COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 56 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

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

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

{COM(2012) 6 final} 
{SEC(2012) 55 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

POLICY CONTEXT 

1.1. 

Definition, aims and scope 

The World Organisation for Animal Health defines animal welfare: 

" (…) An animal is in a good state of welfare if (…) 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". 

The aims, principles and scope of the animal welfare policy of the European Union 
(EU) derive from Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. This article 
does  not  provide  a  legal  basis  for  protecting  animals.  However,  it  creates  the 
obligation  of  the  Member  States  and  of  the  Union  to  ensure  that  the  welfare 
requirements of animals are considered within the framework of certain EU policies. 

1.2. 

Sectors concerned 

The farming sector uses around 2 billion  birds  and  334  million  mammals  per  year. 
An  estimated  12  million  animals  per  year  are  used  for  experimentation.  There  are 
around 120 million dogs and cats mainly kept for leisure. 

Livestock farming in the EU represents a value of 149 billion euros. In addition, the 
use  of  experimental  animals  is  estimated  to  have  an  overall  value  of  930  million 
euros a year. 

The number of people handling animals in the context of an economic activity can be 
estimated at around 4 million, being mainly farmers. 

1.3. 

The EU policy on animal welfare 

EU policy on animal welfare has developed legislative and non-legislative tools. The 
main  body  of  EU  legislation  on  animal  welfare  applies  to  food  producing  animals 
(calves, pigs, poultry, transport and slaughter) and to animals used for experimental 
purposes. Non-legislative tools include the EU funding of animal welfare through the 
rural development fund of the Common Agriculture Policy and the EU funding for 
research, international, communication and training activities.  

In  2006,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Community  Action  Plan  on  the  Protection  and 
Welfare  of  Animals  2006-20101.  The  2006  Action  Plan  was  the  first  document  to 
merge in a single text the different aspects of EU policy on animal welfare. 

1.4. 

References and consultations 

In December 2009, the Commission asked for an external evaluation of EU policy on 
animal  welfare.  Stakeholders  were  extensively  consulted  during  the  evaluation  and 
the  impact assessment process. They comprise the economic sectors using animals, 
animal welfare organisations and scientists working on animal welfare.  

1 

COM(2006)13 final. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Animal welfare problems and drivers 

The welfare of certain categories of animals is routinely compromised in the EU: for 
example, piglets have their tails cut off and are castrated without anaesthesia etc. The 
Council  also  pointed  out  welfare  problems  related  to  the  breeding  and  the  trade  of 
dogs and cats. Each animal welfare problem has specific drivers. However, there are 
a number of common drivers: 

1. 

Lack of enforcement by the Member States of the EU legislation is common in 
a  number  of  areas.  Some  Member  States  do  not  take  sufficient  measures  to 
inform  stakeholders,  train  official  inspectors,  perform  checks,  and  apply 
sanctions.  For  this  reason,  important  pieces  of  EU  legislation  have  not  been 
fully applied and did not have the intended effects on the welfare of animals. 

In  addition,  better  welfare  standards  sometimes  imply  additional  costs  for 
producers. In many instances, business operators who comply, anticipate or go 
beyond  EU  animal  welfare  rules  are  not  rewarded  by  additional  economic 
benefits. 

2. 

Consumers' lack of appropriate information on animal welfare.  

There is a limited market for products with animal welfare attributes. An EU-
wide survey shows that animal welfare is an issue for 64 % of the population. 
However,  studies  show  that  concern  for  animal  welfare  is  only  one  of  the 
factors affecting the consumer choice.  

There  is  a  lack  of  knowledge  of  what  animal  welfare  means  among 
stakeholders  dealing  with  animals.  It  has  had  an  effect  on  the  conception  of 
modern  production  methods.  The  lack  of  knowledge  among  operators  and 
public officials about alternative practices often leads to resistance to changes 
for more friendly systems of production. 

The  lack  of  specific  EU  legislation  and  guidance  makes  it  difficult  to  ensure 
adequate  welfare  conditions  for  some  categories  of  animals  (some  farmed 
species or dogs and cats). 

3. 

4. 

2.2. 

Baseline scenario 

Member  States  are  monitored  by  Commission  experts.  They  have  no  mandate  to 
inspect  and  sanction  businesses  but  to  determine  whether  competent  authorities  are 
doing so. Inspections are carried out with regard to specific EU legislation applicable 
to farm animals. The Commission may initiate legal proceedings against a Member 
State in the case of infringements.  

Enforcement  initiatives  are  demanding  in  human  resources  and  limited  in  their 
impact on competent authorities. Therefore the current EU policy is able to address 
critical enforcement issues, but is limited in scope. 

Regarding  the  economical  aspects,  EU  policy  provides  some  instruments  to 
compensate  producers  for  higher  production  costs.  Transitional  periods  have  not 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
proved to be very successful. On the consumer side, with the exception of eggs, there 
is no EU instrument that could empower consumers to express a choice in favour of 
more animal welfare friendly products. 

The EU has developed initiatives to address the lack of knowledge of stakeholders on 
animal  welfare.  Competence  requirements  for  animal  handlers  have  been 
progressively  introduced  in  EU  legislation.  However,  such  requirements  do  not 
encompass  all  animals  concerned.  The  EU  has  funded  research  projects  on  animal 
welfare with  an  average of 15  million euros per year. However, there is a need for 
more efforts in dissemination research results and translation into practical tools. 

The current EU policy does not address a number of animal welfare issues. The EU 
could  continue  to  decide  adopting  specific  pieces  of  legislation  on  a  case-by-case 
basis. However such sector-specific approach is unlikely to address common drivers.  

2.3. 

Subsidiarity test 

Some  Member  States  insist  on  keeping  the  possibility  of  maintaining  their  own 
animal  welfare  policy.  The  Union  has  progressively  adopted  several  pieces  of 
legislation on animal welfare to avoid internal market disruptions due to differences 
in national legislation. 

The  justification  of  such  scope  is  based  on  the  fact  that  the  competitiveness  of 
economic  activities  related  to  animals  is  affected  by  the  level  of  animal  welfare 
requirements.  Harmonising  requirements  at  EU  level  provides  for  those  cases,  an 
added value in establishing a common set of rules for businesses concerned. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of the new strategy on animal welfare are as follows: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Objective 1: to improve enforcement of the EU legislation; 

Objective  2:  to  provide  for  open  and  fair  competition  for  EU  business 
operators; 

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. 

4. 

OPTIONS 

Each option focuses on one or more specific objectives: 

– 

Option  1:  Strengthening  Member  States'  compliance  (EU  non-regulatory 
action) 

Option 1 will contain the following initiatives: 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

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

Strengthen 
enforcement; 

inter-governmental 

cooperation 

to 

promote 

better 

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; 

Increase  the  participation  in  the  training  initiative  Better  Training  for 
Safer Food. 

In  this  scenario,  the  EU  legislative  setting  will  remain  unchanged.  Existing 
rules may be updated or new rules adopted on an ad hoc basis. 

– 

Option 2: Benchmarking voluntary schemes (Sector self-regulation) 

Option 2 will contain 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 legal framework to create market opportunities 
for  voluntary  certification  schemes  containing  animal  welfare  claims.  Such 
framework  will  allow  certification  schemes  to  be  registered  at  EU  level.  The 
registration will result in the preliminary establishment of an EU benchmark. 

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. 

– 

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

In  this  scenario,  the  Commission  will  propose  to  establish  a  network  of 
reference centres on the basis of a model that exist in the field of animal health. 
This  network  will  consolidate  existing  scientific  national  resources  on  animal 
welfare.  The  role  of  this  network  will  not  duplicate  the  role  of  the  European 
Food Safety Authority and the activity of the Joint Research Centre of the EU. 

Each centre will have the following roles: 

– 

– 

Coordinate at EU level and carry out research on EU relevant themes; 

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

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

Disseminate  research  findings  and  innovations  to  EU  stakeholders  and 
among the international scientific community; 

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

– 

Option 4: Streamlining requirements for competence and using animal welfare 
indicators (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  and  more 
precise common text; 

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

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

Option  4  will  be  limited  to  the  categories  of  animals  presently  covered  by 
specific pieces of legislation. 

– 

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

Option 4+ will study the relevance of extending  the scope of the Option  4 to 
other animals where animal welfare problems have been identified.  

5. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

In no case none of the options 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. 

5.1. 

Impacts of Option 1 

The impact of Option 1 to improve enforcement is expected to be fairly positive (++) 
but limited in certain problem areas. 

The impact of Option 1 to provide for open and fair competition for EU producers is 
expected  to  be  positive  (+)  but  limited  because  it  does  not  contribute  to  help  the 
consumer in identifying animal welfare friendly products. 

The organisation of workshops with stakeholders on specific enforcement problems 
have been positively used in the past. The impact of Option 1 to improve knowledge 
of stakeholders is therefore expected to be slightly positive (+). 

The impact of Option 1 is expected to be neutral (0) to improve consistency across 
animal species. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

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

Option 1 is unanimously supported by all stakeholders.  

5.2. 

Impacts of Option 2 

The increased economic value developed by Option 2 could encourage operators to 
higher  animal  welfare  standards.  Therefore,  the  impact  of  Option  2  to  improve 
enforcement is expected to be slightly positive (+). 

The  establishment of an  EU wide benchmarking system  for EU registered schemes 
will increase the opportunities for EU producers to obtain better prices for improved 
standards on animal welfare. Therefore, the impact of Option 2 is expected to be very 
positive to provide for open and fair competition for EU business operators (+++). 

With Option 2, business operators are likely to become more responsible on animal 
welfare.  Therefore  the  impact  of  Option  2  to  improve  knowledge  of  business 
operators is expected to be slightly positive (+). 

Option 2 possesses the potential for addressing certain animal welfare problems not 
covered by the EU legislation but unlikely to address the worst practices. Therefore, 
the  impact  of  Option  2  on  improving  the  consistency  across  animal  species  is 
expected to be slightly positive (+). 

Option  2  has  also  a  potential  of  blurring  the  distinction  between  enforcement  of 
legislation and private standards. Transparency for consumers is however necessary 
and if a system should be designed, this aspect should be carefully considered. 

Option 2 is expected to require additional financial resources mainly to promote the 
new benchmarking to consumers and to increase international activities. The impact 
of Option 2 on the EU budget is expected to be slightly negative (-). 

Option 2 has been positively received by most stakeholders. 

5.3. 

Impacts of Option 3  

Option  3  will  contribute  to  better  enforcement  by  providing  technical  assistance  to 
competent  authorities  and  business  operators.  However,  it  is  unlikely  to  reach  the 
producers that might need the most assistance. Therefore, the impact of Option 3 on 
improved enforcement is expected to be slightly positive (+). 

Through more investment on applied research, Option 3 is expected to have positive 
effects  on  the  competitiveness  of  EU  producers.  It  may  also  assist  them  in 
developing certification schemes. Therefore the impact of Option 3 on providing for 
open  and  fair  competition  is  expected  to  be  slightly  to  fairly  positive  (+  to  ++) 
depending on the level of funding available. 

Increasing funding for EU research projects contributes to raising awareness among 
stakeholders on animal welfare. Therefore, the impact of Option 3 on the knowledge 
of business operators is expected to be fairly positive (++). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Option  3  is  expected  to  be  neutral  (0)  to  slightly  positive  (+)  in  improving 
consistency across animal species. 

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

There  is  a  general  support  of  Option  3  from  all  stakeholders  in  particular  from  the 
European Parliament. 

5.4. 

Impacts of Option 4  

Requirements for competence for animal handlers are expected to contribute to better 
enforcement.  Using  animal  welfare  indicators  to  reach  compliance  will  allow 
flexibility  in  the  implementation  of  certain  provisions  and  hence  facilitate 
enforcement.  Due  to  the  large  scope  of  the  measure,  the  impact  of  Option  4  for 
improving enforcement is therefore expected to be fairly positive (++). 

Option 4 will entail training costs for business operators. However, it will also have 
positive long-term effects on their competitiveness. In addition, Option 4 will allow 
the use of animal welfare indicators which may decrease other compliance costs.  

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. 

Requirements for competence will increase knowledge of operators. As the measure 
is  compulsory  it  will  have  a  much  broader  effect  than  Option  3.  The  impact  of 
Option 4 is therefore expected to be very positive (+++) at improving the knowledge 
of business operators on animal welfare. 

Option 4 will have no impact on improving consistency across animal species (0). 

Stakeholders  unanimously  consider  that  educating  workers  has  very  positive  and 
long-lasting effects on the welfare of animals. 

Stakeholders  are  divided  on  the  use  of  animal-based  indicators.  Producers  fear 
excessive  administrative  burden  while  animal  welfare  organisations  doubt  that  it 
could replace efficiently prescriptive measures. 

5.5. 

Option 4+ 

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

6. 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS 

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 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
address the economic drivers. A combination of Option 2 and 3 would much better 
address this aspect and would be mutually supportive. 

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

7. 

PREFERRED OPTION 

There  is  no  single  option  that  it  is  able  to  address  all  problems  effectively  and 
efficiently. The preferred option will therefore be a policy mix as follows: 

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, 

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. 

4. 

5. 

Support international cooperation; 

Provide consumers and the public with appropriate information; 

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

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

A number of elements are already in place that could provide useful monitoring tools 
for  the  future.  A  number  of  possible  indicators  are  listed  in  the  report.  It  seems 
appropriate to plan another evaluation at the end of the strategy (2016). 

EN 

9 

   EN