific  purposes22,  a  directive  on  zoos23  (the  main  purpose  of  the  directive  is 
conservation of wild species but contains animal welfare requirements), a regulation 
on trade in seal products24 and a regulation on the use of leg hold traps25.  

18  

19 

20  
21  

22  

23  
24  
25  

Council  Directive  98/58/EC  of  20  July  1998  concerning  the  protection  of  animals  kept  for  farming 
purposes.  
This  directive  transposes  in  EU  law  the  principles  of  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of 
Animals kept for Farming purposes (See Annex 2C for the specific recommendations deriving from this 
Convention). 
Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations 
and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97. 
Council Directive 86/609/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and adminstrative provisions 
of  the  Member  States  regarding  the  protection  of  animals  used  for  experimental  and  other  scientific 
purposes.  Detailed  data  is  given  in  the  impact  assessment  relating  to  this  legislation:  SEC(2008)2411 
and SEC(2008)2410.  
Directive 1992/22/EC relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos. 
Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products. 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the 
introduction  into  the  Community  of  pelts  and  manufactured  goods  of  certain  wild  animal  species 
originating in countries which do not meet international humane trapping standards. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As regards pets, there is a regulation banning the trade of cat and dog fur26, but there 
is no legislation that directly concerns the welfare of living dogs and cats. 

2.2.1. 

 Policy coherency  

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

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

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

Within  the  framework  of  the  CAP,  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development  (EAFRD)  offers  to  Member  States  possibilities  to  co-finance  animal 
welfare  measures  within  their  rural  development  programmes.  According  to  the 
evaluation, an average of 50 million euros is distributed through this fund every year 
to  compensate  farmers  for  implementing  higher  animal  welfare  standards29.  This 
mechanism  constitutes  the  most  important  source  of  financial  funding  for  animal 
welfare activities in the EU (72% of the overall EU spending on animal welfare). 

The CAP funding from the single payment scheme30 depends on the compliance by 
farmers  of  certain  statutory  management  requirements  including,  from  2007,  some 
on animal welfare. 

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

2.2.2. 

International dimension  

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

A  first  approach  has  been  to  promote  the  adoption  of  internationally  recognised 
animal  welfare  standards.  The  EU  has  been  successful  in  supporting  the  World 

26  

27  
28 
29  
30 

Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council banning the placing on the 
market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and products containing 
such fur. 
http://www.farmland-thegame.eu/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/training_strategy/index_en.htm 
See the evaluation, page 78. 
See evaluation report page 83 for more details on the  benefits of cross-compliance on animal welfare. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) with the adoption of a series of guidelines on 
animal welfare for farmed (transport and killing) and experimental animals31.   

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

2.2.3. 

Sector concerned 

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

In terms of numbers of animals, the farming sector is the largest user, with at least 
2 billion  birds  (chickens,  laying  hens,  turkeys32,  etc.)  and  334  million  mammals 
(pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, fur animals33). The EU produces around 630 000 tonnes of 
farmed fish every year34. Pets are the second largest category of animals in Europe, 
with around 120 million dogs and cats and possibly 35 million birds. There is no data 
on  the  actual  proportion  used  for  economic  purposes,  but  some  10 %  of  the  dog 
population  is  sold  each  year35.  An  estimated  12  million  animals  per  year  (mainly 
rodents) are used for experimentation in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, 
and by other public and private research bodies. No data is available regarding zoos, 
but  it  is  estimated  that  they  house  around  800 000  wild  animals.  No  reliable  data 
could  be  obtained  for  circuses  or  other  activities  such  as  animals  used  in  sports, 
shows, etc. 

In economic terms36, livestock farming in the EU is worth €
 149 billion37 every year. 
Of  this,  pigs  and  poultry  (subject  to  specific  EU  provisions)  represent  38 %  (i.e. 
 57.6 billion). Animal output value represents 41 % of the overall agricultural output 
 2 billion38. There is no EU 
 363 billion in 2008). Farmed fish in the EU are worth €
(€
data  on  the  value  of  trade  in  dogs  and  cats,  but  data  collected  in  France39  suggests 
that sales of dogs alone could be worth around €

 3 billion40. 

31 
32 
33  
34  
35  

36 

37   
38  
39  
40  

See http://www.oie.int/en/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-key-themes/ 
See evaluation report for different figures about the number of animals in Annexes A1-7 and A1-8. 
There are around 4 million horses but not all are used for economic purposes. 
Eurostat data on aquaculture production for 2007. 
A study made in France (Rapport d’information sur la filière canine No 1514 à l’Assemblée Nationale 
du 12 mars 2009) estimates that 75 % of newly-born puppies are sold outside a ‘controlled framework’. 
The report estimates that 850 000 to 900 000 dogs are born every year in France, each with an average 
commercial value of €
Details on the economic significance of the the sectors concerned are provided in the evaluation report 
under section 2.6 as well as evaluation question 6 (external trade). 
Data 2008 from the evaluation report. 
Eurostat data on aquaculture production for 2006. 
10 % of newly-born puppies are sold each year for an average price of €
 950 euros. 
 400 million for a population of 8 million dogs. An 
In France alone the trade is estimated to be worth €
extrapolation to the estimated EU dog population of 60 million would lead us to estimate the value of  
the dog trade in the EU as at least €

 3 billion. 

 950. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
€
                                                 
In  terms  of  employment,  it  is  estimated  that  some  4  million  people,  most  of  them 
farmers, handle animals in the course of their business activity41 while 16.4 million 
people work regularly on 7.3 million agricultural holdings (9 million Annual Work 
Units in 200742). Work related to animals should include around 3.7 million people. 

In  addition  to  the  farming  sector,  there  are  around  200.000  people  working  with 
animals  in  slaughterhouses43.  Aquaculture  activities  provide  around  65.000  jobs  in 
coastal  and  rural  areas.  The  number  of  persons  handling  experimental  animals  or 
animals in zoos is unknown44. 

2.3. 

Problem definition 

2.3.1.  Underlying problem 

Animal  welfare  is  still  at  risk  across  EU  Member  States.  The  evidence  for  this 
persisting  underlying  problem  stems  from  the  findings  of  the  Commission  services 
(Food and Veterinary Office45 of the Directorate General for Health and Consumers) 
as  well  as  scientific  opinions  of  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority46.  The 
Commission  also  received  data  from  the  Member  States47  as  well  as  from  animal 
welfare organisations48. 

Main areas at risk are:  

Housing and management of farmed animals 

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

41  

42  
43   

44  

45 
46 

47 

48 

This represents less than 2 % of the EU working population, estimated at around 215 million people (on 
the  basis  of  EUROSTAT  data  on  population.  The  overall  population  is  495  million,  of  which  67.1 % 
were aged 15 to 64 in 2009, and the average employment rate is 65 %). 
Agricultural statistics, main results 2008-2009, EUROSTAT pocketbooks (ISSN 1830-463X). 
Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a Council Regulation on the protection of animals at 
the time of killing SEC(2008)2425. 
Detailed  data  is  given  in  the  impact  assessment  relating  to  this  legislation:  SEC(2008)2411  and 
SEC(2008)2410. 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm  
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/ , full list of scientific opinions available on animal welfare are laid down in 
Annex 2J. 
Member States reports on the implementation of Directive 98/58/EC as well as of Regulation (EC) No 
1/2005.  In  addition  Member  States  have  provided  replies  to  questionnaires  performed  on  specific 
animal welfare issues such as the welfare of dogs and cats (performed by the Belgian Presidency) or on 
the use of the derogation from stunning animals in slaughterhouses (performed by the Commission). 
Several animal welfare organisations have provided evidence of non compliances in different fields of 
the EU legislation and notably Animals' Angels on animal transport, Compassion in World Farming on 
farmed animals or the Born Free Fondation on zoo animals. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
difficulties  to  move  in  the  trucks  that  transport  them  to  slaughter.  They  will  be 
sometimes dragged before slaughtered. 

During their one year of productive life, laying hens are often kept in cages that are 
too  small  to  allow  them  space  to  behave  normally  (battery  cages).  Scientists  have 
found that, as a normal behaviour, hens need a nest for laying eggs, a perch to rest 
and they also need to scratch the ground.  Even though these basic needs can not be 
fulfilled in small cages, these cages are in widespread49 use in the EU. In addition the 
lack  of  space  and  a  bare  environment  often  leads  hens  to  peck  at  each  other  and 
possibly  cannibalism.  For  this  reason,  parts  of  the  beak  are  routinely  removed 
without anaesthesia (beak trimming). This has been documented to be painful for the 
hens both during and after the trimming. 

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

Transport 

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

Slaughter and killing 

Killing animals is necessary in order to obtain meat. It can be performed in ways that 
limit  suffering  of  animals,  in  particular  by  making  them  unconscious  prior  to 
slaughter.  According  to  EU  legislation,  animals  shall  be  stunned  before  they  are 
slaughtered50.  However,  there  is  a  possibility  to  derogate  from  this  requirement 

49 

50  

According  to  recent  reports  from  the  Member  States  pursuant  to  Directive  1999/74  and  Commission 
Decision 2006/778/EC approximately 40% of laying hens population in the EU is kept in battery cages. 
Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
where  animals  are  subjected  to  methods  of  slaughter  required  by  certain  religious 
rites.  The Commission has received evidence that certain slaughterhouse operators 
excessively use the derogation from stunning to streamline their production process. 

Keeping of other animals  

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

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

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

2.3.1.  Animal welfare evaluation 

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

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

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

• 

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

51 

http://www.bornfree.org.uk/  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

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

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

2.3.2.  Why animal welfare is compromised in the EU 

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

Housing and management of farmed animals 

Regarding  pigs,  the  EU  legislation52  bans  certain  bad  practices.  There  is,  e.g.,  a 
requirement  to  provide  pigs  with  access  to  material  that  will  enable  them  to  root 
("manipulable  materials",  such  as  straw).  Sow  stalls  will  also  be  banned  to  all 
holdings in 2013.  

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

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

Pig  castration  is  permitted  in  the  EU  and  widely  used  by  farmers.  When  male  pigs 
reach a weight above 70-80 kg (the slaughter weight is usually around 100 kg) their 
meat will start to acquire a distinct odour and taste ("board taint"). Most consumers 
do not like the board taint. Consequently, producers have interest in maintaining the 

52  

Council Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
practice of castration. However, there are alternatives that could reduce the number 
of  animals  being  castrated  (lower  slaughter  weight,  better  detection  method  of  the 
board  taint,  breeding  and  feeding  techniques).  Thus,  lack  of  proper  research  and 
dissemination  of  results  of  research  can  largely  explain  why  the  practice  of  male 
piglet castration is still widespread. (Main driver: Lack of knowledge) 

As concerns laying hens, the EU legislation53 banning the use of battery cages will 
enter  into  force  on  1  January  2012.  For  this  ban  lack  of  enforcement  has  already 
become  a  major  issue.  An  important  problem  is  that,  as  in  the  example  concerning 
pigs,  the  use  of  modern,  more  animal  welfare  friendly  systems  of  production  often 
conflicts  with  economic  pressure  on  operators  to  reduce  costs.  The  change  from 
battery  cages  to  other  cages  involves  investment  costs  that  many  producers  are 
reluctant to make, even though the EU legislation provided for a transitional period 
of more than 12 years. (Main driver: Lack of enforcement) 

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

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

Transport 

There is legislation protecting animals during transport54. However, Member States 
do  not  take  sufficient  measures  to  enforce  the  EU  legislation  and  there  is  an 
economic pressure on operators not to comply with the rules. Requirements on space 
allowances are not respected in order to increase the number of animals in trucks, so 
that  costs  is  reduced.  Drivers  often  do  not  stop  for  watering,  feeding  and  resting 
animals  in  order  to  save  time  and  money.  There  are  few  economic  incentives  to 
comply  with  the  Regulation  as  there  are  few  official  controls  and  a  very  low 
likelihood of being fined for infringements. Also, economic losses due to immediate 
or  later  mortality  after  transport  are  usually  not  borne  by  the  transporter  or  are 
covered by insurances. Further, animals sometimes have limited individual economic 
value, especially animals at the end of their productive lives. (Main drivers: Lack of 
enforcement/Lack of economic incentives). 

53  
54  

Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations 
and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There  are  also  some  gaps  in  the  current  EU  legislation.  For  example,  there  are  no 
rules  on  space  allowance  for  pigs.  Some  parts  of  the  EU  legislation  are  not  in  line 
with up to date scientific knowledge (in particular on space and travelling times55). 

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

Slaughter and killing 

The excessive use of the derogation from stunning animals before slaughter56 is also 
mainly  driven  by  economic  interests.  Even if  some  EU  consumers  want  meat  from 
animals slaughtered without stunning for legitimate reasons related to the respect of 
the freedom of religion, some Member States have granted derogation going beyond 
the  scope  of  the  derogation  for  ritual  slaughtering.  Hence,  some  slaughterhouse 
operators  have  extended  the  practice  of  not  stunning  animals  in  order  to  simplify 
their  production  process  and  to  avoid  possible  shortage  of  meat  from  unstunned 
animals. This means that Member States not taking appropriate measures to enforce 
the legislation is also an important driver for this problem, even though it is initially 
created by the economic interests of certain slaughterhouse operators. (Main drivers: 
Lack of enforcement/Lack of economic incentives). 

Keeping of other animals  

There is a directive57 which applies to all farmed animals, providing them with legal 
protection  through  general  principles.  This  directive  should  address  animal  welfare 
problems  of  dairy  cows  and  farmed  fish.  However,  the  evaluation  has  clearly 
indicated  that  these  animals  are  not  adequately  covered  by  this  legislation.  This  is 
partly  because  the  requirements  are  too  general58.  Another  explanation  is  that,  as 
shown in previous examples, production systems focus on costs reduction and high 
productivity rather than on animal welfare. The absence of knowledge for farmers on 
animal  welfare  issues,  lack  of  research  and  dissemination  of  research  in  certain 
species (like farmed fish) also contribute to animal welfare problems. (Main drivers: 
Lack of specific guidance/Lack of economic incentives) 

The EU directive59 on zoos aims at protecting wild fauna and biodiversity. It contains 
some  animal  welfare  elements  but  no  detailed  requirements.  Many  Member  States 
seem not to make much effort to provide guidance to operators. In addition, official 
inspectors  often  have  little  experience  and  training  on  the  specific  needs  of  wild 

55 

56  
57  

58  

59  

The  current  requirements  for  space  and  travelling  times  are  based  on  a  scientific  opinion  of  1992 
despite a Commission proposal made in 2003 based on more recent data. See COM(2003)425 final. 
Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. 
Council  Directive  98/58/EC  of  20  July  1998  concerning  the  protection  of  animals  kept  for  farming 
purposes. 
The evaluation found that targeted legislation is more effective than general provisions when it comes 
to improving animal welfare. 
Directive 1992/22/EC relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
animals in captivity. Usually, zoo personnel do not seem to have a sound knowledge 
of  keeping  such  animals.  The  absence  of  EU  research  in  defining  the  particular 
animal  welfare  needs  of  wild  animals  in  captivity  has  also  been  pointed  out  as 
problematic  by  the  evaluation.  (Main  driver:  Lack  of  specific  guidance/Lack  of 
knowledge). 

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

Towards common drivers 

During  the  consultation  process,  there  was  broad  agreement  on  the  problem 
definition  as  presented  by  the  Commission60.  Farmers’  organisations  insisted  on 
including the costs and the risks of importing animals from outside the EU. Animal 
welfare organisations stressed the need to widen the scope of EU policy and to give 
the  public  and  stakeholders  more  education  and  information  on  animal  welfare 
issues. NGOs also highlighted the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform and the 
need  to  develop  animal  welfare  in  this  context.  All  parties  supported  the  need  for 
better  enforcement  and  further  scientific  research.  In  particular,  the  aquaculture 
sector  stressed  the  need  for  more  research  an  investigation  in  order  to  clarify  each 
fish species needs based on scientific results. 

1. Lack of enforcement  

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

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

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

For this reason, important parts of EU legislation have not had the intended effects 
on the welfare of animals61. Difficulties in compliance is sometimes related to a very 
prescriptive approach of the EU legislation making requirements difficult to apply in 
all circumstances even if the welfare of animals is not necessarily compromised.  

60  

61  

The Commission presented the main findings of the evaluation, in which the following problems related 
to  the  EU  policy  on  animal  welfare  were  identified:  insufficient  enforcement,  competitiveness  of 
farmers, lack of communication to consumers and stakeholders, need for more research and extending 
the EU scope for animal welfare policies. 
For examples of lack of enforcement, see the evaluation report p. 36 to 40. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

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

2. Consumers' lack of appropriate information on animal welfare  

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

Problem:   

EU-wide Eurobarometer survey shows that animal welfare is a worry for 64 % of the 
population. On the other hand, animal-welfare-friendly products usually have a low 
share  of  the  market62.  There  is  a  clear  gap  between  consumer  views  and  market 
shares  in  this  regard63.  This  gap  may  be  interpreted  in  different  ways  that  are  not 
necessarily exclusive64. Studies show that concern for animal welfare is only one of 
the  factors  affecting  the  consumer’s  choice  of  a  product.  They  may  rely  on 
authorities  or  particular  brand  names,  assuming  that  high  animal  welfare  standards 
are part of the product’s attributes65. Low availability of products, higher prices and 
limited information on specific attributes may also explain the gap66. 

Except in the case of eggs (obligatory67), organic products (voluntary regulation not 
specifically aimed at animal welfare issues but with animal welfare attributes68)) and 
poultry meat (voluntary production method labelling), there are no specific EU rules 
on  how  to  inform  the  consumer  about  animal  welfare.  Moreover,  there  are  few 
voluntary  certification  schemes  focusing  on  animal  welfare69  70  and  their  market 
share  is  relatively  limited  in  most  EU  Member  States.  The  Commission  adopted  a 
communication  on  animal  welfare  labelling  in  2009  but  debates  in  the  Council  did 
not  point  out  a  single  direction  for  future  EU  policy,  most  Member  States  being 
opposed to establishing a new compulsory labelling system as it exists for eggs(see 
Annex 2H). 

62   

63  

64  

65  

66  

67  

68  

69  
70  

See the Feasibility study on animal welfare labelling and establishing a Community Reference Centre 
(available  at: 
for  Animal  Protection  and  Welfare  Part  1:  Animal  Welfare  Labelling 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/aw_labelling_report_part1.pdf, page 8). 
PDO/PGI schemes often emphasise more traditional and less intensive production methods. They focus 
on non-welfare aspects but have positive side-effects on animal welfare (PDO = Protected Designation 
of Origin and PGI = Protected Geographical Indication). 
See for example ‘Are labels the answer? Barriers to buying higher animal welfare products. A report for 
Defra’ (September 2010).  . 
M.  Miele,  2010,  Expert  report  Task  1.3,  European  Animal  Welfare  Platform  Report  concerning 
consumer perceptions and attitudes toward farm animal welfare. 
On consumers’ concerns vs citizens’ concerns and free-riding behaviour see also: Societal concerns — 
Domestic  policy  choice  and  international  competitiveness  —  Report  2011/2  —  Anna  Andersson  — 
Agrifood economics centre (www.agrifood.se). 
Each table egg marketed in the EU to be marked with a code identifying the farming method as defined 
in the legislation (0 for organic, 1 for barn, 2 for free range and 3 for cage system). 
OJ L189/1 20.7.2007 - Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production  
and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 
On those schemes and animal welfare labelling see COM(2009)584final. 
However,  some  labelling  schemes  targeting  animal  welfare  are  operated  in  the  private  sector, 
particularly in those parts of the EU where this is an important issue for consumers (e.g. Neuland in DE; 
Freedom Food in UK). 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Source: the evaluation report. 

3. Low level of knowledge of stakeholders/business operators 

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

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

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

The  way  animals  perceive  pain,  suffering  or  comfort  can  be  objectively  measured 
through  scientific  investigation.  But  because  the  subject  also  encompasses  ethical 
dimensions  it  is  controversial.  It  is  therefore  important  that  measures  be  based  on 
scientific data. Since its creation, EFSA71 has played an important role in assessing 
risks to animal welfare.  While EFSA does not in itself carry out scientific research 
into  animal  welfare,  it  has  provided  important  reviews  of  the  current  scientific 
knowledge in this field (Annex 2J). 

The evaluation revealed that 80 % of EU funding for research on animal welfare72 is 
spent on experimental animals (of which there are 12 million), while only 20% goes 
to  farmed  animals  including  farmed  fish  and  poultry,  of  which  there  are  several 
billion.  The  evaluation  also  stressed  that  research  funding  is  also  needed  for  wild 
animals kept in captivity. At present, hardly any EU funding is used for that purpose 
and relatively little research is carried out in this field. 

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

Source: the evaluation report, EFSA reports. 

4. Inconsistency for different animal species  

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

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

71  
72  

EN 

The European Food Safety Authority: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/panels/ahaw.htm. 
The  total  average  annual  budget  for  EU  research  on  animal  welfare  is  around  €
million from 2000-2008 with €

 108 million for experimental animals, €

 135 
 24 million for farm animals and 

 15  million  —  €

 3 million for aquaculture (from the evaluation report, p. 41). 

22 

   EN 

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

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

2.4. 

Baseline scenario 

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

2.4.1.  Baseline by specific areas 

Housing and management of farmed animals 

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

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

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

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

Transport 

The transport of unfit animals is likely to remain a real problem except may be for 
adult cattle where private initiative has been taken. Lack of space, water and feed and 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
lack  of  rest  during  very  long  journey  may  be  addressed  by  further  actions  on 
enforcement through navigation systems. 

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

Slaughter and killing 

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

Keeping of other animals 

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.4.2.  Baseline deriving from common drivers 

1. Addressing the lack of enforcement 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
Several mechanisms are used to improve enforcement. 

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

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

As  the  EU  legislation  has  often  implied  new  investments  or  practices,  transitional 
periods  have  been  set  up  when  important  changes  were  requested.  Directives 
requesting  major  changes  were  accompanied  with  long  transitional  periods73 
allowing  progressive  adaptation.  If  the  conversion  to  the  grouping  of  calves  went 
relatively well, the conversion of systems for laying hens or sows seem to be more 
problematic. In the laying hen sector, part of the industry seems to have neglected the 
opportunity of a long period of adjustment in the hope of changes for less stringent 
measures.  Therefore,  if  long  transitional  measures  seem  to  be  necessary  for  certain 
sectors  to  adapt,  it  does  not  seem  always  sufficient  to  work  in  isolation  and  other 
measures seem necessary. 

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

As regards the legislation on farmed animals, Member States are regularly monitored 
by  Commission'  experts  of  the  Food  and  Veterinary  Office  from  the  Directorate 
General Health and Consumers (FVO). Inspections are carried out for all specific EU 
legislation  applicable  to  farm  animals  and  their  reports  are  made  public  on  the 
internet74.  There  is  no  such  mechanism  for  the  EU  legislation  on  zoo  animals.  The 
legislation  on  experimental  animals  foresees  the  possibility  should  there  be  due 
reason for concern. 

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

73 

74 

Grouping of calves: 8 years, ban of battery cages for laying hens: 13 years, grouping of sows: 10 years, 
new requirements for slaughterhouses: 10 years 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm 

EN 

25 

   EN 

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

With  or  without  FVO  inspection,  in  case  of  failure  of  Member  States  to  ensure 
enforcement  of  EU  legislation,  the  Commission  may  initiate  legal  proceedings 
against  the  Member  State  concerned.  In  practice  legal  proceedings  are  a  heavy 
procedure to be carried out taking time and resources. The evaluation report pointed 
out  that  a  legal  proceeding  against  one  Member  State  has  been  going  on  for  more 
than  nine  years  without  sanctions  imposed  against  this  Member  State75  despite  the 
fact that the judgment is favourable to the Commission. 

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

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

The  Commission  has  occasionally  organised  specific  workshops  on  enforcement 
issues with stakeholders or/and competent authorities. Working groups of competent 
authorities have been used in particular in relation to the transport of animals or on 

75 

Case can be consulted in curia.europa.eu (Case C-416/07). 

EN 

26 

   EN 

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the producer' side 

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

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

Animal welfare payments are not compulsory76 and are therefore not widely used by 
the  Member  States.  Other  measures  under  this  fund  can  be  used  to  improve  the 

76 

Under  the  rural  development  regulation  there  is  no  obligation  for  the  Member  States  to  include 
measures on animal welfare in their rural development plan like for agri-environmental measures. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

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

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

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

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

On the consumer' side 

Except in the case of eggs (obligatory77), organic products (voluntary EU regulation 
not  specifically  aimed  at  animal  welfare  issues)  and  poultry  meat  (voluntary 
production  method  labelling),  there  are  no  specific  EU  rules  on  how  to  inform  the 
consumer  about  animal  welfare.  Moreover,  there  are  few  voluntary  certification 
schemes  focusing  on  animal  welfare78  79  and  their  market  shares  are  relatively 
limited  in  most  EU  Member  States.  The  Commission  adopted  a  communication  on 
animal welfare labelling in 2009 but debates in the Council did not point out a single 

77  

78  
79  

Each  table  egg  marketed  in  the  EU  hto  be  marked  with  a  code  identifying  the  farming  method  as 
defined in the legislation (0 for organic, 1 for barn, 2 for free range and 3 for cage system). 
On those schemes and animal welfare labelling see COM(2009)584final. 
However,  some  labelling  schemes  targeting  animal  welfare  are  operated  in  the  private  sector, 
particularly in those parts of the EU where this is an important issue for consumers (e.g. Neuland in DE; 
Freedom Food in UK).  
See also DG Agri inventory (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/certification/inventory/global-view-
policy-area_en.pdf) 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
direction,  most  Member  States  being  opposed  to  establishing  a  new  compulsory 
labelling system as it exists for eggs. 

The  current  EU  policy  provides  some  instruments  to  compensate  producers  from 
higher  production  costs.  Transitional  periods  have  not  been  proved  to  be  very 
successful80.  There  is  little  evidence  that  the  rural  development  fund  is  able  to 
address the main animal welfare problems because the measures on animal welfare 
are  not  compulsory  and  requirements  for  funding  are  not  very  specific  (no 
benchmark).  

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

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

3. Addressing the lack of knowledge of business operators 

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

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

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

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

The  EU  has  funded  a  number  of  research  projects  through  the  different  framework 
research programmes. The evaluation estimated that the EU spends an average of 15 
million  euros  on  research  animal  welfare  projects.  However  most  of  them  are 

80 

See the ongoing compliance problems with laying hens and the grouping of sows. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
dedicated to the finding of alternative methods of testing (80%) while most animals 
are  farmed.  The  evaluation  has  also  pointed  out  the  difficulty  in  dissemination  and 
coordination  of  research  findings  within  the  Member  States.  As  regards  farm 
animals,  the  Welfare  Quality  Project  has  been  successful  in  developing  a  new 
approach  for  assessing  and  measuring  animal  welfare  on  farm  through  outcome 
based animal welfare indicators. 

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

The baseline is therefore expected to be positive but limited in scope. A number of 
training requirements are still in a process of being implemented81 and would need to 
be assessed in their effects. The current level of EU funding for research is likely to 
positively contribute to better knowledge on animal welfare but would have limited 
impacts  if  not  accompanied  by  more  efforts  in  dissemination  and  translation  into 
practical tools. 

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

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

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

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

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

81 

new regulation on killing, new broiler directive, new directive on experimental animals 

EN 

30 

   EN 

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

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

2.5. 

Subsidiarity test 

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

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

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

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

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

Fourthly, harmonisation at EU level of rules on the welfare of animals requires the 
EU to be in a position to judge on the most appropriate standards for animal welfare. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

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

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General objectives of the strategy 

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

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

concerns; 

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

market.  

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

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

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

– 

– 

– 

– 

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

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

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

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

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

4. 

IDENTIFYING THE OPTIONS 

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

Two options were not considered in this report: 

EN 

32 

   EN 

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

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

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

4.1. 

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

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

Option 1 will include the following initiatives: 

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

•  Strengthen inter-governmental cooperation to promote better enforcement; 

•  Organise workshops with stakeholders on specific animal welfare issues; 

•  Develop  EU  guidelines  for  species  covered  by  the  European  Convention  for  the 

Protection of Animals kept for farming purposes; 

EN 

33 

   EN 

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

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

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

4.2. 

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

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

Option 2 will include the following initiatives: 

– 

– 

– 

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

Communication campaigns for informing consumers; 

Prioritizing of EU actions on animal welfare at international level. 

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

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

4.3. 

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

In this scenario, the Commission will present a legal proposal to establish a network 
of  reference  centres  on  the  basis  of  a  model  that  exist  in  the  field  of  animal  health 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
and  food  safety  (network  of  reference  laboratories  as  laid  down  in  Regulation 
882/2004 on feed and food control).  

The idea of a network of reference centre has been extensively presented in a specific 
Commission  communication82  in  2009,  accompanied  with  an  corresponding  impact 
assessment report. 

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

Reference  centres  could  be  organised  by  animal  welfare  topics  in  line  with  the 
current  EU  legislation  making  a  need  of  about  nine  specific  centres83.  Each  centre 
will have the following roles: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Coordinate  at  EU  level  and  carry  out  research  on  EU  relevant  themes  in 
collaboration  when  appropriate  with  existing  EU  funded  research  structures 
like  the  SCAR  (Standing  Committee  on  Agricultural  Research)  collaborative 
working  group  on  animal  health  and  welfare  research84  and  the  the  Animal 
Health and Welfare ERA-Net (ANIHWA)85 ; 

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

Disseminate research findings and technical innovations to EU stakeholders; 

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

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

The  Commission  adopted  a  specific  communication86  on  the  establishment  of  a 
European Network of Reference Centres in 2009 based on an external study. 

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

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

82 

83 

84  
85  
86 

COM(2009) 584 final and background materials (IA report and preliminary study) can be consulted at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/docs/options_animal_welfare_labelling_report_en.pdf  
Welfare of calves,  pigs, laying hens, broilers, other farmed animals, animal transport, animal slaughter, 
experimental animals and zoo animals. 
http://www.scar-cwg-ahw.org/ 
http://www.scar-cwg-ahw.org/?page_id=146 
COM(2009)584final. See also: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/labelling_en.htm  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.4. 

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

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

– 

– 

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

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

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

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

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

4.5. 

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

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

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

In Option 4+, the studies will aim at: 

– 

– 

– 

Quantifying the scale of the welfare problems in the EU; 

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

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

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
5. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

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

5.1.  Methodology 

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

The present impacts are always compared to the baseline scenario. 

5.2. 

Impacts of Option 1- Strengthening Member States' compliance  

5.2.1. 

Impacts on objective 1- improve enforcement 

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

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

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

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
established  overnight.  They  are  also  more  difficult  to  verify  and  often  based  on 
sufficient knowledge and experience. 

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

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

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

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

Workshops  with  stakeholders  have  been  used  in  the  pig  sector  to  address  recurrent 
problems arising from the routine use of tail docking and the absence of manipulable 
material. It seems to provide positive results for a similar development has begun on 
of animal87 transport issues and is welcomed by all stakeholders.  

Apart  from  EU  legislation,  a  similar  approach88  has  been  developed  to  end  pig 
castration  by  2018  and  a  declaration  to  this  effect  has  been  endorsed  by  the  main 
stakeholders at EU level. This project is closely followed by the Commission which 
would  like  to  provide  accompanying  measures  to  finance  a  number  of  necessary 
technical  studies.  Funding  is  therefore  a  contributing  factor  in  facilitating 
stakeholders to work on changes of current practices. 

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

87  

88  

The UECBV (livestock traders’ association), Eurogroup for Animals and the FVE are working on an 
EU  guidelines  for  the  fitness  of  animals  to  be  transported.  In  parallel,  in  2010  the  Commission 
organised meetings with the Member States to better enforce the EU legislation on animal transport. 
On the declaration to stop pig castration: 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/initiatives_en.htm. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2.2. 

Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition 

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

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

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

5.2.3. 

Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge 

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

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

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

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

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

The  production  of  guidelines  of  interpretation  could  also  contribute  to  improve  the 
level  of  understanding  of  animal  welfare  among  stakeholders  despite  the  possible 
controversy concerning the legal value of such documents. They may be translated in 
many languages and published on the internet, providing much larger audiences than 
workshops.  But  they  are  not  necessarily  increasing  the  level  of  involvement  of 
operators  in  daily  operators  since  guidelines  are  more  perceived  as  a  top  down 
approach. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
The overall impact of Option 1 to improve the level of knowledge of stakeholders is 
expected to be slightly positive (+). 

5.2.4. 

Impacts on objective 4- to improve coherence across animal species 

Option 1 will not have an impact for clarifying the need of further EU initiatives for 
certain categories of animals not covered by specific EU rules. 

The  development  of  EU  guidelines  for  each  recommendation  of  the  Council  of 
Europe  Convention  may  partially  address  some  animal  welfare  problems  identified 
(like dairy cows, beef cattle, farmed fish, etc.). However, the level of acceptance of 
such  guidelines  by  some  Member  States  or/and  stakeholders  may  be  low.  The 
previous debates on the revision/adoption of certain recommendations by the Council 
of  Europe  (revision  of  the  cattle  recommendation,  preparation  of  the  rabbit 
recommendation,  and  adoption  of  the  fish  specific  technical  annexes)  indicate  that 
there  are  still  a  number  of  very  divergent  views  on  how  those  recommendations 
could  be  interpreted.  The  Commission  has  little  legitimacy  in  interpreting  such 
recommendations  and  it  remains  uncertain  if  enforcement  action  in  this  field  could 
lead to address the identified problems. 

Furthermore there are a number of animal welfare problems that are not covered by 
this convention (welfare of rabbits, dogs and cats). 

The overall impact of Option 1 on objective 4 is expected to be neutral (0). 

5.2.5.  Other possible impacts 

Option  1  would  require  additional  resources  and  possibly  affect  the  EU  budget. 
According to the evaluation report, there are today nine full time equivalent of DG 
SANCO  for  performing  missions  within  the  Member  States.  There  is  no  staff 
dedicated  to  the  drafting  of  implementation  guidelines  as  interpretation  is  mainly 
provided  through  replies  to  individual  requests.  Stakeholders'  workshops  and 
Member States working groups are organised on an ad hoc basis with an average of 
ten per year with the present resources. 

If guidelines would be developed for each EU specific piece of legislation (at least 8 
directives  or  regulations).  As  human  resources  are  unlikely  to  be  extended,  those 
costs could be externalised through external consultants (at least for the drafting of 
guidelines). If the work would be externalise this would require the amount limited 
to a period of 4 years making a need for an additional annual costs of +300.000 euros 
(2 guidelines a year with an external costs of 150.000 euros each). 

Further  training  activities  of  Better  Training  for  Safer  Food  would  also  require 
additional costs. Today's costs of BTSF training is around 2000 euros per participant 
(travel  and  accommodation  expenses  included)  with  185  officials  per  year.  These 
costs will be reduced by the development of e-learning tool but an additional cost of 
100.000  euros  per  year  seems  realistic  to  extend  the  activities  to  a  larger  scope  of 
persons. 

In the overall, Option 1 could be properly implemented with an additional budget of 
400.000 euros. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
The  impact  on  the  EU  budget  is  therefore  expected  to  be  slightly  negative  (-)  or 
neutral (0) if the necessary resources are reallocated from other activities. 

In  no  case  the  option  will  have  negative  impact  on  fundamental  rights  and  more 
specifically on the freedom of religion as it is guaranteed in the relevant legislation 
on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. 

5.2.6.  Opinions of stakeholders on Option 1 

Option  1  is  unanimously  supported  by  all  stakeholders  (Member  States,  European 
Parliament,  industries  and  animal  welfare  organisations).  They  all  consider  better 
enforcement as a priority. 

5.3. 

Impacts of Option 2 – Benchmarking voluntary schemes  

5.3.1. 

Impacts on objective 1-improve enforcement 

Option 2 is a set of measures which aims at encouraging operators who want to go 
beyond EU rules and not at forcing non compliant operators to abide with the rules. 
Therefore, it cannot be expected to have significant effect in improving enforcement 
in the short term.  

However, the increased economic value possibly developed by this  approach could 
move  a  subsequent  part  of  operators  from  a  basic  level  of  compliance  to  a  higher 
level of animal welfare standards. This evolution from basic requirements to higher 
standards has been well described by the research project Econwelfare. The project 
has  analysed  8  different  Member  States  with  different  level  of  animal  welfare 
concern  (from  low  Spain/Poland  to  very  high  Sweden/UK)  and  approaches  (from 
regulatory in Sweden, market in the UK/NL or mixed in Germany). It appears that 
when  the  level  of  concern  increases,  the  market  is  more  likely  to  improve  animal 
welfare standards. The regulatory approach is essential to ban the most unacceptable 
practices  but  not  necessarily  the  best  tool  to  attract  producers  towards  better 
standards. 

Experience  in  the  "Red  Tractor"  certification  scheme  in  the  UK89  indicates  that 
compliance  is  improved  through  private  schemes  and  can  lead  the  authorities  to 
decrease their official checks for members of such schemes. 

Another example is the promotion of the ‘Good egg award90’ presented by an animal 
welfare organisation to major companies which have anticipated the ban on battery 
cages. It shows that a initiative that aims at publicising pro-active policy on animal 
welfare also contribute to enforcement.  

Communication  campaigns  toward  consumers  part  of  Option  2  are  also  likely  to 
decrease the interest of non compliant behaviour among business operators. 

89 
90  

http://www.myredtractor.co.uk/splash/ 
See: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/good_egg_awards/english/about_us/default.aspx. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Therefore,  the  overall  impact  of  Option  2  to  improve  enforcement  is  therefore 
expected to be slightly positive (+). 

5.3.1. 

Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition 

Option  2  will  create  further  market  opportunities  for  EU  business  operators  by 
improving  the  visibility  of  certification  schemes  containing  animal  welfare  claims. 
Because of its voluntary nature, Option 2 will not negatively affect the margin of EU 
business operators. On the opposite the establishment of an EU wide benchmarking 
system for EU registered schemes will increase the opportunity for EU producers to 
obtain  better  prices  for  improved  efforts  on  animal  welfare.  At  the  same  time,  EU 
retailers  or  food  processors  looking  for  suppliers  with  specific  animal  welfare 
standards will be more efficient in using the EU benchmark. 

Option 2 will not jeopardize existing schemes but provide them with better visibility 
and increase the transparency on the nature and the level of the different claims. The 
framework provided by Option 2 could be used by quality schemes which focus on 
several dimensions of a product and not exclusively on animal welfare. 

Option 2 will allow the existence of different level of positioning on animal welfare 
from  very  high  to  basic  standards,  making  it  possible  for  producers  to  make 
progressive improvements depending on the business opportunities. 

Option 2 is mainly designed as a business to business instrument but could be also 
used by certification schemes owners to directly communicate to consumers. There is 
no unanimous agreement on how consumers should be better informed about animal 
welfare, but Option 2 will offer producers a tool they can use to develop their own 
schemes. It is therefore likely that this would give consumers better information on 
animal  welfare,  whatever  the  means  of  communication  chosen  by  the  different 
business operators91. 

Option  2  also  includes  communication  campaigns  towards  consumers  on  the  EU 
benchmark system to allow them to easily check if their favourite brands or schemes 
are fitting with their expectations on animal welfare. 

The  EU  benchmarking  system  could  be  further  associated  with  possible  public 
advantages if they demonstrate certain quality in improving compliance (decreasing 
the  number  of  official  checks)  or  their  validity  in  going  beyond  certain  standards 
(rural development animal welfare measure for example). 

The framework created by Option 2 could also be later used in a context of further 
initiatives  on  Corporate  Social  Responsibility92  or  Public  procurement 
EU 
initiatives93. 

91  

92 

See Feasibility study on animal welfare labelling and establishing a Community Reference Centre for 
Animal Protection and Welfare. 26.012009 by FCEC.  
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/labelling_en.htm. 
See Annex 6B on examples of CSR and animal welfare. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Option  2  also  includes  a  priority  on  international  activities  on  animal  welfare.  The 
development  of  bilateral  and  multilateral  cooperation  on  animal  welfare  will  also 
contribute to facilitate negotiations on the establishment of equivalent standards for 
products  imported  from  third  countries.  Already  several  international  guidelines  on 
animal welfare have been adopted by the World Organisation for Animal Health and 
the  Commission  is  actively  working  in  ensuring  a  proper  understanding  and 
implementation  of  such  guidelines  through  bilateral  trade  agreements,  cooperation 
forums or cooperation with FAO on capacity building. 

Improved animal welfare standards do not seem to constitute a disadvantage for EU 
producers exporting to third countries. New Zealand and Australia, countries which 
both  apply  similar  animal  welfare  standards  to  the  EU,  are  very  competitive 
exporters  of  live  animals,  milk  and  meat.  This  seems  to  indicate  that  high  welfare 
standards are compatible with high competitiveness on the world market. In addition, 
the promotion of EU standards internationally has raised awareness and will continue 
to do so among international stakeholders. This awareness has been demonstrated in 
non-EU countries by their adoption of further national94 standards. Such awareness-
raising seems relatively easy to achieve, since most of the meat imported into the EU 
today  comes  from  just  a  few  countries.  Brazil  and  Thailand  provide  90 %  of  the 
poultry meat imports, Brazil and Argentina 60 % of the beef and New Zealand 85 % 
of the sheep meat95). 

Further  international  activities  would  also  help  improve  the  welfare  of  animals  in 
non-EU  countries.  Although  this  is  difficult  to  monitor,  it  is  clear  that  non-EU 
countries’ participation in training activities and in scientific cooperation with the EU 
both indirectly increase the welfare of animals. The Conference on Global Trade and 
Farm Animal Welfare in 200996 attracted participants and speakers from all over the 
world  (Thailand,  Brazil,  USA,  New  Zealand,  and  South  Africa)  and  from  different 
backgrounds (not only NGOs but also businesses like Mc Donald’s, the Thai Broiler 
Processing  Exporters  Association  and  international  organisations  such  as  the  OIE, 
FAO  and  World  Bank).  The  organisation  of  such  events  helps  raise  awareness  of 
animal welfare. 

Therefore, the overall impact of Option 2 is therefore expected to be very positive to 
provide for open and fair competition for EU business operators (+++). 

5.3.2. 

Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge 

Option  2  is  likely  to  improve  the  sense  of  responsibility  of  business  operators 
towards animal welfare. By creating a tool for promoting certification schemes with 
animal welfare claims, more business operators are likely to integrate this dimension 

93  

94  
95  

96  

In the environmental area the European Commission has co-funded a research project to scientifically 
assess  the potential  environmental  benefits of green public  procurement.  The  results  of  this  study  are 
uplifting, see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/buying_green_handbook_en.pdf.   . 
The State of California banned battery cages and sow stalls in 2008. 
Figures have been calculated on the basis of 2008 data set out in Table 3.5 of the evaluation report (in 
tonnes). 
http://www.animalwelfareandtrade.com/programme.php. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
as part of their business objectives and consequently develop internal procedures for 
monitoring and improving animal welfare in their process of production. 

However Option 2 in itself is unlikely to create more knowledge among the business 
operators. The publication of EU registered schemes and of a precise benchmark will 
stimulate competition and possibly contribute to knowledge sharing among operators 
but will not necessarily provide the technical tools needed for such development. As 
EU  registration  is  likely  to  provide  some  competitive  advantages,  certification 
schemes  owners  are  unlikely  to  provide  many  details  to  facilitate  development  for 
other business operators. 

Therefore  the  overall  impact  of  Option  2  to  improve  knowledge  is  expected  to  be 
slightly positive (+). 

5.3.3. 

Impacts on objective 4- to improve coherence across animal species 

As option 2 is open to any certification scheme containing animal welfare claims, we 
could  reasonably  predict  that  it  could  used  by  sectors  presently  not  covered  by 
specific EU rules like cattle farmers, fish farmers, etc. 

The fur farming industry is presently working on developing a system for assessing 
the welfare of fur animals97 that could lead to EU registered scheme. 

Option  2  therefore  possesses  the  potential  for  addressing  certain  animal  welfare 
problems not covered by the EU legislation through private initiatives. However, as 
for the impacts for improving enforcement, Option 2 is unlikely to address the worst 
practices.  The  Econwelfare  project  indeed  confirms  that  the  regulatory  approach 
remains the best instrument to address the most unacceptable practices. 

Therefore,  the  overall  impact  of  Option  2  on  addressing  the  welfare  problems  for 
categories of animals not covered by EU rules is expected to be slightly positive (+). 

5.3.4.  Other possible impacts 

In  terms  of  EU  budget,  Option  2  has  three  components  with  different  costs 
implications: 

– 

– 

Enacting  legislation  on  voluntary  benchmarking  has  no  costs  implication  for 
the  EU  budget  as  such,  except  if  it  is  envisaged  to  co-finance  directly  or 
indirectly  the  establishment  of  a  benchmark.  Funds  granted  to  a  network  of 
reference centres could include such obligation (see Option 3); 

Promoting an EU benchmark to consumers would have more significant costs 
implication.  Based  on  communication  budget  used  for  consumers  in  the 
agriculture sector (see Annex 4B for references on promotion budget), it would 
be  appropriate  to  dedicate  an  average  of  450.000  per  year98  (possibly  in  the 

97 
98 

http://www.efba.eu/welfur/ 
EU contributed to 249 million euros for 183 promotion programmes (but total costs of the programmes 
are 505 million euros, also co-financed by Member States and sectors concerned) in the period 2006-

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
framework  of  Regulation  3/2008  on  information  provisions  and  promotion 
measures for agricultural products); 

– 

Increasing  international  activities  would  costs  an  additional  100.000  euros 
(doubling the present budget) 

Therefore  the  impact  of  Option  2  on  the  EU  budget  is  expected  to  be  slightly 
negative (-) with an overall costs which could vary from 100.000 to 550.000 euros. 

Option  2  is  also  likely  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  good  governance  since  it  will 
allow  all  stakeholders  to  take  part  in  the  decision  of  assessing  and  approving  EU 
benchmarking  system  and  the  EU  registration  of  certification  schemes  containing 
animal  welfare  claims.  The  expected  impact  of  Option  2  on  good  governance  is 
expected to be slightly positive (+). 

Option  2  should  not  serve  as  an  instrument  aimed  at  better  enforcing  existing  EU 
legislation.  This  would  risk  misleading  consumers  while  the  enforcement  of 
legislation  remains  a  task  for  administrations.  Even  if  there  was  a  clear  distinction 
between official standards and private schemes which aim to ensure certain product 
qualities, official measures that should not direct or indirectly take a role in  ranking 
or  regulating  criteria  related  to  private  schemes,  and  their  relevance  in  relation  of 
animal  welfare  development  objectives.  This  would  only  risk  limiting  the  dynamic 
element  of  private  initiative  in  this  field  and  could  stand  in  the  way  of  further 
developments.  This  would  also  seem  the  most  efficient  way  for  allowing  private 
initiative to identify those elements or qualities to which consumers best respond. At 
the same time, it is recognized that consumers and producers need to have access to 
reliable  information.  The  EU  best  practice  guidelines  for  voluntary  certification 
schemes  for  agricultural  products  and  foodstuffs99  offer  a  valuable  tool  for  this 
purpose. In addition, transparency about what different schemes is important to allow 
well-informed consumer decisions. Existing initiatives to generate information about 
available schemes should be used before adding new tools which in themselves risk 
reducing transparency.  

In  no  case  the  option  will  have  negative  impact  on  fundamental  rights  and  more 
specifically on the freedom of religion as it is guaranteed in the relevant legislation 
on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. 

5.3.5.  Opinion of stakeholders on Option 2 

Among some organisations of animal welfare there is a conviction that it is necessary 
to extend the model of compulsory animal welfare labelling existing for eggs to other 
farming  sectors,  with  reference  to  production  methods.  However  this  compulsory 
approach is not supported by most Member States and organisations of farmers, food 
processors  and  food  retailers.  Existing  animal  welfare  schemes  are  also  opposed  to 

99 

2010 or an average of 1.36 million per programme. The programme lasts in the average 3 years making 
an annual average of 450.000 euros. 
Commission  Communication  —  EU  best  practice  guidelines  for  voluntary  certification  schemes  for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs  (2010/C 341/04) 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
the establishment of an EU logo on animal welfare as it may jeopardize their efforts 
in developing their own logo or trade marks. 

As  Option  2  is  voluntary,  it  has  been  positively  received  by  most  stakeholders 
including some animal welfare organisations. 

5.4. 

Impacts of Option 3: Establishing of a European network of reference centres 

5.4.1. 

Impacts on objective 1-improve enforcement 

Option  3  will  not  have  direct  effect  to  improve  enforcement.  However,  the 
establishment of a network of reference centre on animal welfare is likely to provide 
positive indirect effects on enforcement. As we have seen in the problem definition, 
part  of  enforcement  problems  are  related  to  the  lack  of  knowledge  of  business 
operators  on  the  welfare  requirements  of  animals  and  on  the  possible  alternative 
solutions.  Better  understanding  of  the  scientific  underlying  principles  of  the  EU 
legislation is essential to make rules implemented.  

Option  3  will  provide  the  necessary  network  to  properly  assess  and  list  the 
educational  resources  available  on  particular  animal  welfare  issues.  By  this  way, 
Option 3 will facilitate the access of education to officials and business operators. 

Option 3 will also contribute to better enforcement in providing technical assistance 
to  competent  authorities  and  business  operators.  Practical  methods  of  inspection 
could be developed by reference centres as well as providing operators with concrete 
solution to comply with some legal requirements. 

This is the approach taken by the World Organisation for Animal Health, which has 
set  up  three  collaborative  centres  for  animal  welfare  world  wide100  to  promote  the 
implementation of their international guidelines by their members.  

In the fields of food safety and animal health, the EU co-finances reference centres 
for harmonising laboratory testing methods, and they also play an important role in 
providing  advice  and  information  at  national  level.  In  this  way  they  contribute 
indirectly to a better enforcement of EU rules. 

However  as  Option  3  does  not  create  any  obligation  for  operators,  it  is  unlikely  to 
reach all producers and in particular the ones that might need the most assistance. In 
addition  assistance  and  training  do  not  address  problems  related  to  economic 
interests (like overcrowding). 

Therefore,  the  impact  of  Option  3  on  improved  enforcement  is  expected  to  be 
slightly positive (+). 

100  

On  OIE 
centres  general  mandate 
expertise/collaborating-centres/mandate-and-internal-rules/. 

collaborative 

see  http://www.oie.int/en/our-scientific-

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.4.1. 

Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition 

As  Option  3  will  establish  stable  resources  for  research  and  innovation  on  animal 
welfare,  it  is  also  likely  to  provide  positive  input  to  the  competitiveness  of  EU 
producers. 

Option  3  will  also  provide  technical  assistance  for  business  operators  to  possibly 
develop certification schemes, hence increasing their competitiveness. 

However  Option  3  will  not  raise  awareness  among  consumers  nor  improve  their 
knowledge in more animal welfare friendly practices. 

The Welfare Quality project101 has helped develop outcome-based welfare indicators 
that open the way for a wider and more flexible method of assessing the welfare of 
animals on farms. Research can provide innovative ways of improving the welfare of 
animals while  providing  economic benefits.  For example, a new  electrical stunning 
method  developed  for  poultry102  also  appears  to  be  very  efficient  and  reliable  for 
stunning other animals, and it produces fewer meat defects than the current method. 
Furthermore, the method is cost-efficient, both in terms of investment and operating 
costs.  

More EU research would put the EU in a better position to defend its standards in the 
international  arena.  The  EU  ban  on  battery  cages,  supported  by  the  EU  research 
project  LAYWEL103,  probably  contributed  to  the  debate  in  California,  where  a 
similar ban was adopted in 2008. EFSA opinions have also been used regularly for 
international  standards  purposes  and  have  helped  bring  about  changes  in  non-EU 
countries.  The  OIE  adopted  an  entire  article  on  CGUs  (container  gas  units)  in  its 
terrestrial animal health code104 based on UK research. 

EU research projects focusing on animal welfare have also included academics from 
non-EU  countries,  building  common  understanding  and  methodology  on  animal 
welfare  world  wide.  For  example  the  Welfare  Quality  project  included  academics 
from Mexico, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil. 

Therefore  the  impact  of  Option  3  for  provide  for  open  and  fair  competition  is 
expected to be slightly to fairly positive (+ to ++) depending on the level of funding 
available for supporting research in this area. 

5.4.2. 

Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge 

The main components of Option 3 aim at sharing knowledge on animal welfare. The 
experience existing in other fields like food safety indicates that the appointment of 
reference  centres  improve  the  visibility  of  scientists  and  help  operators  to  find  the 
proper information that they need for improving their practices. 

101  
102  
103  
104  

www.welfarequality.net. 
Funded by the Dutch authorities. No published document. 
http://www.laywel.eu/. 
See http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_titre_1.7.htm. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  positive  impacts  of  Option  3  will  be  reinforced  by  the  fact  that  one  of  the 
explicit  mandate  of  reference  centres  will  be  to  evaluate  and  register  educational 
resources at EU level. 

The  specific  study  carried  out  the  development  of  European  Network  of  Reference 
Centres  in  2009  shows  that  there  are  already  a  number  of  national  bodies  dealing 
with animal welfare.  

However these bodies do not have an EU coordinating role or a mandate to provide 
information,  advice  or  education  to  stakeholders.  They  usually  advise  only  on 
national  policy  and  their  advice  is  for  officials  rather  than  stakeholders.  Option  3 
would make it possible to set up such a network and to provide practical tools to help 
stakeholders implement legislation and develop efficient ways of improving animal 
welfare. 

Option 3 also foresees increasing efforts for funding research on animal welfare. EU 
research  projects  contribute  to  raising  awareness  among  stakeholders  on  animal 
welfare. They create a debate on the issues to be addressed and the possible ways to 
tackle  them. For  example,  the PIGCAS project105, associated with Q-Porkchains106, 
and  the  pilot  project  ALCASDE107  have  helped  establish  a  voluntary  EU-wide 
partnership to stop the castration of piglets without anaesthesia by 2018. 

The Welfare Quality Project (FP6) has created interest among many stakeholders and 
has opened the way for new initiatives (e.g. WELFUR108 for fur animals) to extend 
or continue the work even without EU funding (see EAWP109). 

Therefore, the overall impact of Option 3 on the knowledge of business operators is 
expected to be fairly positive (++). 

5.4.3. 

Impacts on objective 4- to improve coherence across animal species 

If  Option  3  is  strictly  limited  to  the  scope  of  the  current  specific  EU  requirements, 
Option  will  have  no  impact  in  addressing  the  welfare  problems  of  animals  not 
covered by EU rules. 

If  Option  3  is  extended  to  the  scope  of  the  Council  of  Europe  convention  on  the 
protection  of  animals  kept  for  farming  purposes  (see  Annex  2C),  it  could  have  a 
positive impact in addressing certain problems. However this impact is expected to 
be limited for two reasons: 

– 

– 

There are species with no specific recommendations (rabbits, dogs and cats); 

Reference  centres  will  only  work  as  available  resources  for  interested 
operators, leaving the worst situations unchanged. 

105  
106  
107  
108  
109  

See: http://w3.rennes.inra.fr/pigcas/. 
http://www.q-porkchains.org/. 
See: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/alcasde_study_04122009_en.pdf. 
See: http://www.efba.eu/welfur/. 
See: http://www.animalwelfareplatform.eu/about.asp. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Therefore,  the  impact  of  Option  3  to  address  the  welfare  problems  of  certain 
categories of animals is expected to be neutral (0) to slightly positive (+) 

5.4.4.  Other possible impacts 

Option 3 would have an effect on the EU budget since it would require a certain level 
of co-financing for setting up the network of reference centres. 

A previous impact assessment110 provides different cost estimates ranging from €
 600 
000 to €
 6 million per year (depending on the different functions considered). By way 
of  comparison,  the  existing  network  of  reference  laboratories  for  animal  health111 
 4 million per year (16 laboratories co-financed at an average of 
costs the EU around €
 250 000 per laboratory and per year).  On the basis of 9 reference centres on animal 
welfare, Option 3 will cost 9 x 250.000 € = 2.250.000 €.

Therefore  the  impact  of  Option  3  on  the  EU  budget  is  expected  to  be  slightly 
negative (-). 

In  no  case  the  option  will  have  negative  impact  on  fundamental  rights  and  more 
specifically on the freedom of religion as it is guaranteed in the relevant legislation 
on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. 

5.4.5.  Opinion of stakeholders 

There  is  a  general  support  of  Option  3  from  all  stakeholders.  The  European 
Parliament  in  its  resolution  explicitly  refer  to  the  establishment  of  a  European 
Network  of  reference  centres  for  animal  welfare  and  the  Member  States  were 
globally  supportive  when  the  Commission  communication  on  the  issue  was 
presented in 2009. Additional funding for research is also supported. 

However stakeholders and the Member States were against the creation of a new EU 
specific body as they consider that it would be more cost efficient to networking the 
current research resources than establishing a new central body. 

Stakeholders were concerned by the risk of duplication with the role of the European 
Food Safety Authority which provides risk assessment on animal welfare. 

Some stakeholders and Member States also insisted on the need for such a network 
to be limited to advisory and supportive roles and not invested with an administrative 
power. 

This is why Option 3 has been designed to address those concerns. 

110  
111  

p. 61 of the IA report SEC (2009) 1432. 
Commission  Decision  2010/735/EU  on  financial  aid  from  the  Union  for  the  year  2011  for  certain 
European  Union  reference  laboratories  in  the  field  of  animal  health  and  live  animals  (OJ  L  316, 
2.12.2010, p. 17). 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
€
 
                                                 
5.5. 

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

5.5.1. 

Impacts on objective 1-improve enforcement 

One of the reasons for poor enforcement is often due to the limited understanding by 
some  operators  of  the  welfare  needs  of  the  animals.  Creating  the  obligation  for  a 
certain level of competence on animals for animal handlers is therefore expected to 
contribute  to better  enforcement in  the field where today there are no requirements 
(farming of calves and poultry). 

Such  measures  however  take  time  to  be  implemented  because  they  entail 
developing/reinforcing  a  complex  network  of  training  courses.  In  the  long  run, 
because the measure will be compulsory, it will reach a wide range of operators and 
will have positive effects in changing attitude towards animals. Compared to Option 
3 (which will improve the knowledge structure by establishing a permanent scientific 
network  on  animal  welfare),  Option  4  has  the  advantage  of  covering  the  whole 
population  concerned  while  Option  3  is  unlikely  to  change  the  attitude  and 
knowledge of the persons who do not actively look for improvement. 

In  addition  the  introduction  of  the  use  of  animal  welfare  indicators  for  reaching 
compliance will allow certain flexibility in the implementation of certain provisions 
and  hence  facilitate  enforcement.  The  extent  to  which  animal  welfare  indicators 
could be used in this context can not be detailed here as the system developed by the 
Welfare Quality research project still needs to be adapted in a commercial context. 

Due  to  the  large  scope  of  the  measure,  the  impact  of  Option  4  for  improving 
enforcement is expected to be fairly positive (++). 

5.5.2. 

Impacts on objective 2- provide for open and fair competition 

The provisions of Option 4 on market opportunities have two possible effects. 

On  one  hand,  requirements  for  competence  will  imply  additional  training  costs. 
Those additional costs will only concern farmers of laying hens and calves since the 
EU legislation on other activities already provides for compulsory training on animal 
welfare112. 

Based on existing EU data, the average costs for training could be between €
 200 and 
 300  per  person113.  Taking  into  account  the  number  of  production  sites  for  laying 
hens  and  calves  (around  1.4  million),  the  overall  costs  for  training  would  be  1.4 
 350 million. In the past, the impact of competence requirements 
million x €
has  been  mitigated  by  progressive  implementation114.  If  Option  4  included  a 

 250 = €

112 

113  

114  

Directive on pig, directive on broilers, regulation on transport, new regulation on killing and directive 
on experimental animals. 
A study has recently found that the average cost for training personnel transporting animals was around 
 480  per  person.  In  a  previous  impact  assessment  (SEC(2008)2424)  the  average  cost  for  training 

personnel in slaughterhouses was estimated at €
A three-years transitional period was used for Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on animal transport and for 
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. 

 200 per person. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
€
                                                 
€
 117  million 
transitional  period  of  three  years,  this  would  imply  an  annual  cost  of  €
for the first three years. These estimates need to be put into the perspective of what 
the evaluation report said on compliance costs. The evaluation estimated compliance 
costs  for  the  farming  sector  at  €
 2.8  billion,  or  1.9 %  of  the  value  of  EU  livestock 
output. If training requirements under Option 4 cost around €
 117 million a year, this 
would  increase  production  costs  by  less  than  2 %115  over  the  first  three  years. 
Moreover, this estimated cost increase must be set against the long-term benefits. 

It is expected that requirements for staff competence and monitoring procedures will 
also have positive long-term effects on competitiveness. Highly competitive sectors 
usually  benefit  from  additional  competence.  They  are  able  to  improve  their  quality 
management  and  other  aspects  of  their  work116.  The  impacts  of  competence  and 
monitoring  requirements  on  animal  welfare  have  been  assessed  in  a  study  on 
slaughterhouses117.  In  slaughterhouses,  staff  training  can  benefit  businesses  by 
reducing  injuries  and  stress,  and  this  in  turn  may  improve  the  quality  of  the  firm’s 
products (meat and leather). It confirms that training and monitoring generate costs 
but  also  can  bring  benefits  due  to  the  improved  overall  quality  of  the  work 
performed. 

In addition, Option 4 will introduce the possibility of using animal welfare indicators 
for  compliance  and  provide  a  more  flexible  legal  framework  which  may  decrease 
other compliance costs. Option 4 suggests shifting from a prescriptive approach to a 
more  flexible  system  of  legislation,  focusing  on  the  outcomes  for  the  animals. 
Animal  keepers  could  thus  focus  on  the  most  efficient  welfare-friendly  measures 
while optimising their operational costs. 

However  some  stakeholders  are  sceptical  on  the  possible  benefits  of  introducing 
animal  welfare  based  indicators.  They  fear  that  it  may  increase  the  administrative 
burden  on  businesses.  A  comparative  approach  could  be  considered  here  with  the 
introduction of the requirement for using the HACCP118 method for food businesses 
in the EU legislation on food safety. The 2009 evaluation of the hygiene package119 
showed that small businesses, and in particular farmers, need simplified procedures 
possibly  designed  via  codes  of  good  practice.  Such  an  approach  has  been  fairly 
successfully  used  for  food  safety  and  should  be  kept  in  mind  as  a  possible  way 
forward in the field of animal welfare.  

115  

116  

117  

118 

119  

 2.4 billion and for 

 117 divided by 6900 million). 

The evaluation calculated that the production costs for calves in 2008 were around €
laying hens around €
 4.5 billion. (The increase in costs would be €
For example, a study indicates that changes in stockpersons’ behavior that reduce cows’ fear of humans 
can  offer  the  industry  opportunities  to  improve  the  productivity  of  cows:  ‘The  effects  of  cognitive 
behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity 
of commercial dairy cows’, P. H. Hemsworth et. al. 
Study on the stunning/killing practices in slaughterhouses and their economic, social and environmental 
consequences (see: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/slaughter/report_parti_en.pdf). 
HACCP stands for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point. It is a method for systematically analyse the 
risk  for  food  safety  in  a  particular  production  process  and  to  identify  the  steps  of  production  to  be 
monitor  to ensure a consistent and reliable quality. 
Report  on  the  experience  gained  from  the  application  of  the  hygiene  Regulations  (EC)  No  852/2004, 
(EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 
2004 COM(2009)403 final. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Therefore  the  impact  of  Option  4  to  provide  for  open  and  fair  competition  is 
expected to be slightly negative (-) to neutral (0) depending on the potential benefits 
brought  by  additional  training  and  the  introduction  of  animal  based  indicators  in 
compensating training costs. 

5.5.3. 

Impacts on objective 3- improve knowledge 

Creating requirements for competence will probably increase knowledge of operators 
as this is the main objective of Option 4. As the measure is compulsory it will have a 
much more powerful effect than Option 3 (which will only reach persons who want 
to be trained). 

In  addition,  experience  shows  that  personnel  who  have  been  properly  trained  in 
understanding animals act more responsibly towards them. Better knowledge brings 
a sense of autonomy and responsibility that prescriptive measures do not succeed to 
establish. 

Furthermore,  Option  4  will  introduce  the  possibility  of  using  animal  welfare  based 
indicators to reach compliance. This is likely to increase the sense of responsibility 
of operators as they will be in a position to find the proper balance in the context of 
their  operations.  The  concept  of  introducing  monitoring  procedure  has  been 
introduced in two recent pieces of EU legislation (Directive 2007/43 on broilers and 
Regulation  1099/2009  on  killing)  but  it  is  too  early  to  know  to  what  extent  this 
approach  will  be  able  to  offset  market  pressure  for  low  standards.  Experience  of  a 
similar  approach  in  the  food  safety  area  (by  the  introduction  of  the  obligation  to 
apply  HACCP  rather  than  specific  requirements)  by  the  Food  Law  and  subsequent 
legislation (so-called "hygiene package" adopted in 2004) has been considered to be 
globally positive by all stakeholders. Rather than focusing on particular details, this 
approach  focuses  on  requiring  business  operators  to  establish  a  clear  system  for 
managing food safety in their establishment. 

The  overall  impact  of  Option  4  is  therefore  expected  to  be  very  positive  (+++)  at 
improving the knowledge of business operators on animal welfare. 

5.5.4. 

Impacts on objective 4- to improve coherence across animal species 

Since  Option  4  will  be  limited  to  the  current  scope  of  specific  EU  legislation,  its 
impact on addressing welfare problems of animals not covered by EU legislation is 
expected to be neutral (0). 

5.5.5.  Other possible impacts 

In  relation  to  employment,  the  extension  of  educational  requirements  to  other 
farmers  is  expected  to  have  positive  impacts  on  improving  qualification  and  job 
satisfaction. 

Although  there  are  no  specific  studies  performed  on  this  aspect,  business  operators 
who  have  implemented  educational  measures  for  animal  welfare  declared  that  they 
have  observed  positive  results  for  their  employees.  Workers  have  a  better  sense  of 
purpose and satisfaction if they can respect animals and know them better. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Significantly, on 17 March 2011 the Council underlined in the CAP ‘the importance 
of rural infrastructure and knowledge transfer through inter alia vocational training 
and advisory services’120.  

5.5.6.  Opinion of stakeholders 

Stakeholders  (both  industries  and  NGOs)  unanimously  consider  that  educating 
workers has very positive and long-lasting effects on the welfare of animals121. This 
is why some stakeholders have been actively involved in training activities122. 

Despite additional costs, the industry is very supportive of training requirements for 
different reasons. First, training costs are usually lower than costs related to housing 
requirements  and  easier  to  introduce  progressively.  Minimum  spending  on  training 
employees  is  in  any  case  compulsory  in  many  Member  States  due  to  social 
legislation and sometimes subject to grants or tax reductions. Secondly, training is a 
measure that does not affect the design of the production process. 

The opinion of stakeholders on the use of animal welfare indicators is more open to 
debate than training requirements.  

Animal  welfare  organisations  feel  that  animal  welfare  indicators  can  not  be  a 
substitute for bad production  designs  (like battery cages,  individual  stalls for  sows, 
full slatted floor for many species, etc.). Improving the management of a process in 
using  animal  welfare  indicators  is  considered  to  be  useful  only  if  it  provides  better 
results than the current system. Some organisations are also worried about the risk of 
less legal security due to the vagueness of the requirements (see below opinion of the 
Member States). 

Farmers and other industry representatives are usually supportive of the introduction 
of  outcome-based  animal  welfare  indicators  in  the  legislation.  This  is  likely  to 
provide them with flexibility in pursuit of compliance. However, farmers are worried 
by  the  risk  of  higher  administrative  burden  relating  to  the  need  to  keep  records  on 
procedures  and  monitoring  activities.  Farmers  also  consider  that  the  protocols 
developed  on  an  experimental  basis  by  the  Welfare  Quality  Project  are  too  time 
consuming and should be simplified. 

Member States usually support the use of outcome-based animal welfare indicators. 
However, some of them like some NGOs, fear that the use of indicators is much open 
to divergent interpretation and will make the work of inspectors more difficult. They 

120  
121  

122  

World 

16348/10 — COM(2010) 672 final. 
For example, SCAN AB, the biggest meat processing company in Sweden, has introduced training on 
animal  welfare  issues  for  employees  involved  in  activities  related  to  slaughter.  According  to 
unpublished internal data, this training led to a 5 % increase in pig welfare from 2000 to 2001. 
Animals, 
E.g. 
www.wspa.org.uk/wspaswork/education/Default.aspx, Compassion in World Farming, cf.  
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/resources/education/default.aspx,  Protection  mondiale  des  animaux  de  ferme, 
cf.  http://www.animaux-de-ferme.com/,  extensive  education  programmes  in  England  and  Wales,  cf. 
http://www.rspca.org.uk/education, and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences’ ‘Ethology and 
Animal  Welfare  Programme’,  cf.  http://www.slu.se/en/faculties/vh/departments/department-of-animal-
environment-and-health/education/the-ethology-and-animal-welfare-programme/.    . 

Protection 

Society 

the 

for 

cf. 

of 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
consider  that  non-compliance  will  be  more  difficult  to  demonstrate  than  a 
prescriptive approach. 

In  no  case  the  option  will  have  negative  impact  on  fundamental  rights  and  more 
specifically on the freedom of religion as it is guaranteed in the relevant legislation 
on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. 

5.6. 

Option 4+: Investigating the possibility of extending of the scope of Option 4 

As Option 4+ is limited to the performance of particular studies, it is not expected to 
have a direct impact on the objectives to be pursued except Objective 4 to address the 
welfare problems encountered by some particular group of animals. 

Impacts on Objectives 1, 2 and 3 are therefore not considered here while the impact 
of  Objective  4  is  expected  to  be  slightly  to  fairly  positive  (+/++)  depending  on  the 
possible follow-up actions that the studies will recommend.  

In  no  case  the  option  will  have  negative  impact  on  fundamental  rights  and  more 
specifically on the freedom of religion as it is guaranteed in the relevant legislation 
on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

Tables below are compared with the impacts of the baseline scenario. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
Table  1  —  Summary  of  the  expected  impacts  of  the  options  compared  to  the 
baseline 

1: EU non legislative 
actions 

2: Sector self-
regulation 

3: Specific EU 
legislation 

Strengthening 
Member States' 
compliance 

Benchmarking 
voluntary schemes 

Establishing a 
European network of 
reference centres 

4:  Framework Law 

Streamlining 
requirements for 
competence and using 
animal welfare 
indicators 

Options 

Impacts 

Objective 1: 
Improve 
enforcement 

Objective 2: Provide 
for open and fair 
competition 

Objective 3: 
Improve knowledge 

Objective 4: to 
improve coherence 
across animal 
species 

EU budget 

Good governance 

Employment 

Impacts on specific objectives 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0/+  

+++ 

+/++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

0/+ 

- 

Other impacts 

-/0 

- 

+400.000 euros 

+100 to 550.000 euros  

+2.250.000 euros or 
more 

0 

0 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

Stakeholders opinions 

++ 

-/0 

compliance costs 

+117 million euros 
over the first three 
years 

+++ 

0  

++ if Option 4+ 

0 

0 

+  

(Job quality) 

Reservation on 
animal welfare 
indicators 

Reservation on 
animal welfare 
indicators 

Industries concerned 

In favour 

In favour 

In favour 

Animal welfare 
organisations 

In favour 

In favour 

In favour 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 2 – Main benefits and costs of each option 

1: EU non 
legislative actions 

2: Sector self-
regulation 

3: Specific EU 
legislation 

4:  Framework 
Law 

Streamlining 
requirements for 
competence and 
using animal 
welfare indicators 

•  Reach 

all 

operators 
(compulsory) 

•  Provide 

flexibility 
for 
compliance  and 
open 
to 
innovation 

Strengthening 
Member States' 
compliance 

Benchmarking 
voluntary schemes 

Establishing a 
European network 
of reference 
centres 

•  No  need 

for 

legal acts 

• 

Improve 
coordination 
and  cooperation 
between 
Member States 

•  Create  market 
opportunities 
for 
operators 

compliant 

•  Applicable  to  a 
wide  scope  of 
species 

•  Better 

involvement  of 
stakeholders 

Benefits 

•  Provide practical 
tools 
for 
compliance  and 
improve 
accessibility  of 
knowledge 
(locally based) 

•  Improve 

coordination  of 
and 
research 
education 
between 
Member States 

of 
based 

•  Improve 
visibility 
science 
solutions 

•  Possibly 

applicable  to  a 
wide  range  of 
species 

•  Limited 
scope 
power 

in 

its 
and 

•  Additional 
resources 
needed 
effective 

to  be 

Costs 

•  Not 

very 
in 

efficient 
addressing 
management 
related 
problems 

•  Do  not  reach 
non  compliant 
operators 
(voluntary) 

•  Costs 

promote 
system 

to 
the 

•  Need a legal act 
quick 

(no 
effect) 

•  Costs 

for  co-
funding centres. 

•  Costs 

operators 
training 

for 
in 

•  Need  a  legal  act 
(no quick effect) 

Potentially 

administratively 
burdensome 

Need a legal act (no 
quick effect) 

•  No 

market 

incentives 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Comparing the options in terms of effectiveness 

Effectiveness is the extent to which the options achieve the objectives. 

In  comparing  the  options,  all  achieve  positive  but  complementary  results  as  they 
have each been designed to address a specific objective. 

Table 2: Comparison of Options  

Objectives 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence with EU objectives 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

0 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

+/- 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Considering Objective 1 (improve enforcement), all options have a positive impacts 
but the most successful are Options 1 and 4. Option 4 is more likely to have a better 
enforcement effect because it directly affects business operators. It will certainly take 
much longer to have an effect but the impacts will be much deeper and long lasting. 
Option  1  will  be  addressed  mainly  to  the  competent  authorities  and  will  be  more 
dependant  on  the  willingness/  and  the  resources  of  the  Member  States  to  translate 
enforcement into practice.  

On  Objective  1,  Options  2  and  3  will  be  less  effective  as  they  do  not  create  any 
obligation. However, Option 3 is expected to work better on enforcement as it will 
provide practical assistance to the competent authorities and stakeholders. 

The overall ranking for Objective 1 is expected to be Option 4, Option 1, Option 3 
and Option 2. 

Considering Objective 2 (provide for open and fair competition), Only Options 2 and 
3 are expected to have a positive effect. Option 1 is neutral and Option 4 is likely to 
have increased compliance costs, hence negative effects on competitiveness. Option 
4 may have also positive effects on competitiveness through more qualified staff and 
reduce  some  negative  costs  but  we  assume  that  costs  will  remain  significant.  If 
Option  2  appears  to  be  the  most  effective  tools  to  provide  for  open  and  fair 
competition, Option 3 can work in a complementary way as a European network of 
reference  centres  could  be  an  appropriate  technical  instrument  for  preparing  EU 
benchmarks.  This  network,  if  combined  with  increased  funding  for  research,  could 
stimulate innovation and therefore also boost the competitiveness of EU producers in 
this field. 

The overall ranking for Objective 2 is expected to be Option 2, Option 3, Option 1 
and Option 4. 

Considering Objective 3 (improve knowledge), all options have a positive effect in 
improving  knowledge.  Option  4,  by  introducing  compulsory  requirement  on 
competence  and  introducing  the  possibility  of  using  animal  welfare  indicators  for 
compliance, is the most efficient to reach this objective. It addresses knowledge but 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
also  increases  the  sense  of  responsibility  of  operators.  It  covers  all  operators 
concerned  (it  is  compulsory).  Option  3  contributes  to  better  direct  knowledge  as  it 
includes research and dissemination of research to stakeholders.  Option 1, provides 
knowledge  to  a  certain  extent  (mainly  to  the  competent  authorities  but  possibly  to 
operators through guidelines) but no greater sense of responsibility. Option 2 creates 
a  higher  sense  of  responsibility  due  to  the  voluntary  nature  of  the  measure  but  not 
much knowledge to operators who would need the most. 

The overall ranking for Objective 3 is expected to be Option 4 – 3 - 1 and 2. 

Considering Objective 4 (to improve coherence across animal species), none of the 
options  is  expected  to  address  the  issue  significantly.  Only  Option  4+  (consider 
extending  the  scope  of  Option  4)  could  contribute  to  achieve  Objective  4  directly. 
However other options could have positive effects in addressing welfare problems of 
certain  species.  Option  2  will  allow  business  operators  to  develop  market 
opportunities  for  species  not  covered  by  EU  rules.  Option  1  will  provide  EU 
guidelines for the implementation of the recommendations of the Council of Europe. 
Option 3 will provide technical assistance and training on other species. 

A  clear  ranking  is  difficult  to  establish  here.  Option  4+  is  expected  to  be  first, 
followed by Option 2, Option 1 and Option 3. Option 4 alone is expected to have no 
effect in addressing Objective 4. 

Overall,  the  options  complement  each  other.  Option  4  is  powerful  in  addressing 
important  objectives  because  it  creates  obligations  for  all  operators  concerned. 
However  it  brings  compliance  costs  that  may  affect  competitiveness.  It  does  not 
address one of the main drivers, which is the market failure to reward operators who 
comply or apply stricter welfare standards. A combination of Option 2 and 3 would 
much better address this aspect and are mutually supportive. 

6.1. 

Comparing the options in terms of efficiency 

Efficiency is the extent to which objectives can be achieved at the lowest cost. 

Option 2 is expected to be the most affordable option as the cost is mainly due to the 
communication  activities  to  consumers  and  international  activities  attached  to  this 
option.  The  limitation  is  that  this  option  alone  mainly  addresses  only  one  of  the 
drivers of the problems identified. 

Option 1 is also relatively limited in its impact on the EU budget but may be more 
difficult  to  implement  if  it  requires  additional  human  resources.  Option  1  is  also 
relatively limited in its global impact as it is mainly directed to the Member States' 
competent authorities. It will not reach operators in the same way as Option 4 or 3. 

Option 3 is more costly but has a broad range of positive effects. It positively affects 
all the different problems identified and could represent the most efficient option. 

Option  4  has  no  implication  on  the  EU  budget  but  is  expected  to  have  significant 
costs  for  business  operators.  These  costs  are  probably  overestimated  since  our 
calculation does not take into account the possible economic benefits deriving from 
better  competence  on  animal  welfare.  In  addition  it  does  not  consider  the  cost 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
reduction due to possible subsidies. The costs could also be mitigated with a longer 
transition period (e.g. six years instead of three). However, even taking those factors 
into  account,  Option  4  has  much  higher  costs  than  any  of  the  other  options.  Those 
costs could be cancelled if the requirement for competence was not extended to the 
laying hens and calves sector. 

In the overall Option 3 appears to be the most cost efficient option as it contains a 
good compromise between relatively moderate costs and a broad range of effects on 
the main drivers identified. 

6.2. 

Comparing the options in terms of coherence 

Coherence  is  the  extent  to  which  options  are  coherent  with  the  overarching 
objectives  of  EU  policies  and  the  extent  to  which  they  are  likely  to  limit  trade-off 
across the economic, social and environmental domain. 

None of the options considered seems to be in conflict with general EU objectives. 
The evaluation (see evaluation Question 9) concluded that the various components of 
the  EU  animal  welfare  policy  are  broadly  complementary,  mutually supportive and 
consistent, avoiding major conflicts with other EU policies such as competitiveness, 
trade and the environment. 

This impact assessment finds no evidence that the options under consideration would 
be radically different in this regard. 

6.3. 

Preferred option 

A  comparison  of  the  options  indicates  that  there  is  no  single  option  that  is  able  to 
address all problems effectively and efficiently. 

Options  2  and  3  are  mutually  complementary  with  reasonable  costs.  They  do  not 
address  Objective  4  (to  improve  coherence  across  animal  species)  in  a  significant 
manner  and  they  are  weak  on  Objective  1  (improving  enforcement).  However, 
Option  2  would  risk  blurring  the  line  between  official  requirements  and  private 
schemes,  and  it  would  equally  risk  limiting  the  dynamic  element  of  such  private 
initiative. Existing tools should be used for enhancing the reliability and transparency 
of information available to consumers. 

The  preferred  option  will  therefore  be  a  policy  mix,  including  some  of  the 
components of several options. 

Such a policy mix will consist of the following specific measures: 

1.  To  explore  the  possibility  of  a  simplified  EU  legislative  framework  that  will 
include: 

– 

– 

a  framework  to  improve  transparency  and  adequacy  of  information  to 
consumers on animal welfare, 

the establishment of a network of reference centres, 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

the  integration  of  requirement  for  competence  in  a  single  text  (with  a 
transitional period to decrease compliance costs), 

the possibility to use outcome based animal welfare indicators. 

2. Develop tools for strengthening Member States' compliance with EU rules; 

3. Support international cooperation; 

4. Provide consumers and the public with appropriate information; 

5. Investigate on the welfare of animals not covered by specific EU rules. 

A consolidate estimate of the additional annual costs of the preferred option for the 
EU budget could be as follows: 

1. Costs for strengthening Member States' compliance: +400.000 euros 

2. Costs for international cooperation: +100.000 euros 

3. Costs for communication to consumers: +450.000 euros 

4. Costs of specific studies: within the existing budget allocated. 

Total additional annual costs: +950.000 euros. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  evaluation  has  shown  that  there  is  no  single  system  for  regularly  monitoring 
progress on achieving the general objective of the animal welfare strategy. However, 
a number of elements are already in place that could provide useful monitoring tools 
for the future. 

EU  Member  States  are  legally  obliged  to  send  the  Commission  annual  data  on  the 
number of inspections carried out and the number of infringements detected. This is 
the case for all farmed animals123. Member States are not required to report on their 
inspections  of  animals  at  the  time  of  killing  or  of  animals  in  zoos.  The  revised 
Directive on the protection of experimental animals introduced a general requirement 
to  report  on  its  implementation,  and  this  specifically  requires  Member  States  to 
report on their national inspections.  

DG SANCO is currently working with EUROSTAT to refine the data and indicators 
for official checks on farm animals. Some data already exists and has been identified. 

123  

For  farmed  animals:  Commission  Decision  2006/778/EC  concerning  minimum  requirements  for  the 
collection of information during the inspections of production sites on which certain animals are kept 
for  farming  purposes  and  Article  27(2)  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1/2005  for  the  protection  of 
animals during transport and related operations. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The level of enforcement in the Member States is also assessed through regular visits 
by Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)124 experts. These FVO inspections essentially 
assess  how  effectively  the  animal  welfare  legislation  applicable  to  farm  animals  in 
the EU is being enforced. There is at present no comparable monitoring system for 
the EU legislation on zoo animals. 

The number of ongoing complaints125 addressed to the Commission and the number 
of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission are also possible indicators 
of the situation.  

Indicators such as those identified in Annex 5A could also be monitored. 

This impact  assessment was  preceded by an evaluation of the EU’s animal welfare 
policy  over  a  period  that  included  the  previous  Community  Action  Plan  for  the 
Protection and Welfare of animals (2006-2011). The present impact assessment aims 
to establish an EU strategy for animal welfare for the period 2011-2015. It therefore 
seems appropriate to plan another evaluation at the end of the strategy period (2016). 

124  

125  

The  Food  and  Veterinary  Office  (FVO)  is  a  directorate  of  DG  SANCO  responsible  for  checking  on 
compliance  with  the  requirements  of  EU  legislation  on  food  safety  and  quality,  animal  health  and 
welfare and plant health. See more at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm. 
In 2009 the Commission received 9 complaints about the welfare of farmed animals. In 2010 it received 
13 such complaints. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 1- Glossary of technical terms and abbreviations 

AAALAC 

Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care 

ASOPROVAC/ 
ANCOPORC 

Spanish Beef and pig farmers organisation  

AMMPA 

Alliance of Marine Mammals Parks and Aquariums 

AVEC 

Association of Poultry Processors and Poultry Trade in the EU countries 

BTSF 

Better Training for Safer Food A European Commission training initiative covering food and 
feed law, animal health and welfare and plant health rules. It trains Member State and 
candidate country national authority staff involved in official controls in these areas, cf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/training_strategy/index_en.htm 

BIPA 

Baltic Petfood Industry Association 

CA 

CAP 

Competent Authority  

Common Agricultural Policy 

CIWF 

Compassion In World Farming. Farm animal welfare charity.  

CLITRAVI 

Liaison Centre for the Meat Processing Industry in the European Union 

COPA-
COGECA 

C-PAW 

CSR  

European farmer and agri-cooperatives organisation 

EC Policy on Animal Welfare. Replaced by EUPAW (see below) after the entry into force of 
the TFEU (see below), which replaced the European Community by the European Union. 

Corporate Social Responsibility: "A concept whereby companies integrate social and 
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their 
stakeholders on a voluntary basis", cf. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-
business/corporate-social-responsibility/index_en.htm  

CVO 

Chief Veterinary Officers 

DEFRA 

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom 

Duty of care 

Requirement that makes owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs 
of their animals are met 

EAAM 

European Association for Aquatic Mammals 

EAWP 

European Animal Welfare Platform 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
EAZA 

European Association of Zoos and Aquaria 

ECA 

European Circus Association 

EFBA 

European Fur Breeders' Association 

EFFAB 

European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders  

EFN 

European Farmers' Network 

EFPIA 

European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations 

EFSA 

European Food Safety Authority  

ENRC 

European Network of Reference Centres for Animal Welfare. One of the possible measures 
envisaged by the Commission within the framework of a new animal welfare law  

EPAA 

European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing  

ERA-Net 

European Commission's Coordination of Research Activities scheme 

EUPAW 

EU Policy on Animal Welfare 

Eurobarometer 

Public opinion analysis service of the European Commission 

EUROSTAT 

The statistical office of the European Union 

The evaluation  

Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the Future, 
submitted by GHK Consulting on 22 December 2010, mandated by the European 
Commission, see http://eupaw.eu/   

FAO 

Food and Agriculture Organisation  

FEAP 

Federation of European Aquaculture Producers 

FEDIAF 

European Pet Food Industry Federation 

FESASS 

European Federation for Animal Health and Sanitary Security 

Five Freedoms 

Freedom from Hunger and Thirst, Freedom from Discomfort, Freedom from Pain, Injury or 
Disease, Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour, Freedom from Fear and Distress 

FTE 

FVE 

Full time equivalent 

Federation of Veterinarians of Europe 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
FP6 

FP7 

FVO 

HSI 

Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. The EU's main 
instrument for funding research in Europe for the period 2002-2006. Includes, i.a., the 
Welfare Quality Project (see below).  

Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. The EU's 
main instrument for funding research in Europe for the period 2007-2013, cf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm?pg=understanding 

Food and Veterinary Office 

Humane Society International 

IFAW 

International Fund for Animal Welfare 

IVH 

JRC 

LRF 

LS 

Industrieverband Heimtierbedarf 

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre 

Federation of Swedish Farmers 

The European Commission’s Legal Service 

MERCOSUR 

Southern American Common Market 

MEP 

NGO 

OIE 

Member of the European Parliament 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

World Organisation for Animal Health  

Public 
Procurement 

The process whereby public authorities - including all levels of government and public 
agencies - buy goods and services or commission work, cf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/business/profiting-from-eu-market/benefiting-from-public-
contracts/index_en.htm 

RSPCA 

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 

SG 

European Commission Secretariat-General  

TFEU 

Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (the Treaty) 

UECBV 

The European Livestock And Meat Trading Union 

UK NFU 

National Farmers Union, UK 

Welfare Quality 
Project 

Welfare Quality®: Science and society improving animal welfare in the food quality chain. 
EU funded project FOOD-CT-2004-506508, included in FP6 (se above), cf.: 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/26536/5/0/22 

RSPCA 

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. UK animal welfare charity. 

WHW 

World Horse Welfare 

WSPA 

World Society for the Protection of Animals 

WTO 

World Trade Organisation 

3Rs 

Reduction, Refinement and Replacement. An ethical framework for conducting scientific 
experiments using animals humanely 

2006 Action 
Plan 

Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010 
(COM(2006)13 final) 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
Annex 2- EU key policy principles 

2A - Definition of animal welfare and guiding principles 

Animal  welfare  is  defined  in  the  international  terrestrial  animal  health  code  of  the  World 
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) see:  

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_1.7.1.htm  

Chapter 7.1. 

Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare 

Article 7.1.1. 

Animal  welfare  means  how  an  animal  is  coping  with  the  conditions  in  which  it  lives.  An 
animal  is  in  a  good  state  of  welfare  if  (as  indicated  by  scientific  evidence)  it  is  healthy, 
comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering 
from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease 
prevention  and  veterinary  treatment,  appropriate  shelter,  management,  nutrition,  humane 
handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the 
treatment  that  an  animal  receives  is  covered  by  other  terms  such  as  animal  care,  animal 
husbandry, and humane treatment. 

Article 7.1.2. 

Guiding principles for animal welfare 

1.  That there is a critical relationship between animal health and animal welfare. 

2.  That the internationally recognized ‘five freedoms’ (freedom from hunger, thirst and 
malnutrition;  freedom  from  fear  and  distress;  freedom  from  physical  and  thermal 
discomfort;  freedom  from  pain,  injury  and  disease;  and  freedom  to  express  normal 
patterns of behaviour) provide valuable guidance in animal welfare. 

3.  That  the  internationally  recognized  ‘three  Rs’  (replacement  of  animals  with  non-
animal  techniques,  reduction  in  numbers  of  animals  and  refinement  of  experimental 
methods) provide valuable guidance for the use of animals in science. 

4.  That the scientific assessment of animal welfare involves diverse elements which need 
to  be  considered  together,  and  that  selecting  and  weighing  these  elements  often 
involves value-based assumptions which should be made as explicit as possible. 

5.  That the use of animals in agriculture and science, and for companionship, recreation 

and entertainment, makes a major contribution to the wellbeing of people. 

6.  That the use of animals carries with it an ethical responsibility to ensure the welfare of 

such animals to the greatest extent practicable. 

7.  That  improvements  in  farm  animal  welfare  can  often  improve  productivity  and  food 

safety, and hence lead to economic benefits. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
8.  That equivalent outcomes based on performance criteria, rather than identical systems 
based on design criteria, be the basis for comparison of animal welfare standards and 
recommendations. 

Article 7.1.3. 

Scientific basis for recommendations 

1.  Welfare  is  a  broad  term  which  includes  the  many  elements  that  contribute  to  an 
animal’s quality of life, including those referred to in the ‘five freedoms’ listed above. 

2.  The scientific assessment of animal welfare has progressed rapidly in recent years and 

forms the basis of these recommendations. 

3.  Some  measures  of  animal  welfare  involve  assessing  the  degree  of  impaired 
functioning associated with injury, disease, and malnutrition. Other measures provide 
information on animals’ needs and affective states such as hunger, pain and fear, often 
by measuring the strength of animals’ preferences, motivations and aversions. Others 
assess  the  physiological,  behavioural  and  immunological  changes  or  effects  that 
animals show in response to various challenges. 

4.  Such measures can lead to criteria and indicators that help to evaluate  how different 

methods of managing animals influence their welfare. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
2B - Current EU legislation on animal welfare 

1.1 

Legislation on the welfare of farmed animals (7 directives or regulations) 

Legislation on the protection of farm animals covers all the different steps of production from 
farming itself, to transport and killing. 

Farming  activities  are  subject  to  EU  legislation  through  a  general  umbrella  directive 
(Directive 98/58/EC) providing general principles applicable to all species and referring to the 
European Convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. 

Farming  activities  are  also  subject  to  specific  directives  respectively  on  the  protection  of 
calves  (Directive  91/629/EEC  recasted  2008/119),  pigs  (Directive  91/630/EEC  recasted 
2008/120), laying hens (Directive 1999/74/EC) and chickens for meat production (Directive 
2007/43/EC).  In  all  cases  each  directive  has  progressively  phased  out  the  most  inhumane 
methods  of  production  (individual  pens  for  calves,  individual  stalls  for  breeding  sows  and 
bare  cages  for  laying  hens).  They  also  emphasise  specific  provisions  in  relation  to  space 
allowances as well as more aspects on the management of the animals. 

Legislation on the protection of animals during transport has been subject to a recent revision 
(Regulation (EC) No 1/2005) which contains detailed provisions for the main farm species on 
travelling  times,  space  allowances,  fitness  for  transport,  vehicles  standards  and  drivers’ 
competence. The regulation also includes a number of administrative procedures for allowing 
proper checks by the competent authorities. 

Legislation  on  the  protection  of  animals  at  the  time  of  slaughter  or  killing  (Directive 
93/119/EC)  contains  standards  for  slaughterhouses  as  well  as  provisions  in  case  of  killing 
outside slaughterhouses (disease control, fur animals, etc.). This text will be replaced in 2013 
by the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. 

It should also be mentioned that there are several EU acts of the Common Agricultural Policy 
that refer to welfare standards of farm animals. Two of these acts referred to the compliance 
for  minimum  standards  laid  down  in  the  legislation  (cross-compliance  and  export  refunds 
regulations)  while  two  others  provide  incentive  for  farmers  in  applying  stricter  standards 
(rural development and organic farming regulations). 

1.2 

Legislation on the welfare of experimental animals (1 directive) 

Directive  86/609/EEC  aims  at  harmonising  national  provisions  covering  the  welfare  of 
animals  used  for  experimental  and  scientific  purposes.  This  Directive  went  through  a 
comprehensive  revision  and  the  new  Directive  (2010/63/EU)  entered  into  force  on  10 
November  2010.  It  requires  that  projects  using  animals  are  subject  to  authorisation  and  a 
systematic,  compulsory  project  (ethical)  evaluation.  The  scope  of  the  directive  is  enlarged 
covering  new  groups/life  forms/uses  of  animals  and  now  also  includes  specific  invertebrate 
species  (cephalopods),  mammalian  foetuses  from  the  last  trimester  of  their  development,  as 
well  as  animals  used  for  the  purposes  of  basic  research,  education  and  training.  It  also  sets 
housing and care standards, risk management based inspections, tighter rules for the use and 
care  of  non-human  primates  and  introduces  a  ban  on  the  use  of  great  apes  in  scientific 
procedures.  The  Directive  also  requires  the  further  development,  validation  of  alternative 
approaches  and  the  creation  of  Union  Reference  Laboratory  (JRC  ECVAM).  Finally,  the 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
concept of the 'Three Rs' (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal use) is firmly 
entrenched in the new Directive. The Directive will take full effect on 1.1.2013.  

1.3 

Legislation on the welfare of pet animals (1 regulation) 

The welfare of pet animals is not subject to Community legislation as such. 

However, Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 aims at to ban the import, export and sale of cat and 
dog  fur  in  the  EU.  The  proposal  was  drawn  up  in  response  to  strong  demands  from  EU 
citizens, as well as politicians, who asked for measures to be taken to prevent cat and dog fur 
being sold in the EU. 

1.4 

Legislation on the welfare of wild animals (3 directives or regulations) 

Directive  1999/22/EC  relating  to the  keeping  of  wild  animals  in  zoos  was  adopted  with  the 
objective  to  promote  wild  animal  species  protection  and  conservation  by  strengthening  the 
role  of  zoos  in  the  conservation  of  biodiversity.  The  directive  contains  requirements  for 
adequate accommodation facilities, species specific enrichments aiming to satisfy biological 
and  behavioural  needs,  a  high  standard  of  animal  husbandry,  the  training  of  staff, 
contributions to research or conservation activities and the education of the visiting public. 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991126 which prohibits both the use 
of  leg-hold  traps  in  the  Community  and  the  introduction  into  the  Community  of  pelts  and 
manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them 
by  means  of  leg-hold  traps  or  trapping  methods  which  do  not  meet  international  humane 
trapping standards. Council Decision 98/142/EC of 26 January 1998 concerns the conclusion 
of  an  Agreement  on  international  humane  trapping  standards  between  the  European 
Community,  Canada  and  the  Russian  Federation  and  of  an  Agreed  Minute  between  Canada 
and the European Community concerning the signing of said Agreement127. 

On  16  September  2009,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  Regulation  (EC) 
No 1007/2009  banning  the  introduction  on  the  EU  market  of  seal  products  that  do  not 
originate from Inuit or Indigenous hunts, subject to minor exceptions. Further detailed rules 
are specified in the implementing Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 that the Commission adopted 
on 10 August 2010. In addition, the Commission adopted on 29 December 2010 a technical 
guidance  note  setting  out  an  indicative  list  of  the  codes  of  the  combined  nomenclature  that 
may cover prohibited seal products. This list is intended to facilitate the enforcement of the 
trade ban. 

It is to be noted that there is already legislation in place since 1983 prohibiting the import of 
seal  pup  products  from  certain  seal  species  (harp  and  hooded  seals)  into  the  EU.  This 
Directive  83/129/EEC  has  been  put  in  place  in  response  to  widespread  concerns  about  the 
population status of these species in the beginning of the 1980's. 

126  
127  

OJ L 308, 9.11.91, p.1 
OJ L 42, 14.2.98. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

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

Directive  98/58/EC  has  been  adopted  to  reflect  the  European  convention  on  the 
protection  of  animals  kept  for  farming  purposes.  The  EU  has  concluded  this 
convention through Council Decision of 19 June 1978 concerning the conclusion of 
the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (OJ 
L  323,  17.11.1978  p.  12).  The  recommendations  contain  some  binding  provisions 
("shall") or recommended practices ("should"). 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Recommendation concerning farmed fish (adopted by the T-AP on 5 December 
2005, entry into force on 5 June 2006)  

Recommendation concerning Pigs (adopted by the T-AP on 2 December 2004, 
entry  into  force  on  2  June  2005)  (Replacing  the  previous  Recommendation 
adopted on 21 November 1986)  

Recommendation concerning Turkeys (adopted by the T-AP on 21 June 2001)  

Recommendation  concerning  Fur  Animals  (adopted  by  the  T-AP  on  22  June 
1999) (Replacing the previous Recommendation adopted on 19 October 1990)  

Recommendation  concerning  Muscovy  Ducks  and  hybrids  of  Muscovy  and 
domestic Ducks (adopted by the T-AP on 22 June 1999)  

Recommendation concerning domestic Geese (adopted by the T-AP on 22 June 
1999)  

Recommendation  concerning  domestic  Ducks  (adopted  by  the  T-AP  on  22 
June 1999)  

Recommendation concerning Ratites (adopted by the T-AP on 22 April 1997)  

Recommendation concerning Domestic Fowl (gallus gallus) (adopted by the T-
AP  on  28  November  1995)  (Replacing  Recommendation  of  1986  concerning 
the poultry of the species Gallus gallus kept to produce eggs)  

Appendix  C  to  Recommendation  concerning  Cattle:  special  provisions  for 
Calves (adopted by the T-AP on 8 June 1993)  

Recommendation  concerning  Goats  (adopted  by  the  T-AP  on  6  November 
1992)  

Recommendation  concerning  Sheep  (adopted  by  the  T-AP  on  6  November 
1992)  

Recommendation concerning Cattle (adopted by the T-AP on 21 October 1988)  

EN 

70 

   EN 

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

1. Upgrading existing minimum standards for animal protection and welfare in line 
with  new  scientific  evidence  and  socio-economic  assessments  as  well  as  possibly 
elaborating  specific  minimum  standards  for  species  or  issues  that  are  not  currently 
addressed  in  EU  legislation.  A  particular  priority  will  be  designing  EU  rules  in  order  to 
secure efficient enforcement and to take account of rules governing international trade. 

2.  Giving  a  high  priority  to  promoting  policy-orientated  future  research  on  animal 
protection  and  welfare  and  application  of  the  3Rs  principle:  in  order  to  respect  the 
obligations  under  the  EC  Treaty  Protocol  to  pay  full  regard  to  the  welfare  of  animals  in 
formulating and implementing these policies in parallel with enhancing the development, 
validation, implementation and monitoring of alternative approaches to animal testing. 

3.  Introducing  standardised  animal  welfare  indicators:  to  classify  the  hierarchy  of 
welfare  standards  applied  (from  minimum  to  higher  standards)  in  order  to  assist  the 
development of improved animal welfare production and Upgrading existing minimum 
standards  for  animal  protection  and  welfare  in  line  with  new  scientific  evidence  and 
socio-economic assessments as well as possibly elaborating specific minimum standards for 
species  or  issues  that  are  not  currently  addressed  in  EU  legislation.  A  particular  priority 
will be designing EU rules in order to secure efficient enforcement and to take account of 
rules governing international trade. 

4.  Ensuring  that  animal  keepers/  handlers  as  well  as  the  general  public  are  more 
involved and informed on current standards of animal protection and welfare and 
fully appreciate their role in promoting animal protection and welfare. In respect of 
farm  animals  for  example  this  could  include  working  with  retailers  and  producers  to 
facilitate  improved  consumer  trust  and  awareness  of  current  farming  practices  and  thus 
more informed purchasing decisions, as well as developing common initiatives in the field 
of  animal  welfare  to  facilitate  the  exchange  of  information  and  the  application  of  best 
practices. 

5.  Continue  to  support  and  initiate  further  international  initiatives  to  raise 
awareness  and  create  a  greater  consensus  on  animal  welfare,  including  engaging 
with  Developing  Countries  to  explore  trade  opportunities  based  on  welfare  friendly 
production systems. The Community should also actively identify trans-boundary problems 
in  the  area  of  animal  welfare,  relating  to  companion  or  farm  animals,  wildlife  etc.,  and 
develop a mechanism to tackle them in a more timely, efficient and consistent manner. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

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

The resolution considers that the "the vast majority of the measures contained in the current 
action plan have been implemented satisfactorily". However the resolution points out that EU 
farmers have overall not benefited from their efforts and stresses that non-trade concerns such 
as  animal  welfare  should  be  better  promoted  at  WTO  level,  while  at  the  same  time 
acknowledging that the EU should proceed with special care in order to avoid the criticism of 
hidden  trade  protectionism,  given  the  sensitivity  of  the  issue  particularly  among  developing 
countries. 

It also regrets the lack of a clear communication strategy on the value of products complying 
with EU animal welfare standards. 

The  resolution  also  recognises  the  need  for  better  enforcement  of  existing  EU  rules  in 
particular regarding zoo animals, animal transport, pig directive, and the future ban on cages 
for  laying  hens.  It  stresses  the  need  for  focusing  on  enforcement  rather  than  drafting  new 
legislation.  Such  enforcement  should  rely  on  effective  penalties  for  non-compliance  in  all 
Member States. 

The  resolution  calls  for  a  new  action  plan  for  2011-2015  with  an  appropriate  budget 
applicable  to  all  animals.  This  future  action  plan  should  ensure  sustainability  for  EU 
producers as well as consistency with other major EU policies and in particular those for the 
internal market, environment, food safety and animal health. 

The resolution also calls on the Commission to submit not later than 2014 a general animal 
welfare law. This law would include the general principles applicable to all animal owners. 
However  Member  States  would  keep  the  possibility  to  allow  producers  to  apply  voluntary 
systems  with  higher  welfare  standards.  The  resolution  also  calls  for  compensation  for  EU 
farmers in applying higher animal welfare standards as part of the new common agriculture 
support scheme from 2013 onwards. 

The resolution in addition calls for the establishment of a European Network of Reference 
Centres (ENRC) set up under the existing European or Member State institutions so to assist 
the  different  partners  on  training,  best  practices,  information  to  consumers,  assessing 
legislative  proposals  and  testing  techniques.  The  network  should  designate  one  institution 
acting as "central coordination institute" to avoid duplication with existing structures. 

The resolution also asks the EU to assess the costs for EU producers of the current rules and 
to propose in 2012 measures to tackle their loss of competitiveness. 

The  resolution  underlines  that  efforts  should  be  made  to  promote  animal  welfare  through 
education  and  that  the  EU  budget  should  include  sufficient  appropriations  to  enable  the 
Commission  to  perform  its  monitoring  tasks  and  support  EU  producers  affected.  The 
resolution  also  calls  for  further  development  and  financial  investment  for  research,  new 
technologies and techniques in the field of animal welfare. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
2F – Scope and questions of the evaluation 

The objectives of the evaluation was first, to analyse the results of the previous EU policy on 
animal welfare (from 2000) and, second, to establish if changes would be needed, indicating 
possible improvements to its scope, structure and working practices.  

Scope and evaluation issues 

The  evaluation  was  defined  on  a  grid  made  of two dimensions. One concerning the  type of 
animals (farm animals, experimental animals, pet animals and wild animals) and secondly the 
type  of  EU  actions  envisaged  (legislation,  research,  communication  and  international 
initiatives). 

The evaluation questions 

Q1: 

Q2:  

Q3: 

Q4: 

Q5: 

Q6: 

Q7:  

To  what  extent  has  Community  animal  welfare  legislation  achieved  its  main 
objective i.e. to improve the welfare conditions of animals within the EU? 

To  what  extent  has  Community  legislation  on  the  protection  of  animals  ensured 
proper functioning of the single market for the activities concerned? 

To what extent has Community funding for research and scientific advice on animal 
welfare contributed to science based Community initiatives in the field of legislation, 
communication and for international initiatives? 

To what extent have Community actions of communication to stakeholders and the 
public  contributed  to  raise  their  awareness  and  responsibility  towards  animal 
welfare? 

To  what  extent  have  Community  international  initiatives  on  animal  welfare 
contributed  to  raising  awareness  and  creating  a  shared  understanding  on  animal 
welfare issues and standards at world level? 

To  what  extent  have  Community  international  initiatives  on  animal  welfare 
contributed to establishing equivalent market conditions between EU businesses and 
businesses from third countries exporting to the EU? 

To what extent are the present financial instruments and the financial resources at EU 
level adapted to the needs of the C-PAW? Would it be necessary to establish specific 
financial instruments and/or dedicated resources to Community initiatives related to 
animal welfare?   

Q8: 

To  what  extent  does  the  C-PAW  address  the  needs  of  stakeholders  and  the  EU 
citizens?  

Which  areas  need  changes  concerning  objectives,  scope,  management  systems  or 
processes? What kind of changes?  

Q9: 

To what extent does the intervention logic, objectives and activities linked to the C-
PAW support or possibly conflict with those of other EU policies   

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
To  what  extent  are  the  elements  of  C-PAW  intervention  logic  internally 
complementary, mutually supportive and consistent? 

How  successful  has  C-PAW  been  in  promoting  the  necessary  coherence  and 
complementarity  between  the  different  EU  policies  in  collaboration  with  the 
Commission and Member States? 

Q10: 

To what extent do animal welfare policies contribute to the economic sustainability 
of the sectors concerned (farming animals and experimental animals) ? 

Q11:  What  costs  are  involved  in  the  management  of  the  C-PAW  for  the  Member  States' 

public administrations?  

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
2G – Key messages of the evaluation 

Evaluation  of  the  EU  Policy  on  Animal  Welfare  (EUPAW)  and  Possible  Options  for  the 
Future  

The evaluation was commissioned by the Directorate General for Health and Consumers (DG 
SANCO) of the European Commission and aimed to provide an independent evaluation of the 
EUPAW and an assessment of the possible options for the future. The key messages from the 
evaluation are as follows:  

1. Targeted EU animal welfare legislation has improved the welfare of many of Europe’s farm 
and experimental animals, but more could be achieved with stronger and more consistent 
enforcement  of  existing  rules.  By  extending  the  scope  of  EU  welfare  legislation,  other 
groups of animals could benefit from higher welfare standards.  

2. EU legislation to protect animals has, in general, helped to reduce competitive distortions 
in  the  internal  market  caused  by  differences  in  national  standards,  but  in  certain  areas 
further action on enforcement and harmonisation is required.  

3.  EU  funding  for  research  and  scientific  advice  on  animal  welfare,  totalling  about  €15 

million  annually,  has  made  a  positive  contribution  to  policy.  Most  funding  has  been  for 
farm  animals  and  the  development  of  techniques  to  facilitate  the  replacement  of  in  vivo 
animal testing.  

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

5.  The  EU’s  international  initiatives  have  helped  to  raise  awareness  and  create  a  shared 
international  understanding  of  animal  welfare  issues  and  standards,  particularly  with 
trading partners in markets for food products, but there is much more to do.  

6. The establishment of equivalent market conditions between EU businesses and those from 
third  countries  exporting  to  the  EU  is  a  long  term  project  on  which  the  Commission  has 
been working via bilateral and multilateral channels. Foundations are being laid but there is 
more to do.  

7.  The  financial  resources  and  instruments  at  EU  level  have  grown  to  meet  the  increasing 
resource needs of the EUPAW, though there is a need for further growth in funding as the 
policy continues to develop in the years ahead.  

8.  EU  animal  welfare  policy  appears  to  have  succeeded  in  striking  a  balance  between  the 
varied needs and expectations of citizens, industry and other groups on an issue for which 
ambitions differ across Europe. There are widespread calls for more consistent enforcement 
but less appetite for a new wave of standards, suggesting an agenda defined by evolution 
rather than revolution for the next few years.  

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
9. The various components of EU animal welfare policy are broadly complementary, mutually 
support and consistent, and have (thus far) avoided major conflict with other EU policies, 
such as on competitiveness, trade and the environment.  

10.  EU  welfare  standards  have  imposed  additional  costs  on  the  livestock  and  experimental 
sectors,  estimated  at  around  2%  of  the  overall  value  of  livestock  output  and  a  similar 
proportion of the annual costs of experiments using animals. There is no evidence that this 
has so far threatened the economic sustainability of these sectors.  

11.  Management  of  the  EUPAW  costs  the  Member  States’  public  administrations  an 
estimated total of around €105 million a year, with about €53 million on farm inspections, 
about €0.5 million for regulating welfare of expe rimental animals and about €13 million for 
administrative costs.  

The report makes specific recommendations regarding priorities for future EU action, under 

each of the 11 main evaluation themes listed above.  

EN 

76 

   EN 

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

The Commission adopted in October 2009 a Report in which it outlines a series of options for 
animal welfare labelling:  http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/labelling_en.htm 

The EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council held an exchange of views on the Commission 
Report  on  22  February  2010.  Ministers  in  general  agreed  that  information  about  animal 
welfare  in  livestock  production  could  enable  consumers  to  make  informed  purchasing 
decisions and help EU farmers to obtain the desired recompense for their efforts.  

Press Release of the meeting: 

 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/113353.pdf 

and 

The  European  Parliament  discussed  animal  welfare  labelling  in  relation  to  its  Report  on 
evaluation 
the  Animal  Welfare  Action  Plan  2006-2010 
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2010-
0053+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN)  (rapporteur  Marit  Paulsen).  The  conclusions 
regarding labelling in the Paulsen Report are that the European Parliament: 

assessment  of 

31. Welcomes the debate concerning various possible animal welfare labelling schemes in the 
aforementioned Commission communication of 28 October 2009; recalls, however, the need 
to  consider  them  in  a  wider  context,  taking  account,  in  particular,  of  the  various  existing 
environmental,  nutritional  and  climate  labelling  schemes;  stresses  that  information  on  the 
subject for European consumers absolutely must have a sound and consensual scientific basis 
and be clear to consumers; 

32.  Recommends  that  the  information  given  on  the  label  should  be  precise  and  direct  and 
should  make  reference  to  compliance  with  the  high  animal  welfare  standards  demanded  by 
the  EU;  maintains  that  it  should  be  the  task of  the  Commission  to  provide  citizens  with  the 
necessary information on the European animal welfare system, so to ensure that they receive 
objective information. 

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment of the European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  set  up  a  working  group  to  discuss  the 
Commission Report, and adopted an opinion in May: 

http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/EESCopinionDocument.aspx?identifier=ces\nat\nat458\ces
765-2010_ac.doc&language=EN. 

In  its  opinion,  the  Committee  concludes  that  a  labelling  scheme  is  needed  that  gives 
consumers  objective  information  to  enable  them  to  choose  animal  products  that  exceed  EU 
minimum animal welfare requirements. The labelling should provide an identifiable guarantee 
based on reliable information that consumers can readily understand. Furthermore, the EESC 
backs the establishment of a European network to continue the work of the Welfare Quality 
project. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

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

Considering that: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Article  13  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  having 
general  application,  states  that  -  since  animals  are  sentient  beings  -  the  EU 
should  pay  full  regard  to  the  welfare  requirements  of  animals  in  formulating 
and  implementing  its  relevant  policies,  while  respecting  the  legislative  or 
administrative  provisions  and  customs  of  the  Member  States  relating  in 
particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage; 

to  respond  to  citizens'  concerns  it  is  necessary  to  plan  appropriate  actions  at 
Member  State  and  European  level  and  ensure  suitable  welfare  conditions  for 
dogs and cats; 

this  topic  is  also  addressed  in  other  international  fora  such  as  the  OIE,  the 
Council  of  Europe  or  in  the  framework  of  the  discussions  on  the  Universal 
Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW); 

the breeding of and EU trade in dogs and cats represent an economic activity 
within  the  European  Union  where  business  operators  need  to  work  within  a 
level playing field; 

Taking into account that: 

– 

– 

– 

large differences seem to exist between the different national or regional rules 
on the welfare of dogs and cats within the European Union; 

those  differences  may  lead  to  unequal  breeding  and  marketing  costs  which 
could  create  animal  welfare  problems,  zoonotic  risks  and  deception  of  the 
citizen  due  to  the  purchase  of  animals  carrying  possible  hidden  diseases, 
including genetic defects and/or with irreversible behavioural problems;  

those  problems  may  have  a  negative  impact  on  primary  objectives  of  the 
European  Union  such  as  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  public  health 
and consumer protection; 

Bearing in mind: 

– 

– 

– 

the  need  for  the  European  Union  and  the  Member  States  to  limit  the 
administrative burden; 

the relevant international obligations, in particular concerning the trade in dogs 
and cats; 

the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; 

The  Council  of  the  European  Union  calls  upon  the  Commission,  in  the  framework  of  the 
second EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals: 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

to  study  the  differences  between  the  measures  taken  by  the  Member  States 
regarding the breeding of and EU trade in dogs and cats and, if appropriate, to 
prepare policy options for the harmonisation of the internal market; 

to study and propose, if justified, options for facilitating compatible systems of 
identification  and  registration  of  dogs  and  cats  in  order  to  ensure  better 
guarantees  to  the  citizen  through  more  efficient  traceability  of  those  animals. 
The options may take into account the need for fast and precise investigation, 
particularly in the case of illegal trade and zoonosis; 

to study and present, if justified, a specific proposal to restrict, in the European 
Union,  the  exhibition  at  public  events  of  dogs  and  cats  having  undergone  a 
non-curative  surgical  intervention  (not  aimed  at  preventing  reproduction)  and 
the trade in these animals;  

to  develop,  if  necessary  and  in  coordination  with  the  Member  States, 
appropriate  actions  to  promote  and  support  education  concerning  responsible 
dog and cat ownership, as well to support national information campaigns on 
the  negative  impact  of  non-curative  surgical  interventions  on  the  welfare  of 
dogs and cats. 

EN 

79 

   EN 

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

All farmed animals 

Cattle for beef production 

The welfare of cattle kept for beef production - Report of the SCAHAW (2001)128 

Dairy cows 

Report on Animal Welfare Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin - Report of the SCAHAW (1999)129 

Scientific  opinion  on  welfare  of  dairy  cows  in  relation  to  metabolic  and  reproductive  problems  based  on  a  risk 
assessment  with  special  reference  to  the  impact  of  housing,  feeding,  management  and  genetic  selection  (EFSA, 
2009)130 

Scientific opinion on welfare of dairy cows in relation to leg and locomotion problems based on a risk assessment 
with special reference to the impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection (EFSA, 2009)131 

Scientific opinion on welfare of dairy cows in relation to behaviour, fear and pain based on a risk assessment with 
special reference to the impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection (EFSA, 2009)132 

Scientific opinion on welfare of dairy cows in relation to udder problems based on a risk assessment with special 
reference to the impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection (EFSA, 2009)133 

Scientific Opinion on the overall effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease (EFSA, 2009)134 

Scientific report on the effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease (EFSA, 2009)135 

Rabbits 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
to  "The  Impact  of  the  current  housing  and  husbandry  systems  on  the  health  and  welfare  of  farmed  domestic 
rabbits." (EFSA, 2005)136 

Farmed fish 

Animal  welfare  aspects  of  husbandry  systems  for  farmed  Atlantic  salmon  -  Scientific  Opinion  of  the  Panel  on 
Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA, 2008)137 

Animal welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed trout - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health 
and Welfare (EFSA, 2008)138 

128 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out54_en.pdf 
129 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out21_en.pdf 
130 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1140.htm 
131 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1142.htm 
132 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1139.htm 
133 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1141.htm 
134 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1143.htm 
135 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1143r.htm 
136 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/267.htm 
137 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/736.htm 
138 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/796.htm 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Animal welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed fish - European eel - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on 
Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA, 2008)139 

Animal  welfare  aspects  of  husbandry  systems  for  farmed  European  seabass  and  gilthead  seabream  -  Scientific 
Opinion of the Panel (EFSA, 2008)140 

Animal welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed common carp (EFSA, 2008)141 

General approach to fish welfare and to the concept of sentience in fish (EFSA, 2009)142 

Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed fish: Rainbow Trout (EFSA, 
2009)143 

Species-specific  welfare  aspects  of  the  main  systems  of  stunning  and killing of farmed  Eels  (Anguilla  Anguilla) 
(EFSA, 2009)144 

Species-specific  welfare  aspects  of  the  main  systems  of  stunning  and  killing  of  farmed  Seabass  and  Seabream 
(EFSA, 2009)145 

Species-specific  welfare  aspects  of  the  main  systems  of  stunning  and  killing  of  farmed  Atlantic  Salmon  (EFSA, 
2009)146 

Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed Carp (EFSA, 2009)147 

Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed tuna (EFSA, 2009)148 

Species-specific welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing of farmed turbot (EFSA, 2009)149 

Knowledge gaps and research needs for the welfare of farmed fish (EFSA, 2009)150 

Geese 

Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on Welfare Aspects of the Production 
of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese - Report of the SCAHAW (1998)151 

Scientific Opinion on the practice of harvesting (collecting) feathers from live geese for down production (EFSA, 
2010)152 

139 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/809.htm 
140 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/844.htm 
141 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/843.htm 
142 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/954.htm 
143 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1012.htm 
144 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1014.htm 
145 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1010.htm 
146 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1011.htm 
147 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1013.htm 
148 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1072.htm 
149 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1073.htm 
150 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1145.htm 
151 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.html 
152 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1886.htm 
153 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out67_en.pdf 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Fur animals 

The Welfare of Animals kept for Fur Production - Report of the SCAHAW (2001)153 

Pigs  

The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs - Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee (1997)154 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
to welfare aspects of the castration of piglets (EFSA, 2004)155 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
to welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor (EFSA, 2005)156 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to animal 
health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry (EFSA, 2007)157 

Animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, 
farrowing  sows  and  unweaned  piglets  -  Scientific  Opinion  of  the  Panel  on  Animal  Health  and  Welfare  (EFSA, 
2007)158 

The risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the 
different housing and husbandry systems - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA, 
2007)159 

Laying hens 

Report from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section on the Welfare of laying Hens (1996)160 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
to the welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (EFSA, 2005)161 

Calves 

Report  on  the  Welfare  of  Calves  -  Report  from  the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee  Animal  Welfare  Section 
(1995)162 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
with the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems (EFSA, 2006)163 

Broilers 

TheWelfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers) - Report of the SCAHAW (2000)164 

154 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.pdf 
155 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/91.htm 
156 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/268.htm 
157 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/564.htm 
158 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/572.htm 
159 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/611.htm 
160 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out33_en.pdf 
161 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/197.htm 
162 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out35_en.pdf 
163 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/366.htm 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Scientific Opinion on welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grand-parent and parent stocks raised 
and kept for breeding purposes (EFSA, 2010)165 

Scientific Opinion on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and the resistance to stress of commercial 
broilers (EFSA, 2010)166 

Killing of animals  

Slaughter  and  killing  of  animals  -  Report  from  the  Scientific  Veterinary  Committee  Animal  Welfare  Section 
(1996)167 

The  use  of  Mixtures  of  the  Gases  CO2,  O2,  and  N2  for  Stunning  or  Killing  Poultry  -  Report  of  the  SCAHAW 
(1998)168 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
to  welfare  aspects  of  the  main  systems  of  stunning  and  killing  the  main  commercial  species  of  animals  (EFSA, 
2004)169 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
with the welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing applied to commercially farmed deer, goats, 
rabbits, ostriches, ducks, geese (EFSA, 2006)170 

Transport of animals 

Standards for the Microclimate inside Animal Transport Road  Vehicles - Report of the SCAHAW (1999)171 

The  welfare  of  animals  during  transport  (details  for  horses,  pigs,  sheep  and  cattle)  -  Report  of  the  SCAHAW 
(2002)172 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal  Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to the 
welfare of animals during transport (EFSA, 2004)173 

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
to standards for the microclimate inside animal road transport vehicles (EFSA, 2004)174 

Scientific Opinion Concerning the Welfare of Animals during Transport (EFSA, 2011)175 

Experimental animals 

The welfare of non-human primates used in research - Report of the SCAHAW (2002)176 

164 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out39_en.pdf 
165 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1667.htm 
166 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1666.htm 
167 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out30_en.pdf 
168 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out08_en.html 
169 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/45.htm 
170 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/326.htm 
171 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out35_en.html 
172 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out71_en.pdf 
173 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/44.pdf 
174 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/122.htm 
175 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1966.htm 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a request from the Commission related 
to the aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (EFSA, 
2005)177 

Seals 

Animal Welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and 
Welfare (EFSA, 2007)178 

176 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out83_en.pdf 
177 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/292.htm 
178 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/610.htm 

EN 

84 

   EN 

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

List of international standards of the World Organisation for Anima Health (OIE) 

The  World  Assembly  of  OIE  Delegates  has  adopted  seven  animal  welfare  standards  in  the 
Terrestrial  Code  and  two  animal  welfare  standards  in  the  OIE  Aquatic  Animal  Health 
Standards Code (Aquatic Code) as follows: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The transport of animals by land  

The transport of animals by sea  

The transport of animals by air  

The slaughter of animals for human consumption  

The killing of animals for disease control purposes  

The control of stray dog populations  

The use of animals in research and education  

The welfare of farmed fish during transport  

The welfare aspects of stunning and killing of farmed fish for human consumption.  

Under  the  5th  Strategic  Plan  (2011-2015)  the  OIE  continues  its  work  on  priority  topics 
endorsed by Members. In particular, work is ongoing on the development of animal welfare 
standards on: 

• 

• 

• 

Broiler Chicken Production Systems,  

beef production systems  

killing of farmed fish for disease control purposes. 

List of EU-bilateral initiatives where animal welfare is included 

Trade agreements with third countries in Europe: 

• 

• 

• 

European Economic Area (Iceland, Norway) 

Andorra 

Switzerland 

Trade agreements outside Europe: 

• 

• 

Chile (2002) 

Canada (2004) 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

Korea (2010) 

Central  America  Costa  Rica,  El  Salvador,  Guatemala,  Honduras,  Panama  and 
Nicaragua) (2010) 

Colombia and Peru (2010) 

Ongoing  negotiations  with  India,  MERCOSUR  (Brazil,  Uruguay,  Paraguay,  Argentina, 
Venezuela), Singapore, Malaysia and Ukraine 

Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (including animal welfare): 

• 

• 

Thailand 

Vietnam  

Ongoing negotiation with the Philippines, Malaysia, China, Vietnam, Brunei and Singapore. 

Cooperation Forums on Animal Welfare: 

• 

• 

 New Zealand (2007) 

Australia (2008) 

Other type of agreement (ongoing): Russia 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
Annex 3 – Consultation of stakeholders and Member States 

3A – Stakeholders contributions 

1. Stakeholders' meeting - Brussels, 31 January 2011 

Summary: 

The meeting was well attended by stakeholders from all sides. The European Parliament was 
represented  by  Ms  Paulsen  who  was  present  the  whole  meeting  and  intervened  during  the 
debate  (MEP  who  was  the  rapporteur  on  an  EP  resolution  on  the  2006  Action  Plan). 
Representatives from third countries (New Zealand, Canada, Australia.) that have developed 
cooperation with the Commission attended the meeting. 

There  was  a  wide  consensus  on  the  problem  definition  as  presented  by  the  Commission  (1. 
Insufficient  enforcement,  2.  competitiveness  of  farmers,  3.  lack  of  communication  to 
consumers  and  stakeholders,  4.  need  for  more  research  and  extending  the  EU  scope  for 
animal welfare policies).  

Farmers' organisations insisted on the economic costs and the risk of importations from third 
countries. Animal welfare organisations stressed the need for a wider scope, more education 
and communication to the public and stakeholders. The CAP reform and the need to develop 
animal welfare in this context was also highlighted by NGOs. All parties supported the need 
for better enforcement and further scientific research. 

As  regards  the  policy  options,  most  stakeholders  considered  that  a  policy  mix  would  be 
necessary. However depending on the problem to be addressed, different solutions would be 
needed.  Ms  Paulsen  strongly  supported  the  option  of  a  framework  law.  Producers 
organisations were mostly in favour of improving enforcement through non legislative tools 
while NGOs considered that new laws would be necessary combined with more actions in non 
legislative tools. 

Detailed positions: 

The  external  contractor  presented  the  results  of  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  policy  on  animal 
welfare and the corresponding recommendations. Then the Commission presented the options 
foreseen for the impact assessment of the future strategy. 

All parties agreed that several aspects related to animal welfare were essential:  

1. To ensure proper enforcement of the existing legislation; 

2.  To  ensure  the  competitiveness  of  EU  farmers  especially  in  regard  to  imports  from  third 
countries;  

3. To better coordinate the initiatives with Member States, by proper definition and strategy 
setting by the Commission; 

4. To improve communication to consumers and stakeholders; 

5. To carry out more research on animal welfare. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
Industry view: 

COPA-COGECA called for more flexibility in EU competition law as incentive for farmers to 
take up more animal welfare within the co-regulation scenario. 

UECBV considered that we should focus on enforcement rather than reflecting in developing 
new rules. 

AVEC also insisted on the need for a more uniform application of EU rules and equivalency 
regarding third country imports. 

EFPIA was in favour of Option 3 (non-legislative option) and emphasized the need to comply 
first  with  the  newly  adopted  directive  on  experimental  animals,  regarding  the  3  R's  in 
particular. 

CLITRAVI  was  in  favour  of  Option  1  (the  baseline  scenario)  or  a  policy  mix  if  additional 
costs for producers would be covered. 

ASOPROVAC-ANCOPORC  was  worried  by  the  competitiveness  of  pig  and  beef  industry 
and third country imports. 

EFFAB  considered  that  the  Corporate  Social  Responsibility  and  the  promotion  of  good 
practices to be good options (non legislative option). They expressed the need for a step-by-
step strategy and a clear definition of objectives. They did not support the idea of a specific 
institute for animal welfare. 

FESASS called for more explanation of animal welfare to consumers. 

The  Swedish  Farmers'  Association  and  the  UK  NFU  called  for  better  enforcement, 
harmonisation of the internal market while keeping high animal welfare standards. NFU did 
not favour new legislation. 

EFN was of the opinion that the tools existed but only needed to be used and explained. 

EAZA  considered  that  the  zoo  directive  should  be  better  implemented  and  they  favoured 
initiatives that could promote their guidelines. 

Breiz Europe supported the idea of a strategy to address international issues. 

In short, the need for harmonisation was called for by the industry mainly, along with 
the need to get equivalent standards for third country imports. Non-legislative measures 
were preferred. 

NGOs' and scientists' views 

HIS,  Eurogroup  for  Animals,  IFAW,  Born  Free  called  for  extension  of  EU  scope/new 
legislation (fish, dairy cows, wildlife, pets), Eurogroup also supported the establishment of a 
Reference Centre. 

FVE, CIWF. Vier Pfoten, IFAW, Animals' Angels, WSPA favoured a policy mix (option D), 
and  were  worried  about  enforcement.  They  would  support  a  framework  law  but  expressed 
concerns on the risks of having too general and vague provisions. They did not wish to see 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
existing legislation disappear. They also wanted animal welfare issues to be better integrated 
in  the  context  of  the  revision  of  CAP.  They  also  supported  the  concerns  over  the  risks  of 
importations from third countries having lower standards. 

WSPA called for more education. 

University representatives, FVE, Born Free and NGOs called for proper objective setting and 
definitions in the area of animal welfare with an in-field study on the level of actual animal 
welfare standards in the EU. 

Animal welfare NGOs stressed the need for a wider scope, more detailed laws on dairy 
cows especially, better definition and strategy setting, a proper animal welfare analysis 
and improved consumer information. 

Other institutions' views: 

MEP Marit Paulsen called for a general framework law to fight unfair competition on the EU 
market and get international equivalence for third country imports. Ms Paulsen declared that 
she proposed a framework law for animal welfare in its report (adopted in May 2010) as it has 
been working well in the area of food safety and producers should be better involved. 

FAO declared that they will send written comments. 

List of organisation attending the meeting: 

ADT (German breeders association) 

Animals' Angels (animal welfare organisation) 

ASOPROVAC/ANCOPORC (Spanish Beef and pig farmers organisation) 

Australian EU delegation 

AVEC (European poultry industry) 

Born Free (animal welfare organisation – wild animals) 

Breiz Europe (French Farmers organisation) 

BUAV (animal welfare organisation – experimental animals) 

Canadian EU delegation 

CIWF (animal welfare organisation – farm animals) 

CLITRAVI (European food processing industry) 

COLIPA (European cosmetic industry) 

COPA-COGECA (European farmers organisation) 

EAZA (European zoo and aquaria association) 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
EFBA (European fur breeders association) 

EFFAB (Europan breeders association) 

EFPIA (European pharmaceutical industry) 

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 

EPO (European Pet Organisation) 

EPPA (consultancy firm) 

Eurogroup for Animals (Animal welfare organisation) 

European Circus Association 

European Parliament 

FACE (European hunting association) 

FAI (consultancy firm) 

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) 

Fédération Nationale Porcine (French Pig farmers organisation) 

FEDIAF (European pet food industry) 

FESASS (European organisation for animal health) 

FVE (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe) 

HIS (animal welfare organisation) 

Hungarian Permanent Representation (EU Presidency) 

IFAW (animal welfare organisation – wild animals) 

IFOAM (organic farmers' organisation) 

Institut de l'Elevage (French research institute) 

LRF (Swedish farmers' organisation) 

New Zealand EU delegation 

NFU (UK farmers' organisation) 

SLU (Swedish research institute) 

UECBV (European organisation of livestock traders and slaughterhouses) 

Vier Pfoten (animal welfare organisation) 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
WSPA (animal welfare organisation) 

WUR (Dutch research institute) 

2. Stakeholders' contributions on the policy options 

The Commission received written contributions from the following 20 stakeholders:  

Alliance of Marine Mammals Parks and Aquariums (AMMPA) 

Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) 

Association of Poultry Processors and Poultry Trade in the EU countries (AVEC) 

Baltic Petfood Industry Association (BIPA) 

Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)  

Copa-Cogeca 

Eurogroup for Animals (Eurogroup) 

European Association for Aquatic Mammals (EAAM) 

European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) 

European Circus Association (ECA) 

European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders (EFFAB) 

European Fur Breeders' Association (EFBA) 

European Pet Food Industry Federation (FEDIAF) 

Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP) 

Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF) 

Humane Society International/Europe (HSI) 

Industrieverband Heimtierbedarf (IVH) 

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) 

Vier Pfoten - Stiftung für Tierschutz (Vier Pfoten) 

World Horse Welfare (WHW) 

The  stakeholders'  position  papers  have  been  published  on  the  Commission's  website  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/position_paper_2011_2015_en.htm. 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
 
General comments 

The  clearest  messages  from  the  stakeholders'  submissions are that 14 out of 20 respondents 
believe that the new strategy should be based on a mix of policy initiatives from Options A 
and  B,  and  that  12  out  of  20  highlight  the  need  to  develop  a  communication  and  education 
strategy.  

Specific comments 

Industry 

With  the  purpose  of  composing  an  easily  accessible  overview,  the  Commission  has  divided 
the stakeholders' position papers into two groups: Industry and NGOs. In this overview, the 
following  13  stakeholders  are  considered  industry  representatives:  AMMPA,  AVEC,  BIPA, 
Copa-Cogeca, EAAM, EAZA, ECA, EFBA, EFFAB, FEDIAF, FEAP, IVH and LRF. 

8 out of these 13 held the opinion that the new strategy should be based on a mix of policy 
initiatives from Options A and B. Just over half of the industry representatives highlighted the 
need to develop a communication and education strategy. 6 of the respondents supported the 
concept of a new framework law, whereas 3 were negative to developing such a legal concept. 
A  little  less  than  half  of  the  respondents  expressed  support  for  developing  indicators  for 
monitoring procedures.  

NGOs 

For  the  purpose  of  this  overview;  the  following  7  stakeholders  are  considered  NGOs: 
AAALAC, CIWF, Eurogroup, HSI, IFAW, Vier Pfoten and WHW.  

6  out  of  these  7  held  the  opinion  that  the  new  strategy  should  be  based  on  a  mix  of  policy 
initiatives  from  Options  A  and  B.  Just  as  many  NGOs  were  supportive  of  actions  to 
strengthen  research  on  animal  welfare  and  of  international  initiatives.  A  clear  majority  also 
highlighted the need to develop a communication and education strategy. Just over half of the 
respondents  were  in  favour  of  extending  the  scope  of  EU  legislation  on  animal  welfare,  of 
establishing a network of Reference Centres and of strengthening the enforcement of animal 
welfare  legislation.  Some  NGOs  pointed  out  that  it  is  important  that  animal  welfare  is 
incorporated into other EU policy areas and that it also should be incorporated into Corporate 
Social Responsibility schemes.     

Submissions from third countries 

The Commission received a submission from Canada. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
3B. Member States' contributions on the policy options  

The  Commission  received  submissions  from  11  Member  States.  These  were  Bulgaria,  the 
Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Hungary,  Germany,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Spain, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom.    

In  general,  the  Member  States  expressed  support  for  the  upcoming  EU  animal  welfare 
strategy and the Commission's work in preparing it.  

The base line option (status quo) was not supported by any Member State, except if it meant 
that  the  resources  employed  are  used  to  ensure  that  the  current  legislation  is  more  properly 
enforced. This concern was echoed by several Member States. 

There  was  broad  support  for  policy  Option  2.  Nearly  all  Member  States  supported 
communication  and  education  efforts  in  relation  to  animal  welfare.  Also,  third  country 
equivalent standards for animal welfare were considered essential. 

There was also much support for improved coordination between Member States and the EU 
institutions,  animal  welfare  research  promotion,  the  Welfare  Quality  project  and  the 
development of indicators, an animal welfare reference laboratory network, co-regulation and 
international activities. 

Some Member States mentioned a need to develop and disseminate best practice guidelines.  

A  general  framework  law  was  supported,  but  a  need  for  further  clarification  of  this  legal 
concept was also highlighted. Some Member States supported extensions of the scope of EU 
legislation on animal welfare, while others were negative to imposing new regulatory burdens 
by  additional  legislation.  It  was  also  mentioned  that  there  is  a  need  to  strengthen  links 
between the CAP reform and animal welfare. 

Very  few  Member  States  asked  for  updates  of  current  EU  animal  welfare  legislation  if 
research in relevant areas is developed. A revision of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on 
the  protection  of  animals  during  transport  was  requested  by  one  Member  State.  There  was 
also pointed to a need to evaluate both the EU's first action plan for animal welfare and the 
Better  Training  for  Safer  Food  programme.  Mandatory  animal  welfare  labelling  was 
perceived  rather  negatively.  Also,  according  to  Member  States,  farmers  need  to  be 
compensated  for  complying  with  European  animal  welfare  legislation.  Moreover,  animal 
welfare policies need to be increasingly mainstreamed with other EU policies. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

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

Annex 4 – Baseline 

Problems related to specific pieces of EU legislation 

Type of animals and 
activity 

Keeping 
animals  

of 

all 

farmed 

Legal act 

Main provisions 

Impacts on animal welfare 

Problem drivers 

No change scenario 

Directive  98/58  of  20  July 
1998 
the 
concerning 
protection of animals kept for 
farming purposes OJ  L 221 , 
08.08.1998 p. 23.  

Contains  general  principles 
applicable  to  all  species  and 
referring 
the  European 
Convention on  the  protection 
of  animals  kept  for  farming 
purposes 

to 

Dairy  cows  –  lameness  and 
mastitis,  metabolic  problems, 
short 
life, 
production 
transport  at  the  end  of  their 
production life (EFSA179)*** 

Directive  vague  without  EU 
guidance 
specific 
(no 
provisions) 

Market 
failure 
production costs) 

(reducing 

No information to consumers 

Dairy  cows:  No  positive 
change.  Animal  welfare 
to  be 
likely 
to  continue 
in 
compromised 
Member 
adopting 
States 
national legislative provisions 
or 
(Germany, 
Sweden, UK) 

guidelines 

except 

Beef  cattle  (SCAHAW180)  – 
limited freedom of movement 
for fattening animals 

Initial 
design 
production 
ignoring  animals  needs  (lack 
of knowledge) 

 Beef  cattle:  no  positive 
change. 

Ducks in individual cages no 
ability  to  move  their  wings 
(SCAHAW) 

Farmed  fish  – 
killing, 
(EFSA) *** 

inhumane 
overcrowding 

Lack  of  research  for  certain 
species 

No 
monitoring system 

animal 

welfare 

Ducks:  Positive  evolution 
foreseen:  France  agreed  to 
phase out individual cages for 
ducks. 

Positive 
fish: 
Farmed 
change 
the 
in 
foreseen 
framework  of  the  actions 
taken 
the 
Aquaculture  Strategy.  No 

following 

179   
180 

EFSA = there is scientific opinions available from the European Food Safety Authority pointing out welfare problems 
SCAHAW = Scientific Committee for Animal Health and Animal Welfare which was providing EU scientific risk assessment before the EFSA was established. 

EN 

94 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Type of animals and 
activity 

Legal act 

Main provisions 

Impacts on animal welfare 

Problem drivers 

No change scenario 

on 

information 
national 
initiatives  for  improving  the 
fish 
welfare 
(except in Norway) 

farmed 

of 

Farming  rabbits 
-  High 
mortality,  no  enough  space, 
injuries  due  to  mesh  wire 
floors (EFSA)*** 

Fur animals – (SCAHAW) no 
enough  space 
to  express 
normal  behaviour,  no  access 
to water for minks 

lameness,  foot 
Turkeys  – 
dermatitis,  no  space  to  move 
(similar to broilers) 

Horses – Neglect (no feed or 
water)    when  retired  from 

95 

in 

Rabbits: No positive change 
the  main 
foreseen 
producing  countries  (France, 
Italy  and  Spain)  but  national 
provisions  in  Germany  to  be 
adopted. 

Positive 
Fur 
animals: 
evolution  foreseen  due 
to 
private  initiative  on  animal 
welfare  indicators.  The  fur 
its 
industry  has 
sustainable 
strategy 
on 
development 
including 
animal  welfare  as  a  key 
objective.  

focused 

However 
industry 
the 
complained  about  market 
distortions due to differences 
in  legal  provisions  in  each 
Member State. 

No 
Turkeys: 
change foreseen. 

positive 

Horses:  No  positive  change 
foreseen. 

EN 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Type of animals and 
activity 

Keeping of pigs  

Legal act 

Main provisions 

Impacts on animal welfare 

Problem drivers 

No change scenario 

Directive  2008/120  of  18 
December  2008  laying  down 
minimum  standards  for  the 
protection  of  pigs  OJ  L  47, 
18.02.2009  p.  5  (codified 
version)  

Contains 
requirements  on 
space  allowances  and  floor 
types.  Bans  the  permanent 
use  of  individual  stalls  for 
sows.  Require  the  provision 
of  manipulable  materials  like 
straw. 

sportive carrier 

Lack 
materials 

of 

manipulable 

Lack of enforcement 

Routine 
clipping 

tail  dockings/tooth 

Use  of  individual  sow  stalls 
of 
of 
(lack 
movement) 

freedom 

Castration  of  male  piglets 
without anaesthesia 

Transport  of  unproductive 
sows 
slaughterhouses 
to 
leading to suffering 

Market 
failure 
production costs) 

(reducing 

Initial 
ignoring animals needs 

production 

design 

Ignorance  of 
farmers  of 
alternative  management  (sow 
stalls, tail docking) 

Lack 
research 
alternatives in castration 

of 

for 

No 
monitoring system 

animal 

welfare 

Grouping  of  sows 
to  be 
implemented  from  1.1.2013 
but  no  positive  change 
foreseen for tail docking and 
tooth clipping 

Private  public  partnership  to 
phase  out  the  castration  of 
pigs is foreseen. 

(see under transport) 

Ban of battery cages expected 
to be implemented in 2012. 

No  positive  change  foreseen 
for beak trimming. 

Keeping  of  laying  hens  D. 
1999/74 

Directive  1999/74  of  19  July 
1999  laying  down  minimum 
standards  for  the  protection 
of  laying  hens  OJ  L  203  , 
03.08.1999 p. 53. 

Bans the use of battery cages 
from  1.1.  2012  and  contains 
provisions  for  the  different 
type  of  housing  (enriched 
cages, alternative systems). 

Use  of  battery  cages  (bare 
environment,  no  perches,  no 
nests and very limited space) 

Lack of enforcement 

Market 
failure 
production costs) 

(reducing 

Beak trimming 

[Transport  of  unproductive 
laying 
to 
slaughterhouses] 

hens 

Initial 
ignoring animals needs 

production 

design 

No 
monitoring system 

animal 

welfare 

EN 

96 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Type of animals and 
activity 

Keeping 
2008/119 

of 

calves  D. 

Directive  2008/119  of  18 
December  2008,  OJ  L  010  , 
15.01.2009  P.  7  laying  down 
minimum  standards  for  the 
protection of calves (codified 
version) 

Legal act 

Main provisions 

Impacts on animal welfare 

Problem drivers 

No change scenario 

Bans  the  permanent  use  of 
individual  stall  for  calves.  
Contains 
for 
balanced feed. 

requirements 

To  be  re-evaluated  by  the 
EFSA  but  insufficient  fibre 
and iron feeding to keep meat 
white 

Market demand in white meat 

No 
monitoring system 

animal 

welfare 

No positive change foreseen 
(but  EFSA  needs  to  confirm 
the  nature  and  extend  of 
problems soon).  

[Transport 
unweaned 
of 
calves  with  no  possibility  to 
be fed] 

Keeping  of  broilers  D. 
2007/43 

Directive 2007/43 of 28 June 
2007  laying  down  minimum 
rules  for  the  protection  of 
for  meat 
chickens  kept 
production 
182, 
12.7.2007 p. 19) 

(OJ  L 

Provides  maximum  densities 
the 
broilers  with 
for 
possibility of extension under 
specific 
of 
monitoring. 

conditions 

Fast  growing  animals  with 
and  metabolic 
lameness 
problems,  feed  restriction. 
Limited  space  at  the  end  of 
the production. 

However 
(started 
applied) 

recent  provision 
to  be 

in  2010 

 Market 
failure 
production costs) 

(reducing 

Initial 
ignoring 
(genetic selection) 

production 
animals 

design 
needs 

Report  foreseen  for  parent 
flocks in 2012 

Welfare  of  parent 
critical 
restriction and lameness. 

(EFSA) 

flocks 
Feed 

(see under transport) 

Main  problems  of  broilers 
expected to be addressed with 
the  new  directive  but  feed 
restriction 
to 
is 
remain. 

likely 

Welfare  of  parent  flocks  is 
expected 
a 
problem. 

remain 

to 

Killing of animals D. 93/119  Directive  93/119  of  22 
December  1993  on 
the 
protection  of  animals  at  the 
time  of  slaughter  or  killing 
OJ L 340 , 31/12/1993 p. 21  

standards 

for 
Contains 
slaughterhouses  as  well  as 
provisions  in  case  of  killing 
outside 
slaughterhouses 
(disease  control,  fur  animals, 
etc.).  

This  text  will  be  replaced  in 
2013  by  the  application  of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 

Abuse  of  derogation  from 
stunning (ritual slaughter) 

Market failure (simplification 
of the production line) 

to 

problems 
by 
to  apply 

be 
Other 
new  R. 
addressed 
1099/2009 
from 
1.1.2013  except  farmed  fish, 
waterbath  stunning,  rotating 
box (reports foreseen) 

Abuse  of  derogation  from 
stunning may be addressed in 
France 
initiative 
(possible 
foreseen  but  not  confirmed) 
but  not  in  other  Member 
States. 

Other  problems  expected  to 
be  addressed  with  the  new 
regulation. 

EN 

97 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Type of animals and 
activity 

Transport of animals 

The  use  of  animals 
experimental purposes 

for 

Legal act 

Main provisions 

Impacts on animal welfare 

Problem drivers 

No change scenario 

Lack of enforcement 

failure 
Market 
production costs) 

(reducing 

EU standards not in line with 
(space 
scientific 
allowances, travel times) 

findings 

animals 

(transport 

being 
Unfit 
transported 
of 
unweaned calves, transport of 
end-carrier  animals:  horses, 
dairy  cows, 
laying  hens, 
sows) 

Lack  of  space,  lack  of  water 
and  feed  on  long  journeys, 
heat stress due to insufficient 
space and ventilation 

Lack  of  rest  in  control  posts, 
excessive long journeys. 

Addressed by new D.2010/63  Not relevant 

1099/2009  of  24  September 
2009  on  the  protection  of 
animals at the time of killing 

Regulation  1/2005  of  22 
December  2004,  on 
the 
protection  of  animals  during 
and 
transport 
related 
operations 
amending 
and 
Directives  64/432/EEC  and 
93/119/EC  and  Regulation 
(EC) No 1255/97  

of 

Directive  86/609  of  24 
the 
November  1986  on 
laws, 
approximation 
regulations 
and 
administrative  provisions  of 
the  Member  States  regarding 
the  protection  of  animals 
used  for  experimental  and 
other scientific purposes 

 OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. 

times, 

fitness 

Contains  detailed  provisions 
for  the  main  farm  species  on 
space 
travelling 
allowances, 
for 
transport,  vehicles  standards 
and drivers’ competence. The 
includes  a 
regulation  also 
administrative 
number  of 
allowing 
procedures 
for 
proper 
the 
by 
checks 
competent authorities. 

The  new  Directive  requires 
that  projects  using  animals 
are  subject  to  authorisation 
and  a  systematic,  ethical 
evaluation.  The  scope  of  the 
directive is enlarged covering 
new groups/life forms/uses of 
animals 
also 
includes  specific  invertebrate 
(cephalopods), 
species 
mammalian foetuses from the 
last 
their 
development,  as  well  as 
animals used for the purposes 
of  basic  research,  education 
training.  It  also  sets 
and 

trimester 

now 

and 

of 

a 

to 

transport  cattle 
Fitness 
addressed 
private 
by 
initiative  but  nothing  on 
other 
species 
critical 
(calves,  dairy  cows,  sows, 
horses, laying hens) 

issues 

Other 
addressed  by 
Commission  proposal 
not yet decided). 

a 

possibly 
specific 
(but 

Problems  expected 
addressed 
directive. 

by 

the 

to  be 
new 

EN 

98 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Type of animals and 
activity 

Legal act 

Main provisions 

Impacts on animal welfare 

Problem drivers 

No change scenario 

Replaced 
Directive 
by 
2010/63  of  22  September 
2010  on  the  protection  of 
animals  used  for  scientific 
purposes  OJ 
276, 
20.10.2010  p.  33  which  will 
have full effect by 1.1.2013 

L 

housing  and  care  standards, 
tighter  rules  for  the  use  and 
care  of  non-human  primates 
and  introduces  a  ban  on  the 
use of great apes in scientific 
procedures. 
the 
'Three  Rs' 
concept  of  the 
(Replacement, Reduction and 
Refinement  of  animal  use)  is 
entrenched 
new 
in 
Directive. 

Finally, 

the 

The  keeping  of  animals  in 
zoos 

Directive  1999/22  of  29 
March  1999  relating  to  the 
keeping  of  wild  animals  in 
zoos, OJl L 094 , 09/04/1999 
P. 24  

general 
Contains 
for  adequate 
requirements 
accommodation 
facilities, 
species  specific  enrichments 
aiming  to  satisfy  biological 
and behavioural needs, 

kept 

Animals 
bare 
in 
and  without 
conditions 
proper  care  corresponding  to 
their need (NGO sources) 

Lack of enforcement 

No 
foreseen. 

positive 

change 

of 

Lack 
knowledge 
stakeholders and officials 

of 

Lack of research  

No monitoring system 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
 
Problems outside the current scope of the EU legislation 

Type of animals and activity 

Impacts on animal welfare 

Problem drivers 

No change scenario 

Trade of dogs and cats 

Early  weaning,  behavioural  and 
health problems 

Market 
production costs) 

failure 

(reducing 

No positive change foreseen. 

Large  difference  in  standards  and 
between  Member 
enforcement 
States 

*** Large welfare problems identified 

"Market failure" in the context of the table means that the market fails to reward business operators who apply processes of production which better consider the welfare needs 
of animals.  In absence of information to consumers, most business operators tend to reduce production costs favouring systems of production that could be very detrimental 
for the welfare of animals. This explains why some animal welfare problems are widespread. 

EN 

100 

EN 

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

Figures  have  been  mainly  taken  from  the  evaluation  and  further  details  can  be  found  in  the 
evaluation report181 . 

Communication and education 

In  relation  to  communication  and  education,  the  current  annual  EU  resource  is  around 
600.000 euros and one full time equivalent (FTE) in DG SANCO for farm animals. There is 
no specific resource on communication and education for wild and experimental animals (DG 
ENV).  In  addition  the  initiative  "Better  Training  for  Safer  Food"  dedicates  around  400.000 
euros per year for the training of 185 veterinary officials per year182 on animal welfare issues 
related  to  farm  animals.  No  EU  action  is  performed  for  the  training  on  animal  welfare  on 
experimental or wild animals. 

Under the EU  agriculture  budget there is the possibility for co-financing the promotion and 
information  activities  for  agricultural  products  and  their  production  methods183.  Over  the 
period  2006-2010  the  EU  contributed  for  249  million  euros  for  a  total  cost  505  million 
euros184  of  183  promotion  programme.  The  average  promotion  cost  per  programme  is 
therefore  of  2.76  million  euros  most  of  them  lasting  3  years.  However  the  implementing 
regulation185 on promotion measures does not today foresees messages on animal welfare. 

Corporate Social Responsibility and procurement policy 

As regard Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or procurement policy, there is presently no 
EU  initiative  to  introduce  animal  welfare  among  the  item  that  would  be  part  of  CSR  or 
procurement policy. 

Research 

The EU budget for research on animal welfare amounts for an annual average of 15 million 
euros186,  80%  being  dedicated  to  experimental  animals.  Farm  animals  (including  fish) 
receiving the remaining. The evaluation has clearly indicated the need to increase research on 
the welfare of wild animals when they are subject to EU legislation. 

Voluntary platforms on animal welfare 

Concerning the development of public/private initiatives, there is currently only one platform 
committed  to  reduce  the  use  of  animals  and  to  reduce  animal  suffering  in  the  context  of 
regulatory  testing,  and  thus  promoting  animal  welfare.  As  an  indication,  the  European 

181  
182  
183  

184  
185  

186  

See in particular Question 3 on the EU research funding and Question 7 on financial resources. 
The programme is actually organised over a two-years period. 
For  more  information  on  promotion  campaigns  financed  by  the  EU  see  Report  on  the  application  of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for agricultural 
products on the internal market and in third countries COM(2010) 692 final   
The rest is co-financed by the sectors or/and national authorities. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  501/2008  of  5  June  2008  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures 
for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries. 
Research funding is in fact provided for longer periods (framework programmes). 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Platform  for  Alternative  Approaches  to  Animal  Testing  (EPAA)  costs  annually  to  the  EU 
around  50.000  euros  through  the  meeting  budget,  including  EPAA/ECVAM  (European 
Centre  for  the  Validation  of  Alternative  Methods)187  joint  workshops  and  other  joint 
activities.  However,  a  great  deal  of  the  EPAA  activities  (consultants,  scientific  writers, 
workshops,  awards),  decided  by  Commission  and  industry  participants,  is  financed  by  the 
industry  concerned.  Developing  such  platform  for  farm  animals  would  probably  need  a 
similar way of financing for each sector concerned, where initiatives to be developed will in 
part depend on the actual amounts being made available by the sectors.   

Auditing and improved coordination 

As regards further auditing and advising the Member States, the present resources for farmed 
animals is mainly represented by the work performed by the Food and the Veterinary Office 
(FVO) of DG SANCO with 9 full time equivalents (FTE). If auditing is performed regularly, 
the  present  staff  number  would  not  suffice  for  increasing  further  advice  and  coordination 
meetings. Drafting implementation guidelines would also require additional staff or financial 
resources. There are presently at least 8 specific EU pieces of legislation that could be subject 
to reinforced coordination and guidelines (6 for DG SANCO and 2 for DG ENV). 

International activities 

As concerned international initiatives, the evaluation has estimated the current specific budget 
to  100.000  euros.  One  FTE  is  presently  dedicated  to  international  animal  welfare 
coordination within DG SANCO. 

187  

http://ecvam.jrc.it/ 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 5 – Impact assessment 

5A - Indicators for the specific objectives188 

Indicators for specific objective 1: to improve enforcement of the EU legislation 

–  Rate  of  infringements,  rate  of  inspection;  number  of  complaints  addressed  to  the 
Commission on animal welfare; number of ongoing EU infringement proceedings. Annex 
6A  contains  tables  summarising  data  submitted  by  the  Member  States  for  2008  on  the 
numbers  of  production  sites  subject  to  inspection,  inspected  production  sites,  inspected 
production  sites  without  non  compliance  and  detected  non  compliance  that  required 
immediate action for administrative or criminal penalties189.  

–  Number of official national or regional guidelines on animal welfare aiming at enforcing 
EU  legislation  (this  would  need  a  specific  collection  work).  For  example,  in  the  UK  a 
number of local authorities have an animal welfare charter. 

–  Number of farms adhering to a specific animal welfare certification scheme or having an 

animal welfare component in their scheme. 

Indicators  for  specific  objective  2:  to  provide  for  open  and  fair  competition  for  EU 
business operators that implement or go beyond EU requirements  

–  Market share of EU producers having stricter animal welfare national rules and analysis of 

their investment and operating costs. 

–  Level of importation of products from third countries having lower legal standards the EU.    

–  Number of animals covered by equivalent legal provisions in third countries.  

–  Eurobarometer surveys on the level of awareness of EU citizens and evolution on time. 

Indicators for specific objective 3: to improve knowledge and awareness of EU business 
operators regarding animal welfare 

–  Number of education bodies providing animal welfare curriculum for specific professions 

related to animals. 

–  Number  of  professional  schools  having  specific  animal  welfare  programmes  in  their 

curriculum. 

–  Number  of  companies  having  animal  welfare  as  part  of  their  corporate  social 

responsibility. 

–  Research funding (see current level of resources in the baseline).  

188  

189  

EN 

RSPCA  has  designed  a  number  of  animal  welfare  indicators  for  the  UK,  cf.  "The  welfare  state:  five 
2005-2009":http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-
animal  welfare 
years  measuring 
action/whatwedo/animalwelfareindicators 
Data submitted by Member States to the Commission pursuant to Commission Decision 2006/778/EC.   

the  UK 

in 

103 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Number of publications on animal welfare; Number of brevets registered related to animals 

welfare.  

–  Number  of  animals  exempted  from  experiments  due  to  the  validation  of  alternative 

methods. 

–  Number of non-human primates used in scientific procedures in the EU. 

Indicators for specific objective 4: to improve coherence of animal welfare across animal 
species 

–  Level of discrepancies between national animal welfare standards on dogs and cats based 

on the most critical animal welfare problems identified by the Council. 

–  Level of discrepancies between national animal welfare standards on dairy cows and beef 

cattle based on the indicators of the welfare quality project. 

–  Level of discrepancies between national animal welfare standards on farmed fish based on 

the most critical welfare problems identified by the EFSA. 

–  Level of discrepancies between national animal welfare standards on rabbits based on the 

the most critical welfare problems identified by the EFSA. 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
5B – Option 1: Strengthening Member States' compliance 

Option 1 will include the following initiatives: 

Increased  the  number  of  audit  missions  of  the  Commission'  services  in  the  Member 
States and third countries; 

The Food and Veterinary Office from the Directorate General Health and Consumers of the 
Commission  (FVO)  will  perform  more  missions  on  animal  welfare.  Under  the  current  EU 
policy on animal welfare, the work of the FVO corresponds to 9 full time equivalents (FTE). 
In  the  average  they  perform  eleven  inspections  dedicated  to  animal  welfare  legislation  per 
year. 

The  work  of  the  FVO  has  contributed  to  a  more  uniform  application  of  EU  rules  in  the 
veterinary  field  including  animal  welfare.  Experience  has  showed  that  repeated  FVO 
inspections can address enforcement issues, keeping in mind that the FVO has no mandate to 
inspect  and  sanction  business  operators  but  only  to  supervise  the  inspection  work  of 
competent authorities in the Member States. The FVO carries out inspections for all specific 
EU legislation applicable to farm animals and their reports are made public on the internet.190  

Strengthen inter-governmental cooperation to promote better enforcement; 

intergovernmental  cooperation 

thematic  working  groups  (for 
Strengthening 
government officials) is useful in providing clarification of disputed aspects of the legal texts 
and allows exchange of good practices between the different competent authorities. More EU 
resources could be allocated for such activities, which would inlcude advising Member States' 
competent authorities and encouraging cooperation, exchange of best practices and agreement 
of common targets and guidelines through thematic working groups and events. 

through 

Organise workshops with stakeholders on specific animal welfare issues; 

The organisation of workshops for stakeholders on specific enforcement problems have been 
successful  in  the  past,  in  particular  for  better  informing  stakeholders  on  the  scientific 
background  of  certain  EU  rules  and  possible  alternative  methods  available.  According  to 
participants, such initiatives are useful in bringing all partners together but can often only be 
effective if the Commission continues the work after the event by ensuring a certain follow up 
in providing guidelines or organising more specific actions.  

A  number  of  topics  could  be  addressed  by  means  of  workshops  in  order  to  share  positive 
experiences  of  good  animal  welfare  practices.  This  could  for  example  be  developed  for 
ensuring a proper implementation of the future regulation on the protection of animals at the 
time of killing, on animal transport or for the zoo directive. 

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

Council  of  Europe  recommendations  (of  the  European  Convention  for  the  protection  of 
animals kept for farming purposes) are part of EU law but their implementation has been left 

190 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to the Member States through national measures. Directive 98/58/EC provides the legislative 
base  for  adopting  more  specific  legal  text  on  the  basis  of  the  Convention  but  has  not  been 
used.  An  alternative  way  would  be  to  develop  specific,  non-legally  binding  guidelines  to 
further explain how the recommendations should be implemented191. 

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

The Better Training for Safer Food programme (BTSF)192 has contributed to raise the level of 
competence  of  inspectors  as  well  as  raise  awareness  of  the  EU  legislation  for  participants 
from third countries. 

Option 1 would envisage the further development of BTSF initiatives to extend the scope of 
participants through e-learning modules on all the set of EU legislation on animal welfare and 
make them accessible in all EU languages and to a wider public. 

Deliverables of Option 1 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Increased  number  of  audit  missions  in  the  Member  States  and  third  countries  on 
animal welfare; 

Increased number of working groups with the Member States on better enforcement 
and interpretation on problem areas of the EU legislation; 

Increased  number  of  workshops  with  stakeholders  in  order  to  facilitate  the 
understanding of the legislation and the possible alternatives to bad  animal welfare 
practices 

Publication of guidelines of interpretation for each specific pieces of EU legislation 
on  animal  welfare  (transport  of  animals,  killing  of  animals,  keeping  of  calves, 
keeping  of  pigs,  keeping  of  laying  hens,  keeping  of broilers,  experimental animals, 
zoo animals). 

Publication  of  guidelines  on  the  recommendations  of  the  European  Convention  for 
the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. 

191  

192 

Development  of  guidelines  could  be  envisaged  for  species  that  are  covered  by  the  general  animal 
welfare directive (98/58/EC) but not subject to specific provisions. 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/training_strategy/index_en.htm 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5C - Option 2: Benchmarking voluntary schemes 

Option 2 will include the following initiatives: 

A legal framework for benchmarking certification schemes with animal welfare claims 

There are many certification schemes of agricultural products193, with different claims, some 
of them focusing on animal welfare but other having animal welfare components. 

Option 2 will consist in establishing a system to benchmark, register and publish certification 
schemes with animal welfare claims.  

The system will be voluntary. Certification schemes applying for being EU registered will be 
published  and  will  benefit  from  EU  communication  instruments  (see  next  point).  Other 
certification will not be evaluated but will be allowed to continue their activities. 

Certification schemes that will apply for EU registration will be evaluated on the basis on an 
EU  benchmark  corresponding  to  their  scope  of  activity.  For  example  if  the  applicant  is  a 
certification scheme applicable to dairy farms, the scheme will be evaluated on the basis of 
the  overall  private  and  public  standards  available  in  the  EU  for  dairy  farms,  from  the  more 
stringent to the lowest requiring standards. 

For  the  establishment  of  the  EU  benchmark  on  a  particular  activity,  preliminary  work  will 
have to be performed by an independent body working for the EU. This work will consist in 
collecting  in  the  EU  all  the  existing  certification  schemes,  national  and  EU  legislation 
applicable  to  the  activity  concerned  and  then  establish  a  scale  (a  benchmark)  ranging  the 
different standards identified in the EU (for example a scale from 0 to 100, 0 representing the 
lowest EU standard and 100 the highest). 

Then the evaluation of the applicant scheme will be performed to assess where the applicant 
scheme is located on the scale. When the score will be established, the content of the scheme 
and its final score on the EU benchmark will be published by the Commission services. The 
legislation will define the necessary procedures for establishing the benchmarking system as 
well as for registering and publishing EU registered certification schemes. 

EU registered schemes could be used in the context of business to business (as for example 
farmers to retailers) but also in the context of animal welfare claims directly communicated to 
consumers (specific animal welfare logos or general brands who want to put forward animal 
welfare  claims).  It  could  also  be  used  in  the  context  of  corporate  social  responsibility  (see 
Annex 6B). 

EU registered schemes will benefit from an EU wide publicity due to their registration.  

193  

EN 

DG AGRI has already listed more than 400 certification schemes on agricultural products but there is 
presently  no  system  for  consumers  in  order  to  help  them  to  know  what  is  the  actual  rating  of  each 
scheme 
See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/certification/index_en.htm  

applicable). 

regarding 

welfare 

aspects 

animal 

(when 

the 

107 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  legislation  will  contain  provisions  to  allow  EU  registered  schemes  to  have  decreased 
official  controls  if  they  provide  sufficient  guarantees  that  their  schemes  is  beyond  EU 
standards and present a higher level of compliance with the legislation. 

The  legislation  could  also  establish  links  between  the  EU  benchmark  and  the  provisions  of 
current animal welfare payments provided in the context of the Rural Development Fund to 
ensure  that  there  is  a  transparent  system  to  evaluate  the  level  of  improvement  on  animal 
welfare. 

The EU benchmark could also be used as a reference in the context of public procurement. 

The proposed system is inspired by the model developed by the Global Food Safety Initiative 
(http://www.mygfsi.com/). 

Communication campaigns for informing consumers 

Option  2  will  also  be  associated  with  a  wide  communication  and  education  strategy  on  EU 
requirements as well as the EU benchmarking system. 

Such  communication  campaigns  will  be  mainly  addressed  to  consumers  but  also  to 
stakeholders to promote the use of the benchmarking system and make it more attractive for 
producers. 

More efforts could also be provided on animal welfare education tools like "Farmland".194  

Prioritizing of EU actions on animal welfare at international level 

Further  international  initiatives  could  be  developed  through  multilateral  and  bilateral 
cooperation  with  third  countries,  in  synergy  with  a  world  wide  communication  strategy  to 
explain  EU  intentions  and  standards  as  well  as  developing  a  basis  for  equivalency  with  EU 
standards.  Here,  the  EU  could  widen  its  focus  on  countries  situated  at  close  geographical 
proximity, such as the countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).   

Deliverables of Option 2 

A  Commission  proposal  for  a  regulation  establishing  an  EU  system  to  benchmark,  register 

and publish certification schemes with animal welfare claims; 

6. 

7. 

194   

A  series  of  communication  campaigns  directed  to  the  public,  consumers  and 
stakeholders to publicise the new benchmarking system as well as the EU legislation 
on animal welfare; 

Increased  international  activities  through  bilateral  and  multilateral  cooperation  on 
animal  welfare  (increased  number  of  international  events,  increased  number  of 
international standards adopted). 

Farmland 
http://www.farmland-thegame.eu/  

is  a  website  aimed  at  raising  awareness  on  animal  welfare  for  children.  See: 

EN 

108 

   EN 

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

There is today a compulsory labelling system throughout the EU on table eggs195. The system 
consists  of  marking  each  table  egg196  according  to  a  specific  production  method  (0  for 
organic, 1 for free range, 2 for barn and 3 for cages). 

Some  stakeholders197  advocate  for  extending  this  mandatory  system  of  labelling  on  animal 
welfare to other animal products like pig  or poultry meat. The  issue and other options have 
been  discussed  at  the  Council  during  the  Commission  proposal  on  animal  welfare  labelling 
(see Annex 2H). 

There  are  several  reasons  why  establishing  a  mandatory  system  of  labelling  for  animal 
welfare has not been considered in the context of this impact assessment: 

Consumers  studies198  indicate  that  most  consumers  are  unlikely  to  change  their  buying 
behaviour with an additional EU logo/label on animal welfare despite that it remains 
an  important  concern  for  them.    It  seems  that,  for  animal  welfare,  most  consumers 
tend to trust either the brand, an existing logo (like organic food) or the authorities. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

Production methods alone do not necessarily provide better welfare conditions to the 
animals, hence labelling on production methods may lead to ignore important aspects 
of their welfare related to the management  of the animals rather than  the design of 
the production method. 

There  is  today  no  comparable  system  of  classification  of  production  system  laid 
down in the EU legislation for pigs or poultry. Establishing a mandatory system for 
labelling pig meat or poultry meat would require amending several pieces of the EU 
legislation to establish categories of production methods.  

Establishing  a  mandatory  labelling  system  with  new  categorisation  of  production 
methods  is  likely  to  bear  additional  costs  for  producers,  food  processors  and  food 
retailers alike. 

A new mandatory labelling system was opposed by many stakeholders, in particular 
the  ones  who  have  developed  their  own  animal  welfare  standards  (like  organic 
farming) and invested in promoting their logos or brand names. They fear that an EU 
wide labelling system will affect their market. 

12. 

During the Council debate on animal welfare labelling (see Annex 2H), there was no 
large support from the Member States for such option. 

195 

196 
197 

198 

Commission Directive 2002/4/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens, covered by 
Council Directive 1999/74/EC. 
it does not apply to processed eggs or to eggs for further processing 
Labelling food from farm animals, method of production labels for the European Union from the Farm 
Animal Welfare Forum (CIWF, FAI, RSCPCA, The Cooperative Food, Soil Association, University of 
Bristol and WSPA). 
See for example ‘Are labels the answer? Barriers to buying higher animal welfare products. A report for 
Defra’ (September 2010) 

EN 

109 

   EN 

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

This proposal includes the following initiatives: 

Setting up a network of reference centres for animal welfare 

This idea has already been developed by the Commission in a previous communication199 and 
supported by the European Parliament. The concept already exists in Article 32 of Regulation 
(EC) No 882/2004200 referring to "Community reference laboratories" and could possibly be 
extended to animal welfare. 

The  concept  of  EU  reference  laboratories  is  to  appoint  and  co-finance  national  reference 
laboratories  for  coordinating  official  testing  methods  for  the  EU.  Each  reference  laboratory 
has a particular topic of activity (like for example the UK Institute for Animal Health is at the 
same  time  national  reference  laboratory  and  the  EU  reference  laboratory  for  the  foot-and-
mouth disease). 

Each EU reference centre, in a particular animal welfare topic, will have to: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Coordinate  at  EU  level  on  EU  relevant  themes  in  collobaroation  when 
appropriate  with  existing  EU  funded  research  structures  like  the  SCAR 
(Standing  Committee  on  Agricultural  Research)  collaborative  working  group 
on  animal  health  and  welfare  research201  and  the  the  Animal  Health  and 
Welfare ERA-Net (ANIHWA)202; 

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

Disseminate research findings and technical innovations to EU stakeholders; 

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

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

The  structure  of  the  network  will  be  made  of  existing  national  scientific  resources.  The 
network  will  not  duplicate  the  role  of  the  EFSA  in  risk  assessment,  and  the  activity  of  the 
Joint  Research  Centre  of  the  EU  and  existing  structure  coordinating  EU  policies.  The 
estimated  annual  costs  for  the  estblishment  of  the  network  are  presented  at  the  end  of  this 
section. The research which will be carried out will not overlap with the EU funded research.  

Deliverables of Option 3 

199  

200  

201  
202  

COM(2009)584final see: 
 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/farm/docs/options_animal_welfare_labelling_report_en.pdf  
Regulation  (EC)  No  882/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  29  April  2004  on 
official  controls  performed  to  ensure  the  verification  of  compliance  with  feed  and  food  law,  animal 
health and animal welfare rules (OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1). 
http://www.scar-cwg-ahw.org/ 
http://www.scar-cwg-ahw.org/?page_id=146 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
A  Commission  proposal  for  a  regulation  establishing  a  European  network  of  reference 

centres; 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
Estimated annual staff costs of a possible ENRC 

Minimum scope 

Medium scope 

Maximum scope 

Director 

Assistant 

Total staff number 

Grant total staff costs 

Staff Costs  per  unit  (in 

€)  

146,681 

31,585 

1 

0.5 

5 

Total 
(in €)  

146,681

15,792

Staff Costs  per  unit  (in 

€)  

146,681 

31,585 

1 

1 

11 

Total 
(in €)  
146,681 

31,585 

Staff Costs  per  unit  (in 

€)  

146,681 

31,585 

1 

2 

23 

510,874  

1,074,154.66  

Total 
(in €)  
146,681 

63,170 

2,166,735 

EN 

112 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total estimated annual operating costs of a possible ENRC 

Task 

Costs of core activities 

Sum of staff costs
Overheads (and other office running costs) 

Meetings and travel (missions for staff, per diems)

Total core activities
Costs of network functions 

Subcontracting  of  socio-economic  studies  and  impact 
assessments 

Subcontracting  of  Community  relevant  research  on  animal 
welfare and protection practices and/or other network functions

Subcontracting  of  education/  training,  information  and 
dissemination activities (including website) 
Workshops with external experts (2 days) 

Total network functions
Total costs 

Minimum scope 

Medium scope 

Maximum scope 

Units Costs 

unit (in €)

per 

Total 
(in €)  

Units  Costs per 
(in 
unit 

Total 
(in €)  

Units Costs per 
(in 
unit 

Total 
(in €)

10,000

75,000

510,875

50,000

75,000

635,875

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

100,000 

100,000 

5

1

1 

1 

1 

10

18,016

180,160

10,000

150,000

1,074,155

110,000

150,000

1,334,155

400,000 

400,000 

1,200,000 

1,200,000 

500,000 

500,000 

23

1

1 

1 

1 

10,000

200,000

2,166,735

230,000

200,000

2,596,735

200,000 

200,000 

1,800,000 

1,800,000

900,000 

900,000 

18,016

270,240

20

18,016

360,320

11 
1 

1 

1 

1 

15 

1,280,160

1,916,035  

2,370,240
3,704,395 

3,260,320

5,857,055

EN 

113 

EN 

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

Streamlining requirements for competence 

There  is  today  requirements  for  competence  in  some  specific  EU  legislation  (pigs,  broilers, 
transport,  killing,  experimental  animals).  Option  4  will  consolidate  those  requirements  in  a 
single text and extend the requirements on competence to laying hens and calves farmers. 

Current legislation 

Requirement for competence? 

What Option 4 will change? 

farmed  animals 

All 
98/58) 

(Directive 

Yes,  but  vague  (paragraph  1  in 
Annex). 

Repeal  the  directive  and  replace 
with a new general law 

Keeping 
2008/120) 

of 

pigs 

(Directive 

Yes,  but  limited  in  knowing  the 
legislation (Article 5a). 

To be integrated into a requirement 
for competence under a general law 

Keeping  of  laying  hens  (Directive 
1999/74) 

None. 

Keeping  of 
2008/119) 

calves 

(Directive 

None. 

Create  a  new 
competence under a general law 

requirement 

for 

Create  a  new 
competence under a general law 

requirement 

for 

Keeping  of  broilers 
2007/43) 

(Directive 

Yes and specific (Annex IV). 

Killing  of 
93/119) 

animals 

(Directive 

Replaced  by  specific  requirements 
under new Regulation 1099/2009 

Transport  of  animals  (Regulation 
1/2005) 

Yes and specific (Article 6 (4)). 

Merge 
competence under a general law 

requirement 

into  a 

Merge 
competence under a general law 

requirement 

into  a 

Merge 
competence under a general law 

requirement 

into  a 

for 

for 

for 

The requirement for the competence of staff would be specific enough to include in particular 
the following objectives in the context of the interaction and the species concerned: 

–  Understand the ethical principles concerning the human-animal relationship, 

–  Show general knowledge and understanding of animal behaviour, 

–  Identify and understand the signs of pain, suffering and distress including fear of animals, 

–  Show  practical  abilities  in  the  foreseen  interaction  while  preventing  or  limiting  animals' 

pain, suffering and distress, 

–  Show knowledge of the legal obligations related to the protection and welfare of animals, 

–  Prove  the  acquired  and  maintained  competence  through  an  independent  and  objective 

examination. 

Using animal welfare indicators 

The  general  umbrella  directive  for  farmed  animals  will  be  replaced  by  a  general  law 
introducing  similar  previous  principles  but  with  the  additional  possibility  for  operators  to 
comply through the use of validated animal-based animal welfare indicators. 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
This  system  has  been  introduced  in  two  recent  pieces  of  EU  animal  welfare  legislation 
(Directive 2007/43 on broilers and Regulation 1099/2009 on killing). 

The integration of animal welfare indicators could open the way for a more flexible system of 
standard  in  particular  as  regards  requirements  related  to  the  management  of  the  animals  in 
farms. 

For example, today the EU legislation defines the maximum width of openings for concrete 
slatted floors for pigs as well as the minimum slat. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid 
animals to be trapped into the slat and suffer from injuries. The general law could introduce 
the possibility of compliance through the regular monitoring of scientifically validated animal 
based requirements (like the number of foot lesions). 

The  methodology  will  be  based  on  the  twelve  criteria  developed  by  the  Welfare  Quality 
project203 associated with a system of risk assessment as for the food safety area (see the Food 
law204). The ongoing EFSA Scientific Opinions on the development of welfare indicators and 
the Final Report of the DG RTD Project on welfare indicators will also be taken into account.  

Criteria that underpin the Welfare Quality® assessment systems 

1. Animals should not suffer from prolonged hunger, i.e. they should have a sufficient and 
appropriate diet. 
2. Animals should not suffer from prolonged thirst, i.e. they should have a sufficient and 
accessible water supply. 
3. Animals should have comfort around resting. 
4. Animals should have thermal comfort, i.e. they should neither be too hot nor too cold. 
5. Animals should have enough space to be able to move around freely. 
6. Animals should be free of physical injuries. 
7. Animals should be free of disease, i.e. farmers should maintain high standards of hygiene 
and care. 
8. Animals should not suffer pain induced by inappropriate management, handling, slaughter, 
or surgical 
procedures (e.g. castration, dehorning). 
9. Animals should be able to express normal, non-harmful, social behaviours, e.g. grooming. 
10. Animals should be able to express other normal behaviours, i.e. it should be possible to 
express species-specific natural behaviours such as foraging. 
11. Animals should be handled well in all situations, i.e. handlers should promote good 
human-animal relationships. 
12. Negative emotions such as fear, distress, frustration or apathy should be avoided whereas 
positive emotions such as security or contentment should be promoted. 

203  
204  

http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone/26536/5/0/22 
Regulation  (EC)  No  178/2002  laying  down  the  general  principles  and  requirements  of  food  law, 
establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. 

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Deliverables of Option 4 and 4+ 

13. 

14. 

A Commission proposal for a general  animal welfare law streamlining requirements 
for competence and introducing the possibility to use animal welfare indicators; 

(Option 4+) Studies on the relevance of extending the scope of certain requirements 
of the general animal welfare law to other species (like dairy cows, rabbits, turkeys, 
dogs and cats). 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
 
5G – List of impacts considered 

Economic impacts  

Internal market and competition 

There is very little limitation in the movement of live animals due to animal welfare national 
rules and intra-EU trade is highly harmonised mainly due to animal health concerns. 

The  effects  on  the  level  playing  field  of  operators  are  more  critical  since  discrepancies  in 
standards  are  common  as  regards  animal  welfare,  and  this  could  apply  in  different  areas  of 
activities. They introduce differences in production and marketing costs, which might create 
competitive disadvantages certain operators. 

Competitiveness, trade and international relations 

Competitiveness of EU producers in a global context is an important issue when we refer to 
animal  welfare.  Some  of  our  trade  partners  apply  comparable  standards  including  for  farm 
animals  but  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  this  is  always  the  case.  Animal  welfare  is  a  concern 
which  has  not  been  raised  as  a  trade  concern  at  WTO  level  yet,  thus  making  EU  rules  a 
possible competitive burden for EU producers, especially if it relates to commodity products. 

On the other hand, the competitiveness of EU producers should not be limited to production 
costs. Animal welfare is an attribute that could be part of competitive advantage if properly 
marketed. Focusing the production to high margin products and development of know-how on 
animal  welfare  could  contribute  to  safeguard  productions  in  regions  where  competition  on 
price is in any case not sustainable. 

Indeed the evaluation indicates that the product were there is the highest level of importation 
in  percentage  of  EU  production  (imported  sheep  meat  accounts  for  nearly  26%  of  the  EU 
production) mainly comes from a third country (New Zealand205) having comparable animal 
welfare standards206 beyond the areas required by the EU for equivalency207. This means that 
despite  risk  of  unfair  competition,  high  welfare  standards  are  compatible  with  high 
competitiveness on the world market. 

Impacts on trade are also critical for animal welfare, given that any measure taken should be 
compatible with our international commitments (WTO). Up to now very few animal welfare 
rules  have  been  applicable  to  third  countries  exporting  to  the  EU  and  the  principle  of 
equivalency has prevailed when it was the case. 

Third  countries  may  interpret  animal  welfare  requirements  for  equivalency  as  barriers  to 
trade.  The  actual  effects  on  our  trading  partners  have  to  be  evaluated  with  respect  to  our 
commitments at WTO, in particular with regards to the risk of creating technical barriers to 
trade.  But  these  effects  could  also  be  positive  if  the  EU  is  working  in  building  mutual 

205  

206  
207  

See  the evaluation report in 2008 New Zealand constituted 85% of sheep and goat meat importations 
with 226.000 tonnes (out of 265.000 tonnes). 
For more on New Zealand animal welfare standards: http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/ 
Today equivalent requirements are only needed for importing to the EU in relation to the protection of 
animals at the time of slaughter. 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
                                                 
understanding of our standards through bilateral or multilateral programmes of cooperation on 
animal welfare. 

Compliance costs 

Introducing animal welfare requirements create compliance costs. This has been demonstrated 
in the past for several initiatives that have been important steps for improving the welfare of 
animals.  Prescriptive  measures  undoubtedly  tend  to  raise  costs  for  businesses.  Transition 
periods have been established in the most important cases so that negative effects on costs are 
mitigated by long periods of adaptation. But the relevant question is also how animal welfare 
measures  could  be  more  economically  sustainable  in  the  long  term,  with  regards  to  the 
benefits perceived by operators. Obligations more focused on overall results for animals may 
be an alternative for more business-oriented solutions. 

Animal-friendly production systems will also have to adapt to the changing climate (i.e. more 
heating  due  to  colder  winters,  more  cooling  due  to  warmer  summers),  consequently 
investments  in  new  infrastructure  will  have  to  be  made.  If  support  for  such  investments  is 
going  to  happen,  it  will  be  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  support  is  coupled  to  specific 
environmental  end  EU-  wide  objectives.  Linking  them  to  climate  related  objectives  such  as 
adaptation and mitigation would significantly enhance their overall justification. 

Administrative burden on businesses 

Information  obligation  exists  in  the  farming  sector  mainly  as  a  result  of  food  safety  and 
animal  health  concerns.  Animal  welfare  legislation  provides  additional  documentation 
requirements  in  particular  as  a  result  of  the  rules  related  to  animal  transport.  Extending  the 
scope of animal welfare requirements to other areas like for pet animals or farmed fish could 
also  create  new  administrative  burden  for  businesses  that  have  to  be  carefully  considered. 
Options will also have to be considered in their potential in administrative burden reduction in 
order to find equivalent standards with less administrative constraints. 

Public authorities 

Animal welfare legislation is already part of the duties of public authorities. Member States 
are  primarily  responsible  for  the  day  to  day  implementation  of  EU  legislation  on  animal 
welfare. Extending the scope of animal welfare requirements to other areas like pet animals 
could expand the tasks of the competent authorities if there is no national legislation in place. 
Public  authorities  may  also  be  affected  if  new  obligations  are  created  to  co-finance  certain 
initiatives (like applied research). 

Innovation and research 

The future strategy will support the development of innovation and research through different 
options.  Effects  of  such  a  policy  may  improve  production  methods  in  particular  for  the 
farming or the pharmaceutical industry. On the opposite, the restriction of certain practices on 
animal welfare grounds (like animal testing, cloning) may limit the development of research. 

Consumers prices, consumer information 

Animal welfare standards may affect production costs but have usually very limited effect on 
the final price to the consumer. Production costs represent a limited part of the final price. A 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
recent Commission communication on better functioning of the food supply chain208 indicates 
that raw agricultural products represent a declining share of consumer price of food products. 
How the situation will evolve in future is not predictable. It is more than likely that farm input 
prices will fluctuate more and thereby influence production costs.  

There  is  little  evidence  that  previous  policies  on  animal  welfare  have  had  an  effect  on 
consumer  prices.  Based  on  specific  cases,  major  animal  welfare  measures  taken  by  the  EU 
have  had  limited  impacts  on  the  production  costs,  since  they  mainly  affect  housing  costs 
which represent around 5 to 10% of the production costs209 (for example, purchase and food 
for  chicken  constitute  nearly  80%  of  the  total  costs  in  the  broiler  and  egg  industry,  similar 
figures apply  to pig  meat production costs210). In addition, increases in production costs are 
not necessarily integrally transmitted to consumers, as producers or distributors may choose 
to reduce their margins instead of increasing final prices. In any case, overall production costs 
contribute to a limited part of retail prices211. Food retail price variations seem to be mainly 
influenced by the evolution of commodity prices and the level of food processing. 

Therefore we would assume here that consumer prices are in fact not relevant for the purpose 
of this impact assessment. 

Animal welfare 

Effects on animal welfare are of course essential for this impact assessment. The effects can 
be assessed in relation to the number of animals concerned and the severity of the suffering 
involved. 

Environmental impacts 

Environmental consequences for businesses and consumers 

High animal welfare standards tend to promote less intensive systems of production. Animal-
friendly systems of production do not concentrate a number of environmental disadvantages 
related to highly industrialised systems. However after examination this impact has not been 
considered  as  significant  since  the  consumption  of  animal  products  is  a  limited  part  of  the 
overall consumption.  

Biodiversity and fauna 

The  proper  keeping  of  wild  animals  in  captivity  contributes  to  support  knowledge  and 
awareness on biodiversity. In addition, promoting less intensive systems of production could 
also contribute to the conservation of breeds that are more robust but less productive. 

Social impacts 

Employment and job quality 

208  
209  

210  
211  

EN 

COM(2009)591. 
For production costs in eggs and broilers see the 2010 study  "The poultry and egg sectors: evaluation 
of the current market situation and future prospects" published by the European Parliament. 

SANCO/02,  
See "Food prices in Europe" COM(2008) 821 final. 

119 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  economic  activities  directly  or  indirectly  related  to  animals  represent  various  sectors. 
Farming  and  the  related  food  industry  (meat,  dairy  products,  eggs,  fur,  animal  feed,  and 
veterinary  medicines)  is  probably  the  major  one  in  terms  of  employees.  But  the 
pharmaceutical  and  the  cosmetic  industry  and  public  research  industry  using  animals 
represent another part that needs to be considered. Finally, other activities involve animals on 
a regular basis (zoos, aquaria, circuses, dog breeders, pet shops, etc.) and their activities are 
also a source of employment. Due to constant increase in productivity the farming sector has 
progressively lost jobs. 

The  evaluation  report  has  indicated  that  the  EU  policy  on  animal  welfare  have  not 
substantially affected the economic sustainability of the sectors concerned. However there is 
no specific data on employement as such. 

Governance, participation, good administration 

The Lisbon Treaty has developed a new governance approach where the civil society is more 
involved  in  the  process  of  setting  common  rules.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for  animal 
welfare where civil society has constantly and increasingly expressed its interest in the field. 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
Annex 6 – Evidence 

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

Table 1: Laying hens, calves and pigs together (2008) 

d
e
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

s
e
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
2

4.063 
867 
2.196 
413 
3.720 
16.965 
1.164 
173 
313 
4.078 
552 
1.639 
4.842 
922 
10.235 
4.791 
107 
4.331 
NA 
2.604 
32.116 
132 
553 
897 
459 
678 
1.917 
100.727 

o
t

t
c
e
j
b
u
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
1

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

99.618 
7.908 
7.467 
493 
15.732 
285.284 
34.177 
444 
1.958 
265.444 
19.598 
241.288 
39.528 
23.431 
85.820 
2.479 
2.006 
52.090 
NA 
12.291 
925.685 
963 
583 
0 
64.185 
4.442 
43.982 
2.236.896 

n
o
n
t
u
o
h
t
i

w
s
e
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
3

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

3.727 
649 
622 
262 
192 
14.310 
787 
136 
178 
2.886 
399 
918 
3.540 
766 
1.068 
4.015 
87 
3.655 
NA 
2.222 
25.328 
37 
128 
0 
281 
459 
1.587 
68.239 

C
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
n
1
2

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

f
o
e
t
a
R

62 
4,08% 
10,96% 
33 
29,41% 
41 
83,77% 
0 
23,65% 
31 
306 
5,95% 
81 
3,41% 
38,96% 
1 
15,99% 
39 
131 
1,54% 
0 
2,82% 
115 
0,68% 
12,25% 
76 
24 
3,93% 
53 
11,93% 
39  193,26% 
5,33% 
8,31% 
0  #DIV/0! 
21,19% 
0 
394 
3,47% 
13,71% 
0 
94,85% 
19 
0  #DIV/0! 
22 
0,72% 
15,26% 
6 
535 
4,36% 
24,39% 
2.037 

2 
27 

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

l
l
u
f

f
o
e
t
a
R

91,73% 
74,86% 
28,32% 
63,44% 
5,16% 
84,35% 
67,61% 
78,61% 
56,87% 
70,77% 
72,28% 
56,01% 
73,11% 
83,08% 
10,43% 
83,80% 
81,31% 
84,39% 
#DIV/0! 
85,33% 
78,86% 
28,03% 
23,15% 
0,00% 
61,22% 
67,70% 
82,79% 
61,28% 

C
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
n
f
o
e
t
a
R

1,53% 
3,81% 
1,87% 
0,00% 
0,83% 
1,80% 
6,96% 
0,58% 
12,46% 
3,21% 
0,00% 
7,02% 
1,57% 
2,60% 
0,52% 
0,81% 
1,87% 
0,62% 
#DIV/0! 
0,00% 
1,23% 
0,00% 
3,44% 
0,00% 
4,79% 
0,88% 
27,91% 
3,32% 

s
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EU 

EN 

121 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
o
t

t
c
e
j
b
u
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
1

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

28.540 
349 
127 
35 
126 
42.490 
311 
18 
125 
1.391 
567 
2.227 
559 
228 
1.626 
25 
8 
25 

Table 2: Laying hens 2008 

d
e
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

s
e
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
2

n
o
n
t
u
o
h
t
i

w
s
e
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
3

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

C
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
n
1
2

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

f
o
e
t
a
R

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

l
l
u
f

f
o
e
t
a
R

C
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
n
f
o
e
t
a
R

1.145 
198 
136 
34  NA 
147 
2.968 
101 
11 
90 
219 
60 
223 
522 
56 
843 
25 

8  NA 

22 

1.076  NA 

NA 

143 
59 

3 
2.446 
66 

9  NA 

37 
99 
54 
116 
342 
34 
207 
10 

16 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

1.198 
10.129 
98 
131 

463 
1.199 
29 
159 

NA 
398  NA 
685 
14  NA 
30 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

143 
55 
5.103 
95.634 

68 
54 
341 
9.121 

58 
42 
283 
6.227 

0,00% 
0,24% 
15,84% 

93,97%  #VALUE! 
4,01% 
1,52% 
72,22% 
56,73% 
25,00% 
43,38% 
107,09% 
97,14%  #VALUE!  #VALUE! 
2,04% 
116,67% 
82,41% 
6,99% 
65,35% 
32,48% 
81,82%  #VALUE! 
61,11% 
43,33% 
41,11% 
72,00% 
11,87% 
45,21% 
15,74% 
0,00% 
90,00% 
10,58% 
9,42% 
52,02% 
10,01% 
5,94% 
65,52% 
93,38% 
3,57% 
60,71% 
24,56% 
1,07% 
24,56% 
51,85% 
32,00% 
100,00% 
40,00% 
100,00%  #VALUE!  #VALUE! 
27,27% 
72,73% 
88,00% 
#VALUE!  #VALUE!  #VALUE! 
85,96%  #VALUE! 
57,13% 
48,28%  #VALUE! 
18,87% 

38,65% 
11,84% 
29,59% 
121,37% 

13,26% 

1,26% 

#VALUE!  #VALUE!  #VALUE! 

47,55% 
98,18% 
6,68% 
56,09% 

85,29% 
77,78% 
82,99% 
60,41% 

1,47% 
0,00% 
17,01% 
11,06% 

3 
34 

0 
7 
16 

39 
26 
0 
21 
31 
2 
9 
8 

6 

159 

2 

1 
0 
58 
422 

s
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EU 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d
e
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

s
e
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
2

1.594 
70 
417 
263 
2.314 
7.793 
679 
107 
55 
1.307 
387 
831 
1.963 
585 
5.942 
2.824 
81 
3.421 

o
t

t
c
e
j
b
u
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
1

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

36.783 
317 
1.481 
342 
11.573 
131.273 
22.424 
330 
176 
103.379 
16.656 
214.769 
7.509 
21.162 
50.697 
1.150 
1.620 
48.986 

Table 3: Calves 2008 

n
o
n
t
u
o
h
t
i

w
s
e
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
3

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

C
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
n
1
2

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

f
o
e
t
a
R

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

l
l
u
f

f
o
e
t
a
R

C
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
n
f
o
e
t
a
R

1.461 
67 
191 
185  NA 
64 
6.897 
496 
79 
14  NA 

1.043 
258 
534 
1.513 
510 
318 
2.542 
71 
2.848 

NA 
907  NA 

27 
0 
7 

14 
142 
28 
1 

23 
0 
16 
4 
0 
10 
19 
2 
14 

117 

4 

1 
4 
267 
700 

4,33% 
22,08% 
28,16% 
76,90% 
19,99% 
5,94% 
3,03% 
32,42% 
31,25% 
1,26% 
2,32% 
0,39% 
26,14% 
2,76% 
11,72% 
245,57% 
5,00% 
6,98% 

1,69% 
91,66% 
0,00% 
95,71% 
1,68% 
45,80% 
70,34%  #VALUE! 
0,61% 
2,77% 
1,82% 
88,50% 
4,12% 
73,05% 
73,83% 
0,93% 
25,45%  #VALUE! 
1,76% 
79,80% 
0,00% 
66,67% 
1,93% 
64,26% 
0,20% 
77,08% 
0,00% 
87,18% 
0,17% 
5,35% 
0,67% 
90,01% 
2,47% 
87,65% 
0,41% 
83,25% 
#VALUE!  #VALUE!  #VALUE! 
93,22%  #VALUE! 
80,05% 
0,58% 
71,19%  #VALUE! 
3,25% 
23,58% 
#VALUE!  #VALUE!  #VALUE! 
0,40% 
1,32% 
25,60% 
2,36% 

34,21% 
3,76% 
#VALUE! 
71,93% 

0,64% 
14,33% 
58,69% 
30% 

59,11% 
75,17% 
85,23% 
67,84% 

NA 

NA 

NA 

2.844 
539.542 

NA 

NA 

171 

38.762 
2.108 
1.777 
1.255.831 

973 
20.286 
59 
123 
708  NA 
247 
302 
1.043 
54.374 

16.239 

42  NA 
29 

NA 

146 
227 
889 
37.570 

s
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EU 

EN 

123 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Pigs 2008 

n
o
n
t
u
o
h
t
i

w
s
e
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
3

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

C
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
n
1
2

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

f
o
e
t
a
R

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

l
l
u
f

f
o
e
t
a
R

C
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
n
f
o
e
t
a
R

1.190 
439 
372 
77  NA 
125 
4.967 
225 
48  NA 
127  NA 

1.744 
87 
268 
1.685 
222 
543 
1.463 

16  NA 
791 

NA 
917  NA 

8.404 

37  NA 
69 

NA 

35 
30 
0 

17 
157 
37 

82 
0 
78 
41 
22 
34 
12 

7 

118 

13 

20 
2 
210 
915 

3,86% 
8,27% 
28,04% 
100,00% 
31,22% 
5,56% 
3,36% 
57,29% 
10,14% 
1,59% 
4,42% 
2,41% 
7,49% 
13,77% 
10,30% 
148,93% 
4,76% 
28,84% 

2,64% 
89,88% 
5,01% 
73,29% 
0,00% 
22,64% 
66,38%  #VALUE! 
1,35% 
9,93% 
2,53% 
80,06% 
9,64% 
58,59% 
87,27%  #VALUE! 
75,60%  #VALUE! 
3,21% 
68,34% 
0,00% 
82,86% 
45,81% 
13,33% 
1,74% 
71,49% 
7,83% 
79,00% 
0,99% 
15,74% 
75,33% 
0,62% 
88,89%  #VALUE! 
0,79% 
89,08% 
#VALUE!  #VALUE!  #VALUE! 
78,51%  #VALUE! 
79,05% 
1,11% 
28,03%  #VALUE! 
4,80% 
25,46% 
#VALUE!  #VALUE!  #VALUE! 
13,89% 
0,62% 
39,40% 
5,76% 

14,16% 
2,83% 
13,71% 
96,44% 

0,57% 
14,13% 
1,44% 
25% 

53,47% 
59,01% 
77,86% 
63,26% 

d
e
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

s
e
t
i
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
2

1.324 
599 
1.643 
116 
1.259 
6.204 
384 
55 
168 
2.552 
105 
585 
2.357 
281 
3.450 
1.942 
18 
888 

o
t

t
c
e
j
b
u
s
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
1

n
o
i
t
c
e
p
s
n
i

34.295 
7.242 
5.859 
116 
4.033 
111.521 
11.442 
96 
1.657 
160.674 
2.375 
24.292 
31.460 
2.041 
33.497 
1.304 
378 
3.079 

NA 

NA 

NA 

8.249 
376.014 
963 
281 

NA 

25.280 
2.279 
37.102 
885.529 

1.168 
10.631 
132 
271 
189  NA 
144 
322 
533 
37.320 

77 
190 
415 
24.498 

s
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EU 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6B – Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility including animal welfare 

Overall  summary:  some  important  national  players  of  the  food  chain  at  different  steps 
(mainly  food  retailers  and  food  services)  have  included  animal  welfare  in  their  CSR.  The 
phenomenon is particularly noticeable in the UK but not exclusively. Important other players 
of  the  food  chain  do  not  mention  animal  welfare  in  the  CSR  and  the  number  of  examples 
quoted below is not comprehensive but should not be interpreted as representing the majority 
of the food sold in the EU. 

1. Retailers 

TESCO 

Market share (2010)212: 30.7 % 

Operating profit (2010)213: 3.5 billion £ 

Number of employees (worldwide)214: 472.000 

Number of stores (worldwide)215: 4811 

Corporate Philosophy216: Slogan "Every little helps" (environment, communities, responsible 
selling, healthy choices) 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: horizontal 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare:  

Food Animal Initiative:217 Development of food production systems aimed at delivering better 
animal  welfare,  improved  farmland  environments  and  higher  quality  food  while  securing  a 
certain margin for farmers 

Codes of Practice218 for all primary agricultural products sold under the Tesco brand. Codes 
of  Practice  used  as  means  to  meet  customers'  concerns  about  ethical  treatment  of  animals. 
Tesco  carries  out  audits,  both  announced  and  unannounced,  on  its  suppliers  to  ensure 
compliance of standards. Tesco also employs external audit company. 

Summary  of  the  most  important  actions:  Actions  related  to  supporting  ethical  treatment  of 
animals  in  food  supply  chain  and  codes  of  practice  related  to  breeding,  transporting  and 
killing of animals used for Tesco brand. 

COOP ITALIA 

212 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8187435/Tesco-increases-market-share.html# 
213 http://ar2010.tescoplc.com/~/media/Files/T/Tesco-Annual-Report-2009/Attachments/pdf/tesco-annualreport.pdf 
214 Ibid. 
215 Ibid. 
216 http://cr2010.tescoplc.com/ 
217 http://www.tescofarming.com/farm_animal_initiative.asp 
218 http://www.tescofarming.com/standards.asp 

EN 

125 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Market share (Italy, 2007)219: nearly 15 %  

Operating profit/revenue (2009)220: 12.8 billion  

Number of members (2009)221: over 7 million 

Number of stores (2009)222: 119 consumer co-operatives, 1446 stores 

Corporate Philosophy: Slogan "Coop sei tu" 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: by species (laying hens) 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare:  

In  2008  Coop  Italy  started  its  formal  request  to  all  suppliers  to  start  adapting  to  new 
requirements regarding the ban of eggs originating from laying hens held in battery cages.223 

Coop Quality department’s controls all along the food chain  

Initiative to be extended to own brand processed foods which contain egg as an ingredient  

Summary of the most important actions: ban of eggs from hens in battery cages since 2008 

THE COOPERATIVE GROUP UK 

Market share (2010)224: 8 % 

Operating profit (2009)225: 307 million £ 

Number  of  employees/members  (2009):  over  1.2  million  members226,  over  120.000 
employees227 

Number of stores (2010)228: over 3000 stores 

Corporate  Philosophy:  to  contribute  to  a  better  society:  to  be  economically  successful,  to 
serve customers, to be an ethical leader and an exemplary leader 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: horizontal and by species 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare:  

Eggs: 

219 

http://www.bordbia.ie/eventsnews/ConferencePresentations/FoodDrinksIndustryDayCountryOverviews/Italy%20Market%20Ove
rview.pdf 

220 http://www.e-coop.it/CoopRepository/COOP/CoopItalia/file/fil00000084084.pdf 
221 Ibid. 
222 Ibid. 
223 http://www.e-coop.it/portalWeb/stat/docPortaleCanali/doc00000086356/true/true/coop-e-le-uova.dhtml 
224 http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/ourhistory/2001present/ 
225 http://www.co-operative.coop/Corporate/PDFs/Interim-Report-2010.pdf 
226 http://www.co-operative.coop/Corporate/PDFs/Interim-Report-2009.pdf 
227 http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/ourhistory/2001present/ 
228 http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/ourhistory/2001present/ 

EN 

126 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1995: first retailer to label battery eggs as 'intensively produced' 

2006: ban selling of shell eggs from caged hens under the Co-operative brand 

2008: all eggs sold are free range 

2010: only free range eggs as an ingredient of own brand products 

General: 

Offers the largest range of RSPCA Freedom Food-labelled products in the UK, assure basic 
animal welfare through farm assurance standards, first retailer to adopt the RSPCA Freedom 
Food scheme 

Chicken: 

Fresh  chicken  is  produced  to  their  higher-welfare  Elmwood  standards  (naturally  ventilated 
and sunlit barns and given 30% more space than standard chickens, grow slower through the 
use of a naturally balanced, high cereal vegetarian diet etc.)229 

Household product standards: collaboration with BUAV on the development of the Humane 
Household  Products  Standard  ensuring  that  household  products  have  not  been  tested  on 
animals230 

Summary of the most important actions: cage-free eggs, labelling, broiler minimum welfare 
standards, testing 

SAINSBURY'S 

Market share (2010)231: 16.6 % 

Operating profit (2010)232: 671 million £ 

Number of employees (2009)233: 148.500 

Number of stores (2010)234: 890 

Corporate  Philosophy:  Best  food  for  health,  sourcing  with  integrity,  respect  for  the 
environment, making a positive difference in the community and improving workplace 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: by species 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare: Eggs: 

229 http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/ethicsinaction/animal-welfare/ 
230 http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/ethicsinaction/animal-welfare/cruelty-free/ 
231 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346802/Tesco-blames-bad-weather-sales-Sainsburys-reports-best-Christmas.html 
232 http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/ar10/businessreview/financialreview3.shtml 
233 http://www.j-sainsbury.com/ar09/downloads/pdf/sainsbury_ar2009_notes_to_the_financial_statements.pdf 
234 http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=189 

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  2009  they  became  the  first  major  retailer  to  stop  selling  eggs  from  caged  hens,  they  are 
committed to using only cage free eggs as an ingredient by the end of 2011, offer high welfare 
Woodland eggs and chickens235 

Summary of the most important actions: cage eggs ban 

REWE Group (DE and Eastern Europe) 

Market share: 2nd biggest food retailer in Germany, market shares depend on product area 

Annual revenues (general): 51 billion  

Number of employees (2009, DE)236: over 325.000 

Number of stores (2010)237: 11000 

Corporate  Philosophy:  slogan  "together  for  a  better  life",  act  responsibly  while  being 
economically profitable and innovative 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: horizontal 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare:  

Creation  of  animal  welfare  product  range  called  "Rewe  Bio"  that  require  humane  animal 
welfare standards238 

Summary  of  the  most  important  actions:  actions  related  to  a  small  selection  of  products 
visibly labelled as organic and pro animal welfare 

2. Food services/caterers 

MCDONALD'S 

Market share (2007)239: 19 % (biggest share worldwide in fast food industry) 

Annual revenues (worldwide, 2009)240: 22.7 billion $ mostly generated in Europe 

Number of employees (worldwide)241: 1.7 million 

Number of restaurants (worldwide)242: over 31.000 restaurants 

Corporate  Philosophy243:  customer  relations,  commitment  to  employees,  ethical  business, 
community building, business profit and continuous improvement 

235 http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/cr/index.asp?pageid=46 
236 http://www.rewe-group.com/unternehmen/zahlen-fakten/ 
237 http://www.rewe-group.com/unternehmen/ueberuns/ 
238 http://www.rewe.de/index.php?id=1608 
239 http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wendy's_International_(WEN) 
240 http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/McDonald%27s_(MCD)#_note-16 
241 http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company.html 
242 http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/McDonald%27s_(MCD)#_note-16 
243 http://www.mcdonalds.ca/en/aboutus/values.aspx 

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Scope of the animal welfare measures: horizontal programs, by species 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare:  

Agricultural  Assistance  Programme  (Europe):  The  program  is  a  framework  of  standards 
promoting food safety, quality and sustainable agricultural production methods. 

Food Animal Initiative (Europe) 

McDonald’s  "Flagship  Farms’"  is  a  3-year  project  in  conjunction  with  the  Food  Animal 
Initiative (FAI) in Europe that seeks to increase the company's commitment and investment in 
sustainable  agricultural  practices.  These  ‘Flagship  Farms’  are  used  as  case  studies  by  the 
supply  chain  to  demonstrate  practices  which  are  scientifically  underpinned  and  backed  by 
credible third-party stakeholders. 

Good  practice  examples  for  animal  welfare  within  "Flagship  Farms"  initiative:  Animal 
Welfare  in  dairy  farming  (NL)244,  Waste  management,  animal  welfare  and  species 
conservation in beef farming (IE)245 

Founding partner of the Food Animal Initiative246 at Oxford University, a project combining 
the  evidence-based  science  with  practical  applications  in  order  to  encourage  sustainable 
commercial farming systems, and a particular focus on animal welfare. 

Founding  member  of  the  European  Animal  Welfare  Platform,  which  is  funded  under  the 
European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research.  

Animal  Welfare  Guiding  Principles247:  McDonald's  audits  all  abattoirs  to  guarantee 
compliance with their principles 

Summary of the most important actions: 

Several  initiatives  on  the  European  market  show  the  company's  commitment  to  improving 
ethical  treatment  on  farms  supplying  ingredients  for  McDonald's  products.  The  "Flagship 
Farms" provide best case examples, the FAI combines science with business and the guiding 
principles along audits in abattoirs ensure higher animal welfare standards  

BURGER KING 

Market share (2007)248: 2 % 

Annual revenues (2009)249: 2.5 billion $ 

Number of employees (worldwide, 2010)250: over 38.000 

Number of restaurants (worldwide, 2008)251: over 11.000 worldwide 

244 http://www.flagshipfarms.eu/animalwelfare.php 
245 http://www.flagshipfarms.eu/case2.php 
246 http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/csr/report/sustainable_supply_chain/our_approach/mcdonald_s_europe_maap_flagship_farms.html 
247 http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/etc/medialib/csr/docs.Par.85655.File.dat/McD_AnimalWelfareGuidingPrinciples.pdf 
248 http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wendy's_International_(WEN) 
249 http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Burger_King 
250 http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC.Enhanced/SecCapsule.aspx?c=87140&fid=7105569 
251 Ibid. 

EN 

129 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Corporate  Philosophy:  commitment  to  food,  people,  environment,  corporate  governance, 
"Have it your way" slogan 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: general 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare: Actions related to products, animal welfare is part 
of the company's general CSR priorities252 

Summary of the most important actions: new products introduced in product range 

3. Multinational corporations/global players 

UNILEVER 

Market  share:  depends  on  product  segment  (savoury,  dressings,  spreads/  ice  cream  and 
beverages/ personal care/ home care), global market leader in food categories253, number two 
in laundry and daily hair care products254 

Operating income (2009)255: 5020 million  

Number of employees (2009)256: 163.000 

Number of brands (2011)257: over 400 

Corporate Philosophy: new ways of business while reducing environmental impact 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: horizontal 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare: 

Animal  welfare  has  been  one  of  Unilever’s  sustainable  agriculture  indicators  since  2005, 
several collaborations with brands to use only cage free eggs, have decided to focus on cage-
free eggs and dairy supply chain within their current sustainable sourcing programme. 

Summary of the most important actions: limited actions related to eggs and specific and few 
brands 

IKEA 

Market share (2010)258: depending on the commodity in question, market share is between 5 
and 10 %, IKEA is the world's largest furniture retailer 

Net income (2010)259: 2.7 billion $ 

Number of employees (2010, worldwide)260: 127.000 

252 http://www.bk.com/cms/en/us/cms_out/digital_assets/files/pages/BK_CR_Report_Environment.pdf 
253 http://www.unilever.com/aboutus/introductiontounilever/unileverataglance/?WT.LHNAV=Unilever_facts 
254 http://www.unilever.com/images/ir_Unilever_factsheet_2010_tcm13-70889.pdf 
255 http://www.unilever.com/images/ir_7_Financial_statements_AR09_tcm13-208078.pdf 
256 http://www.unilever.com/aboutus/?WT.GNAV=About_us 
257 http://www.unilever.com/aboutus/introductiontounilever/ 
258 http://www.swedishwire.com/business/6208-ikea-ranked-28th-most-valuable-brand 
259 http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/pdf/yearly_summary/Welcome_inside_2010_update.pdf 

EN 

130 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Number of stores (2010, worldwide)261: 313 

Corporate  Philosophy:  innovative  and  cost-effective  products  for  low  prices  while  taking 
responsibility for the people and the environment 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: horizontal 

Particular actions regarding animal welfare: 

IKEA and NGO CIWF work together on improving farm animal welfare standards in IKEA’s 
food business262 

Summary of the most important actions: general provisions for farm animal welfare 

4. Food producers 

DANONE 

Market share (2010, worldwide)263: 27 % (number 1 in fresh dairy products) 

Operating profit (2009, worldwide)264: over 2000 million  

Number of employees (2009, worldwide)265: over 80000 

Number of stores: not applicable 

Corporate Philosophy: openness, enthusiasm, humanism, proximity 

Scope of the animal welfare measures: horizontal 

Particular  actions 
"Les  2 
Vaches/Stonyfield" (the organic branch of Danone) use only organic milk from cows raised 
with high animal welfare standards (France only)266 

regarding  animal  welfare:  The  Danone 

sub-brands 

Summary of the most important actions: limited actions for small niche sub-brand regarding 
organic dairy milk 

260 Ibid. 
261 http://www.ikea.com/ms/sv_SE/about_ikea/facts_and_figures/ikea_group_stores/index.html 
262 http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/about_ikea/our_responsibility/partnerships/other_stakeholders.html 
263 http://www.danone.com/en/brands/business/fresh-dairy-products.html 
264 http://finance.danone.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=95168&p=irol-keyfigures 
265 http://finance.danone.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=95168&p=irol-keyfigures 
266 http://www.danoneetvous.com/Nos-engagements/Nos-eleveurs-et-Vous/On-s-engage/Notre-demarche/Developpement-environnemental 

EN 

131 

   EN